§ Where a footpath or bridleway crosses agricultural land or land which is being brought into use for agriculture, then, if—
- (a) it is proposed in accordance with the rules of good husbandry to plough the land. and
- (b) it is convenient, in so ploughing the land, to plough the path or way together with the rest of the land,
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Mr. RamsdenI beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
§ Mr. SpeakerWith this new Clause, we can discuss Amendment No. 64, in page 24, line 29, leave out Clause 23, and Amendment No. 92, in page 46, line 49, Schedule 4, at end insert:
| 7 & 8 Eliz. 2. c. 25. | The Highways Act 1959. | Section 119. |
§ 9.30 p.m.
§ Mr. RamsdenWe come now to the question of what the law will be and what will happen when a footpath is ploughed, a point which has produced some considerable amount of legal difficultly for quite a number of years. We discussed this at some length in Committee and I do not think that we have quite got it right yet. I move this Motion really to give the Government the opportunity to have another shot at the problem.
It ought to be possible to get a more sensible law than we have. Before making the argument, it might help to remind ourselves of the development of the law on ploughing footpaths over the last 20 years or so. As I understand it, before 1949 a farmer could plough a footpath only where he had a common law right to do so; there was no statutory right. He could plough only where a path was dedicated subject to his right to plough.
That was all right in those days when ploughing was with horses or fairly low-powered tractors and small implements—very different from the kind of tackle used today which, for its economic use, needs to be able to traverse fields in long, uninterrupted bouts. The 1949 Act, which was re-enacted verbatim in the Highways Act, 1959, which governed the law before this Measure, went some way towards recognising the developing needs of agriculture. While keeping a common law right, it added a statutory right, and allowed farmers to plough on condition that they gave notification of their intentions to the parish council and that they restored the surface after ploughing, as 1200 soon as may be, to use the words of the Statute.
It is these words which have led to the difficulty. It was held by the Gosling Committee that the phrase "as soon as may be" was too vague and led to a state of the law which was unenforceable. This difficulty has been rather over-exaggerated, but it could be said to be there. There were other difficulties in that in a large number of cases no notification was given, and some paths disappeared as a result. Having considered the situation, the Gosling Committee made its recommendations, which are embodied in Clause 23, except for one important recommendation which we took out in Committee. It envisaged circumstances in which, for the benefit of the farmers, paths could be temporarily stopped up.
The Committee thought that this was not a reasonable impediment to put in the way of the walkers. I hope that the House will take the fact that we struck it out as an earnest that in moving this Amendment we are in no way taking the side of the farmer as against the rambler. We are trying to get a sensible, enforceable state of the law. At present the Clause is open to three fairly serious objections. In the first place, the administrative process, if one can call it that, under which the farmer has to apply for a diversion or extension of the period in which he has to restore is a cumbersome one and will lead to difficulty.
I took advice on this from my county council, and would like to quote the comments of the county clerk on the measures proposed. He says:
… the present law … has proved extremely difficult to enforce. As you are aware, there are a large number of paths over agricultural land in the county area, very few notices have been received under Section 119(2), and very few complaints have been brought to the County Surveyor's attention.Under the proposed Clause … the County Council would still, in practice, have to rely largely on members of the public to bring breaches to their notice, and in my opinion this Clause, if enacted, would be likely to be honoured far more in the breach than in the observance.If indeed it were to be observed generally, it would lead to considerable administrative work. A farmer would have to make application within the five or six weeks' period which would require processing and notices affixing at the ends of the path before the period expired. To comply with both Acts the County Council would have to consider ' rules of good husbandry'…' the interests of good 1201 farming'…'the interests of the users of the paths'"—in each case he gives the statutory reference—and, if minded to refuse the application, the views of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Frankly, having regard to the number of paths and the time scale, I would not regard this as practicable.I do not know, and the county administrative authorities do know, but to put it at its lowest, I should think that the procedure of having to apply for the necessary concession on the part of the farmer and reapply if the weather is wrong is something which we should avoid if we can.The second difficulty about the Clause—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The right hon. Gentleman seems to be talking about Clause 23. He must talk about his own Clause at some time.
§ Mr. RamsdenMy argument on my own Clause will be extremely brief. I am trying to put it in a negative way by saying that my Clause is necessary because the Government's Clause will not work. My Clause simply asserts, with the consequential Amendments, that a better solution is to have a right to plough with no statutory obligations to restore. My argument against the Government Clause is necessary to make the case for my Clause.
At the moment, there is a maximum of three months within which restoration must take place. This will not work. If ploughing is done in the autumn, however much the farmer may want to complete his cultivation and get the surface of the land back, the weather, at any rate in the North of England, is almost certain to be against him. Certainly, when ploughing had to be done in October or November on many farms, it was not possible to get on the land until the middle of March and, in some cases, not until early April. One cannot help this. It is no use making provision for these things if one is to be betrayed by the weather.
The third point has a bearing on my Clause, because I propose no method of restoration other than the foot of the rambler as he walks up and down the path. Nobody has yet been able to explain to me satisfactorily how one restores 1202 the surface of a footpath other than by the agricultural operation of harrowing, sowing and rolling or by walking up and down it, or by a combination of both. I know of no implement which can be used to restore a footpath and which one can guarantee to get on the land to do the job in all weathers.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. We are not discussing whether Clause 23 should stand part of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman must come to his own Clause.
§ Mr. RamsdenHaving said what is not sensible and will not work, I propose to say what I think would be sensible and in the interests of the farmer and walker.
As a result of a previous Clause in the Bill, there will be signposts on these paths. There will be more signposts so that people will know to where the paths go. There will not be stopping up, so that people can be assured of going for their walks in the countryside without impediment. It would be sensible to let the farming operations take their course and to let people go on their walks as they wish and consider what the results on footpaths and restoration will be.
The farmer will do his ploughing some time during the winter. The man going for a walk over arable land in the winter will admittedly have to walk across the ploughed field, but that is not a great hardship in the months when country walking is not at its most popular and certainly when older people who might be inconvenienced do not ordinarily do much walking in the countryside. When the farmer gets on the land in the spring the harrowing, sowing and rolling will be done, the surface will be consolidated, and the path will be there again. It will be signposted and all that the walker will have to do will be to go from one signpost to another. Admittedly he will have to go through the crop, but the farmer will have nothing to complain about in that regard because the path was to be there anyway. The combination of the field being rolled and people walking up and down the line of the path will contribute, as nothing else can, to the restoration of the surface of the path. This would be a sensible and practical solution which would meet the farmers' and the walkers' point without any administrative rigmarole of statutory obligations. 1203 I hope that the Government will look at this sympathetically.
Admittedly this can apply only to country paths. In the case of footpaths in the neighbourhood of towns with tarmac surfaces—and there are such—obviously one does not want to give anyone the right to plough them, and no one would want to plough them. That is the exceptional situation and could, I suggest, be controlled by byelaw. It is not necessary to have a general power such as is proposed in the Clause to operate all over the country. I hope that the Government will look into this. If what I have suggested in its present form does not meet the point, I have no doubt that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary can think of something which will. But do not let us make a law which will not be enforceable and which will repeat the difficulties of the 1959 situation.
§ Mr. BlenkinsopI have some sympathy with the point of view of the right hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden), but I think that his proposal is unworkable. I hope that my hon. Friend will resist it. The real point is that a clearly defined footpath is as much in the interest of the farmer as of the walker. We know the dangers that the farmer has to face because of people going away from the path on cultivated land and the damage which can be caused. We appreciate that, but the only way to safeguard the farmer against this is to have a clearly defined path. To suggest that the walker should make his own track, as it were, across a ploughed field and also possibly through growing crops is an impossible proposition if we are to help the farmer.
One safeguard for the farmer is that people who go walking should try to avoid ploughed fields and keep away from growing crops. We try, by education and so on, to encourage people to keep to the edge of a field. I have been doing this for years. If people think that it is perfectly all right to wander across a field of growing crops, that must cause infinite damage to the farmer. There will be arguments as to whether a person is following the precise route of the original path or whether he is not. One can imagine the kind of furore there might be and the complaints that would come from farmers if this practice were followed.
1204 I quite appreciate the difficulties, but it is better that, where it is proved to be necessary, an alternative route should clearly be established for people to follow without causing damage by walking across the centre of the field. This is no major hardship.
§ 9.45 p.m.
§ Mr. RamsdenIf it lasts for three months, then at some point people have to walk through the crop. So long as we have footpaths this is something that has to be accepted.
§ Mr. BlenkinsopThere are provisions for permanent diversions in certain cases. I do not object to that in proper circumstances. I have never felt particularly badly done by if I have to follow a crooked route in order to avoid damage to the farmer. I have had some experience of wandering about in the countryside as a walker, and I have been on reasonably good terms, I am glad to say, with farmers. I suggest that the proposal of the right hon. Member for Harrogate is not practicable. While I should like to help him to find an easier way, I suggest the compromise we have reached in this Bill is workable and satisfactory. After all, farmers have in years past given a great number of undertakings to maintain footpaths, and they have not done so. They must accept a certain amount of blame for this. All over the country footpaths have been going out of existence and, unfortunately, hardly ever is any attempt made by the farmer to make reasonable provision. I consider that the more detailed provision we have put into the Bill is necessary. I am sorry that it should be necessary, but there it is.
§ Mr. KimballThe hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) must do all his rambling in the livestock rearing parts of the country. I have spent a great deal of my time trying to avoid ploughed fields. In Lincolnshire, Norfolk and other counties in the east of England it is quite impossible to avoid ploughed fields. About one-eighth of the area of most parishes in Lincoln and Norfolk is not ploughed. The suggestions of the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields, are not practicable. They may apply in the North Riding of Yorkshire, they may apply in Durham, they certainly apply in Northumberland, but they do 1205 not apply in other counties. The Amendment moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden) is, in my opinion, a sensible, practical compromise.
The right hon. Gentleman described it in Committee as a method of treading out footpaths. This does not involve anybody in any great expense. If the farmer ploughs up the footpath and the local community of the local rambling club wish to use the footpath, all they have to do is to tread it out again. They are not liable for any damage. They stick to the existing route; they are not faced with diversion. They do not have to discover whether they can go that way or not. They can follow the line of the map and follow the signposts. All they have to do if the footpath has been ploughed up is to walk along it, and once they have walked along it the footpath is re-established. Farmers have not done all the necessary diversions which have been suggested in the past because, in practice, they have been proved to be unenforceable. On the other hand, there have been very few objections about footpaths being ploughed up, and farmers have not found it necessary to obtain permission before carrying out normal agricultural operations.
In the Clause we have a sensible, practicable proposition whereby footpaths which people want maintained will be maintained at the least expense to the farming community. We shall not suffer from the professional footpath maintainer who now exists in many areas. Even some rural district councils now employ such people as retired army majors who can read maps to ensure that footpaths are kept open. My view is that they should continue to employ them. Let them tread out the paths. With this Clause, this sort of individual will not be a great worry to the farming community or to anyone else. I hope that the Clause will be accepted as the most practical way of dealing with the problem.
§ Mr. John SmithThe hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) said that we must "safeguard" the farmer and "help" the farmer. However, that is rather like the Government's attitude to the Falkland Islands. We hear a great deal about the interests of the islanders, without hearing what it is that they themselves want. Surely if we mean to 1206 help farmers, we should find out what they want. They do want this new Clause, and they do not want Clause 23. The new Clause unlike Clause 23 does not oblige the farmer to give notice of his intention to plough a footpath, nor does it oblige him to reinstate the path after ploughing.
We must not legislate as if farmers were ill-intentioned people. There were hints of that towards the end of the hon. Gentleman's speech. Clause 23 is a long one, and it is typical—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. With respect, Clause 23 is in the Bill. We are discussing a Clause which is not in the Bill.
§ Mr. SmithI was seeking to contrast it briefly but unfavourably with my hon. Friend's proposed Clause. The Clause in the Bill is typical of the urban attitude throughout the Bill, whereas my hon. Friend's Clause escapes that charge. Throughout the Bill, there is a fear on the part of the townsman that when he gets into the country the natives will prove hostile. There is also the bias which the townsman is apt to feel against the farmer—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. Not only are we not discussing Clause 23; we are not discussing the Bill. We are discussing new Clause No. 15.
§ Mr. SmithMr. Speaker, if I do get out of order, it will only be for a moment or so, from time to time.
My hon. Friend's Clause gets away from the bias which there is against the farmer. For example, tinder existing legislation, a farmer can be fined £50 in certain circumstances for ploughing a footpath, but a man whose dog attacks sheep or cattle on a footpath is fined only £20. There is this bias from which—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. This is getting even worse. We must come to the Clause.
§ Mr. Smith—my hon. Friend's Clause helps us to get away. Farmers will not plough footpaths just to annoy the rambler. They will plough them only if it makes for better farming, and better farming is not merely a selfish matter of the farmer earning a better living, but part of the national business of saving imports.
1207 That leads me on to a general consideration in favour of the new Clause. Governments are much too apt to ignore the effect of legislation on the economy. They have some regard to the taxpayer, it is true, but they ignore that part of the cost of legislation which falls on the economy; although in many cases costs which fall on the economy are much more damaging to the country than costs which fall on the taxpayer. For example, the Selective Employment Tax is always said to be—[Interruption.]—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that we are discussing whether a farmer may plough a bridlepath under certain conditions.
§ Mr. SmithI am sorry; it is most unfortunate to my argument, Mr. Speaker, that it should be yourself in the Chair at this moment. My right hon. Friend's proposal does get away from the fallacy to which all Governments are prone, which is to believe that if expenses do not fall on the taxpayer then they do not cost anything at all. My point is that much desirable legislation costs the economy a great deal, but that in our present situation we cannot afford every luxury we desire. The question of ploughing and reinstating footpaths is a case in point. Either a farmer does not plough a footpath, or he ploughs it and reinstates it; both alternatives increase the cost of farming. How does the farmer reinstate it? What machine does he use? Moreover, the cost to the economy is quite incommensurate with the advantage to the walker—the rambler—who can perfectly well tread out the path for himself. We all know the farming phrase: "The best manure is the boss's footsteps". The best method of reinstatement for a footpath, in my opinion, is the rambler's boot. Clause 23 of the Bill is unnecessary and damaging to the economy and the new Clause now proposed is greatly preferable to it.
§ Mr. SkeffingtonI am not quite certain whether I understand the hon. Gentleman's view of new Clause 15 as well as I did before listening to the last speech, because in trying to find which part of the new Clause the hon. Gentleman was speaking to one got lost; and one even got lost between those parts of the speech which appeared more relevant than 1208 others. I want to make seriously to the hon. Gentleman a point on which he should bear me out since he was a member of the Standing Committee. He said that the Bill is characterised all the way through by an urban approach. This is not true at all. We have tried again and again—and credit should be paid to the Government for this—to keep a balance all the way through between the needs of those who live and work in the country and those of the vast numbers of people who go, and will continue to go, on a large scale to the country. I would have thought that in many respects we have been extremely successful in that.
Our approach in this particular Clause and the Amendment we are discussing has been wider than the specific recommendations which came from the Gosling Committee on which were representatives of all the interests involved. There were country interests and particular group interests, who heard the views of a large body of people representing farmers, landowners, and others. It is necessary to put this into the picture before we begin to discuss what we are attempting to do, having got these recommendations from this very conscientious and hard working Committee.
§ It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
§
Ordered,
That the Proceedings on the Countryside Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Gourlay.]
§ Question again proposed, That the Clause be read a Second time.
§ Mr. SkeffingtonI understand the right hon. Gentleman's motives in moving this new Clause, although it is unacceptable. His actions and his observations in Committee were very helpful and we were often grateful to him. He gave tonight a pocket history of footpath legislation which was accurate in that compass, and which highlighted the important point, in considering the balance which the Bill has so far achieved, that, until the 1949 Act, the occupier had no right to plough a right of way. That great Act took away the right of the individual, which had been enjoyed and fought for for centuries, to walk paths designated as common thoroughfares. Section 56 limited their right: before, it had been possible 1209 to plough only under a common law right arising because the path had been dedicated to the public authorities, who were charged with responsibility for it—
§ Mr. J. E. B. Hill (Norfolk, South)Surely, in most cases where a footpath goes diagonally across an arable field, a farmer has always had a right to plough it, simply because the original dedication would have been subject to ordinary operations of husbandry. I do not see how the hon. Gentleman can say that that right was created by the 1949 Act.
§ Mr. SkeffingtonExcept where a common law right to plough was established, an owner or occupier had no right to plough a right of way. Because of certain concessions arising from the war, this provision was made in the 1949 Act; the premises were re-enacted in Section 119 of the 1959 Highways Act, bat have not proved very effective. A good deal of ploughing which takes place is not really legal. Evidence has been given by the amenity societies and many other bodies, including local authorities, that ploughing leads to a tendency for the paths to be lost.
Walkers do not like the occupation of treading out paths. The more valiant of them do it, but it is a difficult operation. We know from the evidence given to the Gosling Committee that we are considering a problem which may, in the main, affect paths near towns. Many paths are disappearing each year. Because of the unsatisfactory nature of Section 119 of the Highways Act and the recommendations in paragraphs 62–65 of the Gosling Report, we drafted new Clause 23.
I concede that there will be difficulties in administering the provision. I must be honest and say that it is not an ideal solution. However, we feel that there are considerable advantages to be gained by having new Clause 23, which the Opposition new Clause would delete. It is important that there should be well-signposted paths, that where ploughing tales place notice should be given so that the authority is alerted and that, if restoration does not take place in accordance with the provisions of the 1210 Bill, it can be done by the local authority and not left to the walker. As I said in Committee, the walker's boots may be the best way of treading out a path, but there are other ways, such as the use of small motorised rollers.
It is in the interests of the farmer to have well maintained paths which are known, sign-posted and restored. This will prevent a great deal of the trespassing that goes on, much of it done innocently. As a result of the Bill, the walker will know that, although he may occasionally be diverted, he has a right of way and, therefore, every right to be there. This is the most practical way to solve this problem.
If the Opposition new Clause were accepted all this would go and, with Amendment No. 64, there would be none of the provisions in new Clause 23. Further, Section 119 of the Highways Act would not apply. We would be left with merely the right of the more intrepid walker to walk through a footpath, if he could find it, and thereby maintain it. In view of the history of this matter, we consider that the Opposition new Clause is not the answer, remembering that if it were accepted there would be nothing to prevent paths around fields from being covered. For all these reasons I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite will not press the Clause.
§ Mr. Gibson-WattThis has been an interesting debate and, in his usual style, the Parliamentary Secretary was reasonable in his reply. I regret that I cannot agree with his arguments. The hon. Gentleman admitted that the Bill did not provide an ideal solution. Indeed, he went so far as to say that boots were best.
The Clause, moved so eloquently by my right hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden), would do away with a great deal of the cumbersome administrative paraphernalia which will be a nuisance not only to local authorities but to farmers. All the difficulties about diversion and the problem of the three months affecting agriculture would be solved. The Minister said that paths were being lost, but footpaths are still on the map and the inveterate and sensible walker who finds himself in a strange area 1211 knows how to read the Ordnance Survey or definitive map. Provided he gets one which is up to date and as has been published since we had a rehash of the footpaths a few years ago, he will be perfectly able to see where these footpaths are. If the Clause is accepted, even if the ploughed field perhaps under crop has not reverted to holding the footpath in the field, it will still be open to the walker rightly to tread out that particular footpath.
§ Mr. Peter M. JacksonHas the hon. Gentleman ever attempted to follow a non-existent footpath using an ordnance map? If it is a 6 in. map, or even a 2½ in. map, I take the point he made, but with a 1 in. map the footpath is not definite and cannot be followed.
§ Mr. Gibson-WattAfter the Bill is passed, county councils, at considerable expense, will put up footpath notices, and where they leave the road it will be absolutely clear to anyone where the footpaths will be. I say to the hon. Member for South Shields: get a good stout pair of boots and tread out these pathways. That is what most people do. Wherever the powers are required they will still be there.
§ I do not accept what the Parliamentary Secretary or the hon. Member for South Shields said about losing footpaths. The Parliamentary Secretary used the argument that the Gosling Committee was in favour of the proposal in the Bill. Gosling has been in favour of a number of things which this House in its wisdom has not agreed to. It was in favour of a certain Clause about bulls. That has disappeared from the Bill. It was also in favour of stopping up and we have done away with that. Although we are in favour of much of the Gosling Committee's Report, we should not necessarily slavishly follow it.
§ The arguments for this Clause put forward forcibly by my hon. Friends should be followed. It was apparent during the closing remarks of the Parliamentary Secretary that he would not follow us, but I hope that even at this late hour he will say that on consideration he will accept the Clause with all its simplification and benefit both to the walker and to the farmer. If he cannot do that, we shall divide the House.
§ Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 132, Noes 199.