HC Deb 14 June 2000 vol 351 cc1013-6
Dr. David Clark

I beg to move amendment No. 71, in page 33, line 15, at end insert— '(5) It shall be the duty of the local highway authority to monitor from time to time the compliance with any order made under subsection (1) above, and to bring proceedings under subsection (4) if the obstruction is not removed within the time specified in the order.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government new clause 24—Overhanging vegetation obstructing horse-riders.

Dr. Clark

Clause 55 is a welcome addition to the armoury of those fighting for footpaths and for footpath freedom. It will enable the magistrates courts, on conviction of a person for wilful obstruction of a highway, to order that person to remove the obstruction. That may be in addition to, or instead of, a fine. The key point is that failure to comply with the decision of a magistrates court is an offence punishable by a fine of up to £5,000.

That may seem strange. However, many people have experienced great frustration, after taking time and trouble and raising money to fight a footpath blockage case, on finding that, even though their case was verified and justified in the magistrates court, they were unable to have the blockage removed.

The classic example is the infamous van Hoogstraten case, when the magistrate ordered that there was an obstruction and that it should be removed. The company was fined £800 on each of two separate charges and the Ramblers Association was awarded costs of £3,500. Even after all that, the footpath remained obstructed, because the magistrates court does not have responsibility for clearing the obstruction—that is the responsibility of the highways authority. Clause 55 puts the matter right. We very much welcome it.

Amendment No. 71 is modest. It would put a duty on the relevant highways authority to monitor compliance. We are concerned that, although the magistrates court may assume responsibility for insisting on the clearance of a blockage, it will not be able to monitor compliance. That will remain with the highways authority; it would not be an onerous burden and would be of great assistance to the magistrates court. That would ensure that obstructions along the Queen's highway were actually cleared.

In that spirit, we move the amendment. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment will look on it favourably. We welcome the provisions included in the clause; this small, fine-tuning amendment will ensure that obstructions do not remain undetected and uncorrected in future.

I commend the amendment to the House.

Mr. James Gray (North Wiltshire)

Many hon. Members are asked a question that is impossible to answer without sounding pompous or slightly self-righteous. It is: "Why have you become a Member of Parliament?" When one sits on the Opposition Back Benches, listening to thousands of words that seem to have no particular purpose, one sometimes comes to the conclusion that one agrees with the questioner that there may be no purpose in it. However, occasionally, one's confidence in the world is reasserted, when, for example, one tables in Committee an amendment that was proposed by the British Horse Society and one finds on Report that one's name has been removed from the amendment and replaced with that of the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions. That reassures one that one is doing something slightly useful.

The next time I am in Wiltshire, relaxing after a tough week in this place, riding down a bridleway whose overhanging branches have been lopped back, or on my way to the opening meet, next season, of my local hunt—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—I shall be glad that I took the trouble to propose the amendment. I am glad that the Minister for the Environment has turned up today to accept it.

Mr. Mullin

I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) for his comments on clause 55.

Amendment No. 71 repeats one tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper) in Committee. The amendment would require a local highways authority to police any orders made by magistrates courts under the new section 137ZA of the Highways Act 1980 and to prosecute any breach of an order. Although I agree with my hon. Friend on the importance of ensuring compliance with orders of the court, I stated in Committee that there are several reasons why we cannot agree to his amendment.

First, not all prosecutions under section 137 of the Highways Act will be brought by a local highways authority. Members of the public may bring prosecutions and so may the Crown Prosecution Service. It is not clear how, in practice, a local highways authority could monitor all such orders.

More fundamentally, it is not appropriate that a local highways authority should always be obliged to prosecute the offence of breaching an order. Section 222 of the Local Government Act 1972 provides a discretion to local authorities to prosecute where they consider it appropriate in the interests of the inhabitants of their area. We see no reason to remove that discretion in the particular case of highway obstructions.

Moreover, in exercising their discretion to prosecute, local highways authorities, like any other local authority, should have regard to the CPS code of practice. That advises that the decision to prosecute an individual is a serious step, and that fair and effective prosecution is essential to law and order. Each case is unique and must be considered on its own merits.

Mr. Gordon Prentice

The van Hoogstraten business still worries me. He is also known as Adolf von Hess, I believe. He was fined £1,500 by the magistrates court. The Ramblers Association was awarded £3,500. The man is a multimillionaire. What happens if he refuses point blank to remove the obstruction? He seems determined not to do so.

Mr. Mullin

As a result of the Bill, there will be powers to require the removal of the obstruction. I hope that my hon. Friend will join me in celebrating that fact.

Before a prosecution is taken, it must be decided whether there is sufficient evidence to prosecute and whether it is in the public interest to do so. If the amendment were passed, those factors would not be taken into account.

7.30 pm

Therefore, although I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields on the importance of effective enforcement, I do not believe that we can approach it in the way that his amendment proposes. I believe that, in practice, a local highway authority that has spent time and money on bringing a successful prosecution will keep an eye on what happens afterwards—and I am sure that, if it does not, others will tell it what is happening. Authorities will then have to decide whether, if an order has not been complied with, there is a case for further prosecution. I hope that, in the light of these remarks, my right hon. Friend will not press his amendment.

New clause 24 arises, as the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) modestly suggested, from an amendment that he tabled in Committee. It would modify section 154(1) of the Highways Act 1980 so that a highway authority may, under that section, require the removal of vegetation overhanging a bridleway up to a height convenient to horse riders. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take some satisfaction from having made a small footprint on the sands of time.

Dr. David Clark

I listen to my hon. Friend with some disappointment, although I know his good intent. The point of the amendment was not only to restrict the monitoring of cases that had been brought by the local authority, but to monitor those cases that had been brought under a private prosecution, and which had been upheld in the magistrates court. Therefore I am disappointed by what my hon. Friend has said, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Forward to