HL Deb 27 January 1959 vol 213 cc863-9

6.54 p.m.

Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.

THE EARL OF GOSFORD

My Lords, at this late hour I do not propose to detain your Lordships longer than is necessary, but a Bill as complex as this, with some 300 clauses, cannot be dismissed in two lines. The main purpose of this Bill is to consolidate highway law in England and Wales. It is not, however, a Consolidation Bill in the strict technical sense, because it does include some amendments of the law, even though they are minor ones. Therefore the procedure applicable to true Consolidation Bills is not appropriate to this one.

In consequence, the following procedure, which has been used with success in a number of previous Bills similar to that now before your Lordships, has been adopted. The Bill being technical, a draft was referred to a Committee of experts of recognised authority on the subject. This procedure was last used for the Bill which became the Customs and Excise Act, 1952, and it was also used in connection with two or three Bills before the war, commencing with the Bill which became the Local Government Act. 1933. It is hoped that, as a result of the Committee's work, the Bill will be in such a form that it will be acceptable to your Lordships without long debate.

The Committee was appointed by my right honourable friends the Minister of Housing and Local Government and the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation. I know that my right honourable friends consider themselves singularly fortunate in that not only were they able to secure the services of a number of experts in the field of highway law and administration but also that the noble Marquess, Lord Reading (who I am sorry to say cannot be with us this evening) was good enough to accept their invitation to preside over the Committee.

My right honourable friends have already recorded in another place their gratitude to the noble Marquess and to the members of the Committee for the care and skill with which, despite the many other calls upon their time, they dealt with their complex task. And I should like to add my own warmest personal thanks to the noble Marquess and his Committee. Their lucid explanations of the nature and scope of the Bill, and of the considerations which were taken into account in shaping the Bill into its final form, have been, and will be, of immeasurable value to all who have to deal with this Bill, not least to myself.

Your Lordships will no doubt share with me the reflection that the Report and the work behind it constitute another example of invaluable but unobtrusive service conscientiously rendered, which is a feature of our public life.

The Report of the Committee has been presented to Parliament and published as a White Paper (Cmnd. 630). Two things will have been at once apparent to your Lordships. The first is that the draft Bill has been subjected to a searching scrutiny by the Committee. The second is that the Committee have considered with meticulous care the many observations and suggestions put to them by the various organisations from whom they invited comments.

Before I turn to the Bill itself I might remind your Lordships that the last Act which attempted the consolidation of highway law was the Highway Act, 1835. Since that time, of course, highways have changed beyond recognition, and there have been many and far-reaching changes in the law relating to them. Moreover, the whole structure of local government has developed from the time when the parish was the unit of local government. Local authorities are now the bodies involved in responsibility for, and administration of, highways. It is not surprising that a century of growth and development in this field has left a legacy of legislation that is complex and, in some respects, archaic, obsolete and anomalous. The task of those whose job it is to administer highway law has become needlessly difficult. Shortly before World War II a start on drafting a Bill to consolidate highway law was made by a Committee under the chairmanship of the late Lord Amulree. The intervention of the war, unhappily, brought the work of the Committee to a premature end.

My Lords, this Bill seeks to reduce to intelligible and workable form a mass of legislation relating to highways, bridges and streets in England and Wales which has grown up in somewhat haphazard fashion over the years. It replaces in their entirety some thirty Acts of Parliament, and replaces as many more in part. Enactments designed to regulate traffic are not within the scope of the Bill. To have included them would have increased the size of the Bill unmanageably. As it is, it runs, as I have said, to over 300 clauses and 26 Schedules. Highway law in Scotland differs in many respects from that in England and Wales and is a separate study in itself. It might interest your Lordships to know that the earliest of the enactments repealed and reproduced in the Bill is a Statute of 1530 which makes provision in connection with the repair of bridges. Indeed, some of the earliest of what might be called highway law is to be found in Magna Charta itself.

I have already said that, although this is a Bill to consolidate the law, it does make some amendments of the law. The scope of the amendments made by the Bill is indicated by the terms of reference of the Committee, which show, I think very clearly, the limited degree of amendment which the Bill seeks to make to highway law. They were enjoined, inter alia, to consider what amendments not of substantial importance… are desirable in connection with the consolidation, either to improve the form of the law or for the removal of anomalies, inconsistencies and ambiguities, for abrogating provisions which are obsolete or otherwise unnecessary or for modernising procedure". The Committee have reported that in their opinion the draft Bill as revised by them satisfactorily achieves the consolidation of highway law—and these are the material words in this context: with such amendments only as are within our terms of reference It embodies no amendment of the law of such importance that it ought to be separately enacted.

I will mention now two or three of the most important of the amendments. It has long been a rule of Common Law that the duty to repair the highways in any area is upon the inhabitants at large of that area. The Committee were of the opinion, and I think rightly, that to perpetuate this rule in the circumstances of to-day would be absurd, and they agreed that the responsibility for repairing highways should in terms be placed upon the highway authority, who are usually the local authority. Although this unfortunately has resulted in the disappearance of the time-honoured expression "highways repairable by the inhabitants at large", I think that the expression "highways maintainable at the public expense" used in the Bill is more readily intelligible and more accurately reflects the position.

Another chance which the Bill seeks to make is the abolition of indictment as a means of enforcing the repair of highways. These changes mean that the inhabitants of a district will no longer be liable to have criminal proceedings taken against them if a road in their neighbourhood falls into disrepair. My Lords, I do not suggest that the inhabitants have ever—at any rate in recent years—regarded this possibility as a very real one. Indeed, it is for this reason that we regard the disappearance of the sanction as permissible. Nor, of course, does it mean that we may now expect the roads of the country to fall into disrepair. The law already provides means of enforcing the repair of the highways by those whose duty it is to do so, and these provisions are retained in the Bill.

A third change made by the Bill is in the general law relating to the stopping up of unnecessary highways. A simplification and modernisation of procedure has been achieved while retaining safeguards for the public rights involved. Most of the other changes effected by the Bill, though numerous and complex, are on points of even less substance than these, such as the repeal of the provision against bull baiting, windmills, and so on.

Lastly, many organisations have made this Bill the opportunity to suggest what they regard as desirable but substantial changes in the law. My right honourable friends have taken the view throughout that the Bill is not the occasion for a large scale overhaul of highway law and that the existing law must first be consolidated. A combination of the two processes in this case would be an immense task which it would not be right to ask Parliament to undertake.

I commend this Bill to your Lordships as a measure which, by seeking to restate in intelligible, unambiguous and accessible form the present law relating to highways, will be of immense practical value to those concerned with the administration of this branch of the law. In view of the fact that, as your Lordships will see from the following Motion, I propose to ask the House to agree to this Bill's being referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses, I hope that your Lordships will agree with me that there would not seem to be reason for much discussion at this stage. I beg to move this Bill be read a second time.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(The Earl of Gosford.)

7.7 p.m.

LORD SILKIN

My Lords, I will gladly accede to the last remarks of the noble Earl and not ask the House to indulge in much discussion, but I think a few words would be appropriate, if only to associate this side of the House with our gratitude to the Committee which was set up in February last year for the purpose of looking into the draft consolidation provisions. We owe a deep debt of thanks to all those who undertake unspectacular tasks of this kind; sometimes they get the thanks of the House and sometimes it is forgotten. They do a really good job. Without the help of this Committee it would have been impossible to carry out this piece of legislation. They have carried through their task with great speed: having been appointed in February, 1958, within less than a year they were able to report to Parliament. I should also like to congratulate the Government—this must not be taken as a precedent—on the speed with which they have introduced this legislation.

I fully agree with the noble Earl that the changes which have been made are of a minor character and really bring a note of realism into something which has been out of date for many years. They will make no practical difference to the law on the subject. I think that all Acts of consolidation are of immense value to the person who has to look up the law. Hitherto, as I understand it, if one wanted to ascertain any point on highway law one might have had to look up some forty different Acts of Parliament, if one could have found them, and one might have missed the very point one was looking, for. In this monumental Bill—and it must be one of the longest Bills I have ever seen, with its 311 Clauses and 26 Schedules—at least one has the whole of the law relating to highways, apart from the regulation of traffic, in one volume.

Unfortunately, the noble Earl has already given a hint that this will not endure for long, because in the view of local authorities there are a number of improvements in the highway law that are called for. No doubt we shall begin the new process of having more legislation and more measures on the subject, and possibly by the year 2035 or thereabouts we shall need another measure of consolidation. But I do not think we need spend a great deal of time in worrying about that. I hope, however, that in so far as the law requires improvement the introduction of this Bill will not impede the necessary improvement of the highway law. This Bill will no doubt go through quickly, and I hope that, so far as the local authorities feel that improvement in the law is desirable, they will, if the case is made out, get the necessary legislation.

I should like to ask the noble Earl one question about the procedure. If the Motion he is to put to the House is carried, as no doubt it will be, this Bill will go to a Joint Committee. Could he explain to the House what happens then? The Committee will no doubt make recommendations which will come back to the House. What are the rights of Members of the House in connection with the Bill? In other words, will the Committee supersede the rights of the Members themselves to introduce Amendments to the Bill if they so desire? For instance, we may conceivably want to restore this provision about inhabitants at large. What will happen then? Will there be a full opportunity for the House to discuss this Bill after we have had the benefit of the services of this Joint Corn-mince? Subject to that, we are glad to welcome this Bill, as we welcome all measures of consolidation, and we wish it a speedy passage.

7.12 p.m.

THE EARL OF GOSFORD

My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for his acceptance of this Bill and for the kind remarks he has made, not only about the Committee who sat on this Bill but also on the speed with which the Government have pushed it along. I do not think that this Bill will impede any measures for improvement if and when they appear to be necessary. I am informed that the noble Lord can rest assured that this Bill will go through all the normal stages when it has been to the Committee of both Houses: there will be a Committee stage in this House in the normal way.

On Question, Bill read 2ª.

THE EARL OF GOSFORD, My Lords, I rise to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

Moved to resolve, That it is desirable that the said Bill be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliarnent.—(The Earl of Gosford.)

On Question, Motion agreed to

Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Commons to communicate this Resolution and to desire their concurrence.