FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH AGREEMENT (Hansard, 13 June 2000)

§ Mr. Meacher
I beg to move amendment No. 173, in page 19, line 31, at end insert— '(3A) A notice under subsection (3) must contain particulars of the right of appeal conferred by section 36.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 179, 181 and 183.

§ Mr. Meacher
In Committee, the Government undertook to return to the House with amendments such as these. Amendments Nos. 173 and 181 will require that an access authority should, in serving a notice of intention to erect or maintain a means of access where it has not been possible to reach an agreement with the owner or occupier, include on the notice information about the right of appeal. Similar legislation such as that covering notices under planning law includes such provision, and the amendments will bring the Bill into line with that legislation.
Amendment No. 179 aims to clarify the procedure with which access authorities should comply before serving a notice of intention to carry out works on a means of access under clause 35. We intend that, before serving such a notice, the authority should have made efforts to enter into an agreement with the owner or occupier of the land to carry out similar works. The amendment provides that the access authority may serve such a notice if it is satisfied that it is unable to conclude the agreement on reasonable terms. We had quite a significant discussion about that in Committee.
The amendment enables access authorities to prevent negotiations from dragging on indefinitely by determining that they are unable to conclude the agreement on reasonable terms. They will then be able to serve notice of intention to carry out works. The cost of such works will fall entirely on the access authority. The owner or occupier has a right of appeal against the works on grounds that the works are not necessary, that the means of access should be provided elsewhere, or that the works have already been carried out.
Chapter III includes adequate provision for appeal against any notice served, but it is important that authorities are not prevented from taking action to secure means of access to access land by becoming locked in endless fruitless negotiations to secure an agreement. Where they are satisfied that they cannot reach an agreement on reasonable terms, they should be able to move on and to serve notice where needed.
Amendment No. 183 relates to the criteria that must be met for an access authority to be able to seek a magistrates order to remove an obstruction of a means of access. Broadly speaking, the criteria are that the authority must in the past three years have served at least two notices—under clauses 34 or 35—relating to that means of access. That is qualified by the requirement that the notices should not have any appeal pending in respect of them, or have been cancelled on appeal. The amendment adds the requirement that the period of notice given for compliance with both notices must have expired.
We gave a commitment to consider an amendment along those lines in Committee. Although we think it unlikely that an access authority could obtain a 897 magistrates order before the notice period had expired, we agree that such an occurrence would be undesirable. That is what lies behind the amendment. I hope that the House will agree that the clause should be amended accordingly.

§ Mr. Green
I thank the Minister for the concessions inherent in the group of amendments. As he said, we had a long, detailed and sporadically passionate debate in Committee about whether being reasonable meant appearing reasonable to the access authority itself, or being reasonable in some wider and more objective sense. I am happy to say that the formulation that the Government have come up with is much better and fairer than that in the original draft of the Bill.
I am also glad that the Minister has taken on board the points that we made about the appeal and enforcement processes. I also welcome his confirmation that the access authority will be responsible for the works carried out, if necessary, under that particular process. The amendments significantly improve on the original draft of the Bill and we are happy to support them.