HC Deb 23 October 1968 vol 770 cc1508-9

Lords Amendment No. 155: In page 66, line 15, after the Amendment last inserted, insert new Clause "S":

has to be satisfied that the alternative right of way will be provided within a reasonable time. This is a reasonable request, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accede to it.

Mr. Skeffington

I should like to be in a position to ask the House to agree to this Amendment, though I was not particularly successful when I suggested this on the last occasion. I cannot, however, ask the House to accept it because the effect of it would be far more restrictive than the hon. Gentleman thinks.

Perhaps I might consider, first, the Amendment to leave out "or will be". The provision now is that a local authority can extinguish public rights of way over land which it has acquired or appropriated for planning purposes. It has to be satisfied that an alternative right of way has been, or will be provided, or that it is not required.

The middle provision is left out if one accepts the implications of the time limit in the Amendment. In quite a number of cases of development it is not possible to go ahead with the provision of an alternative route until some stage when the development has taken place. Consequently it might drive the authority to come to a speedy and convenient conclusion that the route was not necessary, or to hold up the development. I do not think that that is a reasonable position in which to put the authority. The Clause and the Lords Amendment provide three alternatives. Sometimes it is possible to provide an alternative right of way only when the development is some way advanced, and these provisions have been put in in the light of experience.

The second Amendment seeks to impose some sort of time limit on the provision of an alternative. Earlier on hon. Gentlemen opposite rather twitted us about the fact that we were not prepared to leave matters to local authorities. These authorities are looking after the interests of the ratepayers, and I do not think one must assume that they will be negligent about something which affects the public. There is, however, an additional protection. These orders have to be advertised, and they are open to objection by the public. If sufficient evidence is available to satisfy the public that alternative routes are not likely to be provided, objections can be made, and they will be considered by the Minister before he confirms the order.

We think that the position is satisfactorily catered for in the Lords Amendment, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press his Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Lords Amendment agreed to.