HC Deb 09 April 1968 vol 762 cc1298-300
Mr. Skeffington

I beg to move Amendment No. 65, in page 25, line 17, leave out 'nor' and insert '(b) shall not'.

It would be for the convenience of the House to discuss with this Amendment, Amendment No. 66. These Amendments to the former Clause 22 permit the temporary diversion of a path on to a neighbour's land with his consent. Everybody in the Committee thought this was an extremely good idea.

This proposal gives effect to the intention of the Amendment put down by the hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. Carol Johnson), and I am sure he will be glad that we have adopted his suggestion.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 66, in line 18, at end insert: 'unless written consent to the making of the order has been given by the occupier of that land, and by any other person whose consent is needed to obtain access to the land'.—[Mr. Skeffington.]

Mr. Channon

I beg to move Amendment No. 93, in page 25, line 18, at end insert: (b) shall not affect the right of access of any statutory undertakers to any apparatus belonging to or maintained by those undertakers and situate on, over or under a path or way. This is another comparatively small point which we discussed in the Standing Committee, and I shall not weary the House with the arguments at great length.

It limits the right of access of any statutory undertakers to apparatus belonging to them or maintained by them and situate on, over or under a path or right of way. There is some doubt about the right of access of statutory undertakers, and I should be grateful if the Parliamentary Secretary could tell us the results of his promise in the Standing Committee to look at this problem, and whether there is any need for concern about the position of statutory undertakers.

If there is, perhaps he would indicate whether the Government will consider—even at this late stage—putting down an Amendment to make the position clear.

Mr. Skeffington

I said in the Standing Committee that we would look at this proposition to see if there was any real need for it. It is perfectly true that in the Highways Act, 1959, Sections 110 and 111 do have a proviso whereby the rights of statutory undertakers can be considered and safeguarded. But the result of our general investigation has been this. These Orders are of a very limited period, and it is unlikely from the inquiries we made that the existing powers of statutory undertakers could be affected to any great extent.

It is the Government's view that it is unnecessary, therefore, to make any further saving provisions.

Amendment negatived.

Forward to