ORDERS CREATING, EXTINGUISHING OR DIVERTING FOOTPATHS OR BRIDLEWAYS (Hansard, 30 July 1981)

§ Mr. Michael Spicer
I beg to move amendment No. 245, in page 106, line 5, at end insert— '(3) In subsection (6) of that section insert after "any land held with it",—
"(d) the diversion would have on the interests of agriculture.".'.
The amendment is apparently innocent. It will not cost the Government any money and it will not cause great administrative or legislative complications, but farming interests take it seriously and the Spicer committee agreed unanimously that it should be tabled. The committee included a number of diverse elements, and the amendment also has the backing of various eminent members of the Conservative Party.
The Spicer committee proposed a simplification of the grounds on which footpaths could be diverted and the Government accepted most of those proposals. The four grounds on which the committee suggested that footpaths should be diverted took into account the interests of agriculture, the interests of owners or occupiers, the public interest in securing the continuance of a right of way and the effect of the diversion of public enjoyment of the whole path.
The Government accepted three of the conditions but left out the interest of agriculture. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales said in Committee: The third ground was that diversions should have regard to the interests of agriculture. We consider that this is adequately covered in the reference to the interests of the owner, lessee or occupier."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 25 June 1981; c. 1193.]
Farming interests are certainly not convinced by that. They feel that there is a wider interest than any that may attach to an individual occupier or farmer and that it should be incorporated in the Bill under the broad term "interests of agriculture". They feel that when making representations on appeal they should be able to use arguments that go wider than the narrow, sectional arguments of an individual owner.

§ Mr. Monro
My hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer) is the acknowledged expert on footpaths; and this House and another place have benefited enormously from the deliberations and recommendations of his committee.
I noted carefully what my hon. Friend said, particularly about the history of the issue and his recommendation.
I recognise that under the new arrangements authorities may initiate orders themselves on the grounds that the diversion is in the public interest and that such a diversion may affect agricultural land. But in making such an order they must have due regard to the needs of agriculture in accordance with sections 29 and 121(3) of the Highways Act 1980. Landowners will, however, continue to receive personal notification of all orders affecting rights of way on their land, including those which authorities initiate because they believe them to be in the public interest.
If such orders encompass agricultural land and, in the opinion of the landowner, adversely affect the management of his holding, it would be open to him to object to the order on that basis and thus ensure that the agricultural interests are taken into consideration in the decision on the 1306 order. In this connection, the confirming authority must be satisfied that the diversion is expedient on the grounds on which the order is made. In relation to opposed orders, we take this obligation to include consideration of the grounds of the objection.
Among the considerations that authorities are required specifically to take into account in confirming orders under the provision of section 119(6) of the Highways Act is the effect that the right of way created by the order would have on the land it crosses. This embraces the effect, if any, of the path on agriculture and safeguards the interests of the farmer or landowner irrespective of whether agriculture is the reason for the order or the basis of the objection.
I accept the weight of my hon. Friend's argument that when authorities are considering these orders they must take agriculture into account, particularly if there is consideration of any adverse effect to the farming interest. I believe that what I have stated, together with the safeguards of the various sections of the Highways Act, shows that agriculture will be taken care of. In guidance given to authorities following the enactment of the legislation, the Government will bring home to the authorities their responsibility to agriculture along with the other three important points made by my hon. Friend I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend will feel that it is unnecessary to press the matter further.

§ Mr. Michael Spicer
My hon. Friend has referred to section 119 of the Highways Act. I am advised that the amendment was necessary because the Act did not cover agricultural interests. The section covers public enjoyment which therefore did not require to be incorporated in the Bill now being discussed. The point has been made. I had hoped that my hon. Friend might be able to accept the amendment. I do not, however, wish to press the matter to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.