§ TIMING OF REVIEWS
§ 15.—(1) The period covered by a review, that is to say the period between the two dates specified in section 33(1) of the Act of 1949, shall not exceed five years:
§ Provided that this sub-paragraph shall not affect the validity of any review or of any document prepared or thing done in consequence of a review.
§
(2) The interval between the end of the period covered by a review and the publication of the draft revision shall be—
§
(3) In the case of a limited special review—
§ (4) Section 33(3) of the Act of 1949 (which is superseded by sub-paragraph (1) above) shall not apply to a review begun after the coming into force of this Act."
§ Read a Second time.
206§ Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine (Rye)I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, after subsection 10(5) insert:
(6) The reclassification of a road used as a public path under this Schedule shall not restrict the use of the right of way by any vehicle servicing agricultural land or normally used for agricultural or horticultural operations.
The provision in Lords Amendment No. 54 is that footpaths shall in future be reclassified to be either always open to all traffic or as bridleways or footpaths. Many roads used on farms will have to be reclassified and fall into one of these three classifications. Certain difficulties arise under the Road Traffic Act, 1960. First, Section 18 provides that it is an offence for persons without lawful authority to drive a motor vehicle on any road being a footpath or bridle way. Secondly, tractors or other motorised farm vehicles have to comply with certain traffic regulations, not least of which is third party insurance, if a vehicle is used on a public highway.
With these two requirements, it is by no means clear as to what will happen if a farm road is reclassified into one of these new classifications. On many farms are tracks used by farm vehicles in going about the farm and which may well now have to fall into one of these new categories. Not only are these tracks essential for farm business. There are also farms where there are access roads which go over adjacent land. Where that is the case, the same difficulty may arise.
If one happens to have land covered by a private easement, under which one has the farm road going over someone else's farm, the arrangement under ordinary law of private easement, where the dominant and servient tenants enable these matters to be carried out quite happily, will no longer apply if these tracks turn into public rights of way. In these circumstances, there is great anxiety among the farming community that these new provisions will not meet their requirements. Paragraph 68 of the Gosling Report said many of these roads used as public paths
… are still used to a considerable extent for agricultural purposes and it has been foremost in our minds in considering the future of these roads that there continued used by farmers for their vehicles and livestock should not be questioned whether or not their lands is adjacent to the path.207 In these circumstances, our Amendment to the Amendment is essential and I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to support it.
§ Mr. SkeffingtonI hope to be able to convince the hon. Gentleman that his fears are quite unfounded. All that this part of the Bill does is to ensure that after a certain procedure has been observed certain public rights will be maintained. They will be categorised according to the nature of the paths after the procedure of designation by the local authority, the lodging of objections, the inquiry, and so on. Nothing in this Clause impinges at all on the ownership of the soil over which the path runs. If a farmer or owner has had previous rights, he not only continues to have them for himself but he can give them to others for bringing vehicles over the land. If he decides for the purpose of his husbandry to use the way, it can be done.
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has raised this point, as it gives me an opportunity to reassure him, but the Amendment is redundant.
§ Mr. Godman IrvinePerhaps the hon. Gentleman could clear up the two points I made about the Road Traffic Act, because in spite of what he has just said they seem to present difficulties.
§ Mr. SkeffingtonThe hon. Gentleman misconceives the position. There is nothing in the Road Traffic Act, unless there is an agreement that completely closes the path, which overrides the rights of the owner in the soil. It is for that reason that one has had all the complications in relation to footpaths. There are many cases now where there has been redesignation. I can think of one path going right through an aircraft factory. The public in this case have been excluded, but the original owners of the soil still have the right to go through, and to give permission to anyone else to do so.
§ Sir Richard Glyn (Dorset, North)There may be a right, but the trouble is that at present a farmer can go on a farm road with a tractor without the need for insurance or licence. Will that continue to be the case when these are designated highways?
§ Mr. SkeffingtonI should like to write to the hon. Gentleman on the subject of licensing. My information is that it is not so, but I will look into it.
§ Question, That the Amendment be made, put and negatived.
§ Lords Amendment agreed to.