VEHICLE CROSSINGS OVER FOOTWAYS AND VERGES (Hansard, 10 March 1971)

§ Mr. Tom Bradley (Leicester, North-East)

I beg to move Amendment No. 36, in page 32, line 28, after 'premises', insert: '(other than premises used exclusively for agricultural purposes)'. I make no apology for breaking into the steady flow of Ministerial Amendments, so placidly moving through the House, to return to this matter which we discussed in Committee when the Under-Secretary gave me an uncharacteristically specious reply. I shall have to remind the House that Clause 34 replaces Section 155 of the 1959 Act. In that Act the Section contained a qualification that it would not be applicable to any premises used exclusively for agricultural purposes.

It is easy to understand why that was so. It is an everyday occurrence, which we all see, that mechanically-propelled agricultural machines cross verges to gain access to farm property. This requirement is as necessary today as it was in 1959. The Minister made great play in Committee over the introduction of combine harvesters, as though they were some recent invention. I must point out 494 that combine harvesters were used almost as extensively in 1959 as they are now. Why has there been this deliberate change of policy, ending an exemption which farms have enjoyed so long?

Furthermore, in Committee the Minister sought to justify the change by referring to milk-hauling lorries. First of all, he must appreciate that this is an alteration to a recent Act, not some antiquated Act such as the 1893 Barbed Wire Act. He must know that bulk milk tankers would obviously use a proper access, not one that crosses a kerbed footway or grass verge. The only difference between the circumstances of 1959 and today, which I accept immediately, is the increased flow of traffic on some roads. It is clear that this could constitute a safety hazard. The Minister knows full well that he has already taken adequate and sufficient powers in earlier parts of the Bill to stop up access where it is likely to cause damage or danger or unreasonably to interfere with the flow of traffic. I believe that quite unreasonable restriction could stem from this new attitude on the part of his Department.

It could seriously impede or make more costly, agricultural operations. I can see no justification for deleting this useful exclusion which has existed for a long time. Even at this relatively late stage I would ask the hon. Gentleman to reconsider what he is doing arid to accept the validity of my argument.

§ Mr. Michael Heseltine

I accept at once the moderate way in which the hon. Gentleman has moved his Amendment. I am not sure that the powers which he has said are available to the highway authority really are as he suggests. His suggestion is that we need not give the highway authorities the powers envisaged in Clause 34 because we already have the right to stop up the access that might be the subject of a crossing under Clause 34.

But the draconian power of stopping up would provide a much greater degree of hardship for users of the sites adjacent to the road than our suggestion that it might be possible to come to an agreement, or to impose an agreement over the crossing. It is important to emphasise, as I did in Commitee, that it is not intended to use this power to go around imposing great crossings in circumstances where they are unwarranted.

495 It is simply to ensure that where the flow of traffic which is now quite different from anything envisaged 10 years ago, let alone in the inter-war period, has created the sort of hazards that could be eliminated by improved site lines, the highway authority has the power to do something about it. I hope that the hon. Member will not feel it necessary to press the point and insist that we should only arm ourselves with the right to go along and stop up that access. I hope he will accept our assurance that this power will be used with moderation and the sort of responsibility which I am sure he would expect from us.