HIGHWAYS BILL (Hansard, 21 May 1971)

HL Deb 21 May 1971 vol 319 cc727-45 727

§ 11.32 a.m.

§ LORD SANDFORD
My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.

§ Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Sandford.)

§ On Question, Motion agreed to.

§ LORD STRANGE
My Lords, I am coming in again to bat. I am sure I am wrong and I stand to be corrected, but I have searched this Bill through and I have seen no reference to the fact that in the case of new reservoirs a geological survey should be made for faults.

SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS
Order!

§ Clause 14 [Amendments of procedure for making certain orders and schemes]:

§ THE EARL, OF KINNOULL moved Amendment No. 1: Page 14. line 24. leave out ("six") and insert (" eight").

§ The noble Earl said: My Lords, Clause 14 of the Highways Bill sets out to amend the existing procedure for objections to any draft order in regard to new motorways or principal roads. The main effect of this clause is to reduce the old statutory period for objections from three months to a period of six weeks. The House will appreciate that there are many responsible bodies and associations who are deeply concerned at the new period of time of six weeks. Many of these associations consider that this is something which will erode the protection of property and of people's rights.

§ My noble friend Lord Sandford will recall that I raised this point during the Commitee stage, which was held outside this Chamber. It has already been pointed out that if the Minister stipulated six weeks—and it is only a minimum period; he can stipulate a longer period if he should so wish—in practice this would mean a period of 30 days for actually seeing the plans and lodging an objection. If the draft order was laid just before Christmas, this period would be reduced yet again to what I estimate to be only 24 days. It has also been pointed out that plans are only available between Mondays and Fridays to be seen and inspected at the offices. Here again, this can prove difficult to any 728 objector who is presenting his case by himself.

§ My noble friend advised us in Committee that the six-week period was a minimum period to be used in practice only where there were no objections, or where there were no anticipated objections; and, secondly, that under subsection (9) of this clause the Minister was being granted a power to extend this period if he should so wish. My noble friend went on to point out that this approach would give the Minister the necessary flexibility to prevent undue delays in draft orders proceeding, particularly in relation to stretches of road where there were clearly no objections.

§ I have carefully examined subsection (9), and after reading it three times and noting that it amended a Schedule which, in turn, was amending a Schedule. I came to the conclusion that the wording of the draftsman was a masterpiece of obscurity. I should be grateful if my noble friend, when he comes to reply, would define exactly the meaning and interpretation of subsection (9). The advice I have been given on the affect of subsection (9) is that in practice a draft order, before it is laid, will be considered by the Department and consideration will be given as to whether or not any objections will be raised. If the Department consider that there will he no objections, it can choose a minimum period of six weeks, seven weeks, eight weeks or any period it likes, but it is likely to choose the shortest period. If it chooses six weeks, and if in the end there proves to have been a misjudgment, the Minister may extend this period of time—and I should emphasise the words " may extend this period of time ".

§ Therefore, we see that the Minister has a grace under subsection (9), which I submit is unacceptable for three reasons. In the first place, there is no obligation put on the Minister to reconsider this period; secondly, there is no procedure laid down; and, thirdly, there are no criteria on which to judge the issue.

§ It is right to recall that, although it may be said that there are certain stretches of road which do not cause great trouble when draft orders are laid, in this very crowded Island most orders affect a lot of people. It is also as well to remember that new motorways often cause ruination of property and severe 729 damage to the way of life of the people. The purpose of this Amendment is to extend the period of time from six to eight weeks, which is something I hope my noble friend can accept. 1 beg to move.

§ BARONESS GAITSKELL
My Lords, I should like to support the noble Earl who has just spoken, although I know very little about this matter except in a general way. I should like to thank the noble Earl for a phrase he has just used —" a masterpiece of obscurity ". It seems to me that it is very useful and applies to so many of the Government's Bills.

§ 11.40 a.m.

§ LORD LEATHERLAND
My Lords, may I also add a word of support to the Amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. Having had a fairly long experience of local government, it was long ago impressed upon me that nothing causes more trouble, nothing gives rise to greater feelings of injustice, than when a local authority plans to run a road through somebody else's property. Houses have to be knocked down; little estates have to be cut in two. There should, in all justice, be ample time for the owner of the property to prepare a case against the plan the authority is seeking to implement.
Many years ago I was the victim of a plan which the local authority had prepared. At that time I owned a nice little estate in Essex; an old rectory standing in the middle of 20 acres of fields, with a moat within 30 yards of the house. That moat was scheduled as an ancient monument. The local authority planned to build a road right through the middle of my property and to run it right up to the edge of this ancient moat. The noble Lord, Lord Ilford, will recall this occasion, because at the public inquiry that was held the noble Lord acted as counsel in support of the plan. He questioned me at some length about my motives for wanting to preserve this little estate intact. I could easily then have been a victim of what I regarded as a very grave injustice. I feel that to lengthen this period from six to eight weeks is a mere act of justice.
As the noble Earl has said, six weeks does not give a person very much time 730 to go to the council office and inspect the plans, to consult his surveyors or solicitors, or to seek other professional advice, and for the solicitor to brief counsel, if necessary, to appear on one's behalf. Six weeks is too short; we should be fair to these people.

§ 11.43 a.m.

§ LORD SANDFORD
My Lords, I think the Committee that met off the Floor of the House some weeks ago was as glad as I was when the noble Earl first moved his list of Amendments. This Amendment bears on Clause No. 14, which is one of the most important clauses of the Bill. We were grateful to him for giving us an opportunity to discuss this matter and I was particularly glad to have an opportunity to put the Government's case for the changes which we are making here. With the aid of the explanation, the noble Earl withdrew his Amendment without any reservations. I am therefore, reluctant to take up the time of the House now in going over again the reasons I gave the Committee for the Government's proposed action, but I shall restate them briefly.
We are proposing to reduce the minimum period for lodging objections from the long period of three months to six weeks. Three months is certainly appropriate for some cases, but by no means for all; it is far in excess of other periods normally used in planning cases, and is in excess of the period we have now settled for water orders, where we have increased the period from 28 days to six weeks.
I should, however, point out two important points which the noble Lord did not stress. In the case of highways, we are stipulating not a standard period but a flexible period, of which six weeks is the minimum. Furthermore, this is not the period in which people have to prepare their whole case, as the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, appeared to think; this is the period in which they have to do no more than see what the scheme is and lodge an objection to it. Six weeks is not unreasonable.
As I said a moment ago in the course of discussion on the Water Resources Bill, it was thought appropriate to extend this period from four to six weeks in the case of water orders, to take account of the difficulties of people who are 731 living in rural areas. For the reasons I gave in the Committee, I think six weeks as a minimum for a flexible period is appropriate. In many cases this period may be longer. It is the period required for the lodging of objections and not for preparing the case. It should be borne in mind that this period can be adjusted not only when the order is first published, but subsequently if, in the light of the weight of objections that are received and the controversy that seems likely to arise, the original period appears too short.
I hope in view of those assurances, in addition to the assurances I first gave in Committee, and which then seemed to satisfy the noble Earl, he will not feel disposed to press the Amendment.

§ LORD LEATHERLAND
My Lords, I appreciate the noble Lord's argument that six weeks is the period only for lodging the objection. But during those six weeks the owner of the property has to consult his surveyor and solicitor, and probably make contact with some of his neighbours; searches may have to be made, and he has to go through all kinds of procedures in order to make up his mind as to whether he has a reasonable objection to lodge.

LORD GRENFELL
My Lords, we must be careful and remember that we are on Report stage.

§ LORD WINTERBOTTOM
My Lords, might I ask for clarification on one point? Suppose, on the occasion about which my noble friend has told the House he had been abroad for two months. What would happen if an order is served which escapes the notice of the owner because of his absence abroad? The house is empty; my noble friend is in the sun in the Carribean. What happens then?

§ LORD SANDFORD
My Lords, with the leave of the House, we are constantly making exceptions when there are good reasons for them. This is the kind of case where a reasonable exception would be made. In answer to what the noble Lord was saying about Christmas and Whitsun, these are among the considerations which the Secretary of State takes into account in deciding what the objection period should be. Summer holiday 732 periods are always taken into account in adjusting an objection period.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK
My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord one question. When a person makes an objection, has he to specify the nature of the objection, or can he object purely in general terms? That is to say, he can subsequently consult his surveyor and find out what the nature of his rights in the particular case is.

§ LORD SANDFORD
My Lords, with the leave of the House. I can confirm that the objection has to carry with it only the briefest and most general explanation of what the objection is based upon. It does not have to carry with it a full and prepared case.

§ THE EARL OF KINNOULL
My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord to answer one further question which I specifically put to him: namely, to make clear the meaning of subsection (9), to which he has not referred.

§ LORD SANDFORD
My Lords, the explanation of how all these clause's tie together would be somewhat laborious, but it can be done. Would the House be willing to accept from me the assurance that the effect of subsection (9) is that if the Secretary of State, having set a period of, say, eight or nine weeks for an objection period. finds that the weight of objection and the scale of public controversy is such that that period has been misjudged, he can, even after the scheme has been published and the objection period set out, extend it further. I hope that will satisfy the House. But if the noble Lord looks at Schedule 13 to the Bill, to paragraphs 4(a) and 4(b), he will find the main part of his question settled for him.

§ THE EARL OF KINNOULL
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. It was material for him

SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS
Order!

§ THE EARL OF KINNOULL
My Lords, with the leave of the House, may I carry on?

§ LORD CHAMPION
The noble Earl moved the original Motion, and he therefore has the right to reply to the debate. On Report stage no one else has the 733 right to speak twice, excepting with the permission of the House.

VISCOUNT GOSCHEN
The difficulty is that my noble friend has asked one or two questions of the Minister, and he has already exhausted his leave. We must be careful, but on this occasion I suggest that the noble Earl continues his remarks.

§ THE EARL. OF KINNOULL
My Lords, with the leave of the House, then, may I say that I am grateful for my noble friend's reply to the questions. When I withdrew my Amendment on the Committee stage, it was not because I was satisfied but because he told me that subsection (9) contained a safeguard which I said I would examine. I have examined this safeguard, and I still believe that it lays no obligation on the Minister. It is only that the Minister, after taking the weight of evidence, may take the necessary action to extend the period. I am still not satisfied, and I cannot withdraw the Amendment.

§ On Question, Amendment negatived.

§ Clause 18 [Agreements for the provision of walkways]:

§ 11.52 a.m.

§ LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 2:

§ Page 18, line 44, at end insert—℄

("() entitling the local highway authority to enter on any building or structure in which such walkway will he situated and to execute any works necessary to secure the performance of any obligation which any person is for the time being liable to perform by virtue of the agreement or of subsection (3) of this section; ")

§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, it would be for the convenience of the House if we were also to discuss Amendments Nos. 3 to 12, inclusive. These Amendments have been put down to meet the views of property owners and developers, and to meet the points put by my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford at the earlier stage. Their main effect is to delete subsection (5), to make more provisions negotiable in the agreement, and to make express provision for some other matters, all in connection with walkways.

§ Amendments Nos. 2 and 6 have the effect of removing the automatic right 734 of a highway authority to enter, after notice, buildings or structures to carry out necessary works. As amended, the clause will enable this right of entry to be provided for in the agreement establishing the walkway. Amendment No. 3 removes a possible restriction on the maters which can be covered by agreements, and specifically enables an agreement to provide for the termination of the public right to use the walkway. Amendment No. 4 makes it clear that subsections (3) and (4) of the clause, on enforcement of covenants, apply both to positive and to restrictive covenants. Amendment No. 5 is consequential on that.

§ The Amendments to the provisions dealing with by-laws, Nos. 7, 8, 9 and 10, enable the control by by-law of the times at which walkways are open to the public, and make certain changes with respect to notice and advertisement in the procedure for making and confirming by-laws. Amendment No. 11 requires the Secretary of State to consult representative parties before making regulations, and the final Amendment (No. 12) is a permissive power for the Secretary of State to include in the regulations he makes, among the incidental, supplemental and consequential provisions, specific provisions relating to agreements made under the clause, but prior to his regulations. I beg to move.

§ LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD
My Lords, may I thank my noble friend Lord Sandford for the Amendments which he has put on the Marshalled List. The National Association of Property Owners feel that he has dealt with the anxieties they expressed. I am bound to say that in my opinion they had a point. They are grateful for the manner in which he has dealt with it, and the consultations he has allowed them to have. There is no doubt that the developers, who have such an important part to play in urban development, are now reassured. I thank my noble friend. I hope the House will agree to the Amendments.

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD SANDFORD
My Lords, I beg to move en bloc Amendments Nos. 3 to 12.

§ Amendments moved—

§ (" () the termination, in such manner and subject to such conditions as may he Page 19, line 3, at end insert—

735

§ specified in the agreement, of the right of the public to use such walkway;

§ () any incidental and consequential matters.")

§ Page 19, line 4, after (" covenant ") insert (" (whether positive or restrictive)")

§ Page 19, line 12, leave out from beginning to end of line 14.

§ Page 19, line 28, leave out subsection (5).

§ Page 19, line 40, at end insert—

§ (" () the times at which any such walkway may be closed to the public; ")

§ Page 19, line 42, at end insert—℄

§ (" () Not less than two months before they propose to make byelaws under subsection (6) above a local highway authority shall display in a conspicuous position on or adjacent to the walkway in question notice of their intention to make such byelaws, and the notice shall specify the place where a copy of the proposed byelaws may be inspected and the period, being a period of not less than six weeks from the date on which the notice was first displayed as aforesaid, within which representations may be made to the local highway authority, and that authority shall consider any representations made to them within that period.")

§ Page 20, line 1, leave out (" authority ") and insert (" Minister of the Crown ")

§ Page 20, line 4, at end insert (" and if he proposes to confirm the byelaws with modifications he may, before confirming them, direct the local highway authority by whom the byelaws were made to give notice of the proposed modifications to such persons and in such manner as may be specified in the direction.")

§ Page 20, line 5, at end insert (" after consulting such representative organisations as he thinks fit ")

§ Page 20, line 33, after (" provisions ") insert (" (and, in particular, provisions relating to walkways provided in pursuance of agreements made before the coming into operation of the regulations) ").—(Lord Sandford.)

§ On Question, Amendments agreed to.

§ Clause 22 [Extension of powers relating to drainage of highways]:

§ LORD WINTER BOTTOM moved Amendment No. 13: Page 22, line 42, leave out from (" subsections ") to (" that ") in line 2 on page 23.

§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move the Amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Pargiter. The Amendment has been inspired by the County Councils Association. During the preparatory discussions leading up to the drafting of the Highways Bill, discussions took place in 1968 between the County Councils Association 736 and the Ministry of Transport. At a meeting held in November of that year, it was agreed that the highway authority should be able to exercise the draining powers provided by the Public Health Acts, and that their proposal should go into the Highways Bill. This was in addition to the proposal that for the purpose of draining highways highway authorities should have the same powers as were granted to the Secretary of State by Section 103(4) of the Highways Act, 1959.

§ Clause 21 of the Bill amends Section 103 in a number of ways supported by the County Councils Association. It does not cover the 1968 proposal. It is not quite clear why this is so. Your Lordships expressed a view on this point in the Unopposed Bills Committee of the House of Lords, when it considered the relevant clause of the Cornwall County Council Bill. It was suggested that the opportunity given by the presentation of the Highways Bill should be taken to draft an appropriate Amendment. The Amendment, drafted by my noble friend, Lord Pargiter, is such an Amendment. For that reason, I beg to move.

§ LORD SANDFORD
The Government will be glad to accept the Amendment, and they agree that it will make a useful addition to the highways authorities' powers to drain the highways. If it would help the noble Lord, I can assure him that the Government will accept Amendments Nos. 14, 29 and 30 which, he will agree with me, are linked with it.

§ LORD WINTERBOTTOM
On behalf of my noble friend, may I express my thanks.

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD WINTER BOTTOM
My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 14.

§ Amendment moved—

§ Page 23, line 27, at end insert—

§ (" () In subsection (4) for the words from the beginning to " trunk road " there shall be substituted the words " Without prejudice to their powers under the foregoing provisions of this section, a highway authority may, for the purpose of the drainage of a highway or proposed highway for which they are, or. as the case may be. will be, the highway authority ".

737

§ () After subsection (4) there shall be inserted the following subsection:—

§ " (4A) Before a local highway authority, being a County Council. exercise any powers under the Public Health Act 1936 by virtue of subsection (4) of this section, they shall give notice of their intention to do so to the Council of the County District within whose area the powers are proposed to be exercised." ").—(Lord Winterbottom.)

§ LORD ILFORD
I desire to add a few words to this discussion. Clause 22 will result in duplicated powers being conferred upon certain authorities. I do not think anyone has any objection to that, but it has been found by experience that it is desirable that before either authority exercises these powers notice should be given to the other authority. That was done by an Amendment in the earlier part of the Bill, and I welcome the Minister's proposal to do it on Clause 14.

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause 26 [Provision of picnic sites and public conveniences for users of certain highways]:

§ 12 noon.

§ LORD SANDFORD
My Lords, Amendment No. 15 is no more than a drafting Amendment, and Amendment No. 20 is almost precisely similar. I beg to move Amendment No. 15.

§ Amendment moved— Page 26, line 12, leave out (" and ") and insert (" or ").—(Lord Sandford.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause 30 [Provision of areas for parking heavy goods vehicles, etc.]:

§ LORD SANDFORD: moved Amendment No. 16: Page 29, line 29, after (" carried ") insert (" or hauled ")

§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, the main Amendment here is the new subsection (9) to Clause 30. which provides definitions for various terms used in the clause, including in particular a new definition of the term heavy goods vehicle " as a goods vehicle having an unladen weight of 2 tons or more or a trailer. The amendment of subsection (1)(c) is consequential, on the extension to include trailers. As drafted, subsection (9) attracts the definition in Section 199(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1960. This is a somewhat involved definition which is generally taken to mean, in effect, goods 738 vehicles with an unladen weight of more than 3 tons. By virtue of subsection (1) of the clause, only heavy goods vehicles, as defined, will be able to use lorry areas solely for the purpose of parking. The trouble is that the weight limit of 3 tons will exclude many vehicles which are large but not heavy: for example, furniture vans. It is important for this concept of lorry areas that relatively light vehicles should be able to use lorry areas for overnight parking, if such areas are to play their proper part in helping to reduce the adverse effect of the environment caused by large lorries parked in urban areas. The Department believes that the 2-ton weight limit will cover most large lorries of the furniture van type. I beg to move.

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that explanation. It completely satisfies the questions I had regarding the mystique of this particular weight limitation. I am sure it will go all the way to providing for entry of all the kinds of vehicles that one can envisage using the lorry area.

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD SANDFORD
My Lords, Amendment No. 17 is a minor drafting Amendment, the need for which was pointed out by my noble friend Viscount Colville, at a previous stage. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved—

§ Page 29, line 30, leave out (" hereinafter ") and insert (" in this Act").—(Lord Sandford.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 18: Page 29, line 32, leave out from beginning to I" area ") and insert (" For the purpose of enabling a lorry area to be used as mentioned in subsection (1) above, the highway authority by whom the ")

§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, these Amendments, Nos. 18, 21 and 26, make it clear that services and facilities on lorry areas will not be available to the general public but only to those persons who have business in the area. This, I think, is the theme which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, quite rightly wanted to have stressed more emphatically and defined more precisely. We have been glad to accept his suggestion at a number of 739 points, of which this Amendment, No. 18, is the first. I beg to move.

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
Again, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for accepting these suggestions and putting them down in this manner.

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 19: Page 29, line 36. at end insert ("and, if the lorry area is to be used for either or both of the purposes mentioned in subsection (1)(b) and (c) above, parking places for other vehicles which will be on the area in connection with that purpose or those purposes").

§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment also make it absolutely clear that the services and facilities provided on a lorry area arc for the benefit and use only of those persons who are on the area in connection with the parking of heavy goods vehicles. This further Amendment is little more than a drafting Amendment. It makes clear that parking places may be provided on lorry areas for use by vehicles other than heavy goods vehicles, being vehicles which are on the area in connection with the storage of goods or the transfer of goods to or from heavy goods vehicles. It is clearly necessary, in spite of what I was just saying, to provide parking space for all vehicles which have business on the lorry area. I beg to move,

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
My Lords, I take it that this Amendment also provides for the parking of a vehicle which may be brought into the area to carry out some repair or service facility, which may not be provided for under the appropriate paragraph in the later subsection, but may be used by an outside contractor.

§ LORD SANDFORD
Yes, that is the sort of purpose for which this is provided, but we are here dealing with the basic legislation. There will have to be precise regulations which will vary from one lorry area to another.

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD SANDFORD
My Lords, Amendment No. 20 is connected with Amendment No. 15. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 29, line 37, leave out (" and ") and insert (" or ").—(Lord Sandford.)

740

§ LORD SANDFORD
My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 21, which I dealt with on No. 18.

§ Amendment moved—℄

§ Page 29. line 39. leave out paragraphs (c), (d), (e) and (f) and insert—

" (c) facilities for the accommodation of persons who will be on the lorry area in connection with any purpose for which the area may be used in pursuance of subsection (1) above or with the provision on the area of any such facilities as are mentioned in this subsection:
(d) facilities for the provision of meals and refreshments for such persons as are mentioned in paragraph (c) above;
(e) facilities for handling and storing goods which have been or are to be carried or hauled by heavy goods vehicles;
(f) service station facilities for such vehicles and for other vehicles entitled to be on the lorry area;
(g) sanitary conveniences (including lavatories) for such persons as are mentioned in paragraph (c) above; ").—(Lord Sandford.)

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
My Lords, this Amendent goes so far towards meeting all the points I raised earlier that I hesitate to make too many comments lest the noble Lord thinks I am ungrateful for the great help that he has already given. However, I should have preferred to see in these subsections some particular provision for a security pound within the lorry area. It seems to me that throughout the clause we have no emphasis on security, although noble Lords will agree with me, I think, that this is a generally accepted fact contained in the provisions for a lorry area. If we are not careful, I foresee the whole lorry area becoming a security area. It is concerning this eventuality that I would ask the noble Lord to give us some further assurance.
Perhaps I may briefly return to paragraph (f), which deals with service station facilities. A moment ago I mentioned the question of a haulier with contractual arrangements for the repair of vehicles in a certain part of the country. It may be that he also has contractual arrangements for refuelling. I emphasise again that although a lorry area may at some time provide such services, refuelling and repair facilities, it would not be prohibited for an outside contractor to provide them. I mention refuelling in particular because we may reach the stage where regulations 741 permit refuelling from mobile tankers or refuelling for special fuels. Although the lorry area has such facilities provided, it will not preclude outside contractors from entering the area and providing such services. I am sure that the noble Lord will be able to help me on those questions, but I should not like him to think that I have any further criticism of the Amendment as it stands.

§ 12.11 p.m.

§ LORD SANDFORD
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I confirm, and am glad to give the assurance, that although the question of security is not mentioned specifically in the Bill it is only because it is unnecessary to do so. There is nothing in the drafting of the Bill which would put any impediments upon the provision of security as regards the whole area and a higher degree of security in respect of valuable goods within the area. That is the basic intention. I am sure I mentioned it when I introduced the clause, and I am glad to give the assurance that it is the full intention that security for goods vehicles and goods from heavy vehicles shall be provided in these lorry areas. There is nothing in the clause to prevent that from being done. I also want to confirm that there is nothing in the Bill to prevent the service facilities being provided in the lorry area by a contractor other than the one who takes out the whole lease, and the question of subcontracting parts of it is certainly open. I would rather not discuss now the hypothetical case of what might he clone in the way of refuelling from mobile vehicles. This practice is not yet with us, though I realise that it may not be far off. With those assurances, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to agree with this group of Amendments, and with this Amendment in particular.

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD SANDFORD
My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 22 formally.

§ Amendment moved℄ Page 30, line 1, after (" install ") insert (" or provide ").—(Lord Sand ford.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD SANDFORD
My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 23. This is linked to Amendment No. 22.

742

§ Amendment moved—℄ Page 30, line 1, after (" subsection ") insert (" or elsewhere on the lorry area ").—(Lord Sandford.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 24: Page 30, line 15, after (" above ") insert (" or of the powers conferred on him in his capacity as a highway authority by virtue of subsection (5) below ").

§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 24, which amends subsection (4), merely allows the Secretary of State, in respect of a lorry area provided by him, to delegate to a local authority any of the powers exercisable by him by virtue of subsection (5). Amendment No. 25 deals with a slightly different point which has arisen from further examination of the clause, showing that it is also necessary to attract the provisions of Section 84D and Section 85 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967. Amendment No. 25 achieves that. I beg to move.

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD SANDFORD
My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 25 formally.

§ Amendment moved—℄

§ Page 30, line 23, leave out subsection (5) and insert—

§ (" (5) Section 31 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967 (power to make orders as to use of certain parking places) shall apply in relation to a lorry area as it applies in relation to an off-street parking place provided under section 28 of that Act as if for references to a local authority and such a parking place there were substituted references to a highway authority and a lorry area respectively, and sections 84A, 84B, 84C, 840 and 85 of that Act (provisions with respect to certain orders and offences, including orders and offences under the said section 31) shall have effect as if—℄

(a) references therein to the said section 31 and a local authority included references to that section as applied by this subsection and a local highway authority respectively;
(b) references in section 84D to a parking place included references to a lorry area; and
(c) the reference in section 85(2) to the local authority for the parking place included a reference to the highway authority by whom the lorry area was provided.").—(Lord Sandford.)

§ On Question Amendment agreed to.

743

§ LORD SANDFORD
My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 26. We considered this Amendment in the discussion which we had on Amendments Nos. 18 and 21.

§ Amendment moved— Page 30, line 41, leave out subsection (8).—(Lord Sandford.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD SANDFORD
My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 27. We considered this Amendment in our discussion on Amendment No. 16.

§ Amendment moved—

§ Page 31, line 1, leave out subsection (9) and insert—

§ (" (9) In this section— goods "includes goods or burden of any description; heavy goods vehicle " means a motor vehicle constructed or adapted for use for the carriage or haulage of goods, being a vehicle having an unladen weight of two tons or more, or a trailer; local authority " has the same meaning as in section 27 of this Act; motor vehicle" has the same meaning as in the Road Traffic Act 1960; trailer " means a vehicle constructed or adapted for use for the carriage of goods and drawn or intended to be drawn by a motor vehicle.")—(Lord Sandford.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause 45 [Procedural and other provisions supplementary to s.44]:

§ LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 28:

§ Page 52, line 24, at end insert—

§ (" () Where there are proposals for the provision of a lorry area on land adjoining, or in the vicinity of, a special road or proposed special road, then, if that land, or any land of which that land forms part. is compulsorily acquired under section 44(5) of this Act or in pursuance of a notice under section 129. 135 or 136 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1962 (which relate to the protection of owners of land affected by certain planning decisions) or in pursuance of a notice under section 139 of that Act (which relates to the protection of owner-occupiers of land affected by planning proposals), section 139 of the Transport Act 1968 (which provides for the assessment of compensation in certain cases of the compulsory acquisition of land required as a service area for a special road) shall have effect for the purpose of assessing compensation in respect of the compulsory acquisition—

(a)as if for references in subsection (1) to section 215(2)(c) of the principal Act (acquisition of land required for the provision 744 of service stations. etc., for use in connection with a special road there were substituted references to the said section 44(5); and
(b) as if service area development, as defined by subsection (2), included development for the purpose of providing a lorry area for use in connection with a special road or proposed special road.")

§ The noble Lord said: This Amendment provides that the rules governing compensation in Section 139 of the Transport Act 1968 shall apply for the compulsory acquisition of land for lorry areas on motorways. These rules apply already to compulsory acquisitions for service areas on motorways. Your Lordships will agree that the same rules should apply to land for lorry areas, since the same considerations apply. I beg to move.

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to

§ Schedule 2 [Section 103 of the Principal Act as amended]:

§ LORD WINTERBOTTOM
My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 29 formally.

§ Amendment moved—℄ Page 85, line 34, leave out from the beginning to (" exercise") in line 36 and insert (" Without prejudice to their powers under the foregoing provisions of this section, a highway authority may, for the purpose of the drainage of a highway or proposed highway for which they are, or. as the case may be. will be, the highway authority ").—(Lord Winterbottom.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD WINTERBOTTOM
My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 30.

§ Amendment moved℄

§ Page 85, line 38, at end insert— (" (4A) Before a local highway authority, being a County Council, exercise any powers under the Public Health Act 1936 by virtue of subsection (4) of this section, they shall give notice of their intention to do so to the Council of the County District within whose area the powers are proposed to be exercised.").—(Lord Winterbottom.)

§ LORD ILFORD
I hope that the Committee will accept this Amendment, because this is another case where the Bill is again conferring duplicated powers on two different authorities. There is no objection to that, but it has been found that where duplicated powers are conferred in this way upon more than one 745 authority it is very desirable that, before those powers are exercised, notice should be given by the authority that proposes to exercise its powers. That is provided for in this Schedule, and I know that it will be welcome to local authorities. I hope that the Committee will accept the Amendment.

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.