Highways (Amendment) Bill (Hansard, 28 April 1986)

§ Lord Denham
My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to acquaint the House that they, having been informed of the purport of the Highways (Amendment) Bill, have consented to place their prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.

§ Lord Dean of Beswick
My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.

§ Lord Henderson of Brompton
My Lords, I should like to detain the House for only one or two minutes. I pray in aid the fact that so far the Bill's passage through both Houses of Parliament has taken only 21 minutes. Therefore I hope that one or two minutes extra may not be begrudged me.
First, I should like to join the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, in the tribute which he paid on Second Reading to Mr. Michael Cocks who is the Bill's sponsor in another place. Mr. Cocks, obviously drawing on his expertise as a Chief Whip, used his legerdemain and "magicked" the Bill through the House of Commons without a word being spoken. I wish that he would impart that secret to some of us who could well use it in other spheres!
My purpose in rising today is partly to recall the fact that this matter was first raised in this House during our debates on the Straw and Stubble Burning Bills which the noble Lord, Lord Alport, introduced in the House in two previous Sessions, but the noble Lord did not finally pursue the matter. However, the question of the danger caused to those travelling on highways by smoke from the burning of straw and stubble was raised in this House and serious attention was paid to it by the noble Lord the Deputy Leader of the House, Lord Belstead, when he was speaking as the responsible Minister answering the debate on straw and stubble burning.
I should like to quote from a letter which the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, wrote to me after the noble Lord, Lord Alport, withdrew his Bill last Session. I pursued the matter with the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, and he acknowledged my letter about the dangers of smoke from straw and stubble burning obscuring visibility on roads. He said: As you know, this is a problem which Michael Jopling and I take very seriously. It is not an entirely straightforward matter to tackle through legislation but we are discussing the scope for amending the Highways Act 1980 with Lynda Chalker, and I am hopeful that we may be able to find a practical solution which satisfies all our concerns". That letter was written on 29th March last year. It is a matter of some congratulation to the Government that they have managed to reach the happy stage when the Bill is about to pass through the second House just over a year after that letter was written. I thought it only right to thank the noble Lord and I am very glad that he is in the House to hear me do so.
46 The substantive matter which I wish to raise and of which I have given notice to the noble Viscount, is that I believe it is right that some publicity should be given between now and the next straw and stubble burning season, so that those concerned and the general public know the effect of this small but important piece of legislation.
If we look at the short title of the Bill it merely refers to the Highways (Amendment) Bill. However, if we look at the Long Title it says that it is: to amend the Highways Act 1980 so as to impose penalties in cases where a user of a highway is injured, interrupted or endangered in consequence of the lighting of a fire on the highway or elsewhere". This is a very important matter. It has led to fear and injury, and even death.
Therefore, I make no apology for asking the Minister kindly to tell the House what he has in mind in order to spread the knowledge that this legislation has been passed by Parliament. Farmers are no doubt aware of their responsibilities under the code which has been issued by the National Farmers' Union and no doubt by the by-laws issued by local authorities. But they now ought to know the important consequences for them not just of lighting straw or stubble but of any fire—that it could have the consequences embodied in the Long Title of this Bill. Equally the local authorities and the police should be made aware, and not least the general public, so that they will feel more secure when they travel on the roads during the straw and stubble burning season.

§ Lord Underhill
My Lords, I too shall not detain the House for long. There is one point to add to the useful comments of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson. As I said at Second Reading, this is a useful Bill which clarifies and deals with an omission in the present law, and I want to do nothing to impede its progress. But if one looks at the Bill one finds that the maximum penalty for lighting a fire on or over a highway, or discharging any firearm or firework within 50 feet of the centre, is on level 3, which I understand is £400.
If one looks at subsection (3), which deals with the lighting of fires on land off the highway, we find that the maximum fine there is on level 5, which I am told is £2,000. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, at Second Reading on 18th March referred to the present law, and said (at col. 955 of Hansard): the maximum penalty under that part of the Act currently stands at £400, and that really is too low given the problems that can arise". I understand that the Automobile Association wrote to the noble Earl in his position as Under-Secretary of State for Transport on 4th April raising this matter. As I believe no amendment has been passed by your Lordships, this Bill will not go back to the other place, and therefore it cannot be dealt with there. However, may I ask whether there are proposals in mind for dealing with this? It is an anomaly to have a maximum fine of £2,000 for lighting a fire off the highway and £400 on a highway. That ought to be clarified in some way or other.

§ Viscount Davidson
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Caithness is unable to be present today to represent the Government, and he has asked me to take his place. May I reply to the two noble Lords who have spoken in reverse order? The noble Lord. Lord 47 Underhill, raised the question of the disparity between maximum fines for fires started on the road and those started off the road. My noble friend has replied to the AA, in essence, that the reason for this disparity is that fires started deliberately on the roads are very few. They are generally stringently controlled and contained; for example, as part of road maintenance works or in connection with statutory undertakers' apparatus under the road.
These fires will not have the scale or frequency of fires lit away from roads. The exceptional nature of an offence caused by a fire lit away from the road and the need for an effective deterrent against careless burning, particularly straw and stubble burning, justifies the higher maximum fine, which incidentally matches the maximum fine for offences under the Home Office's straw and stubble burning by-laws.
However, I have taken note of the concern expressed by the noble Lord about this disparity. I am not entirely convinced by the arguments now put forward, which might have been discussed fully at an earlier stage, but I shall ensure that they are reviewed when next there is a general highways amendment Bill or a consolidation Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, asked me what publicity the Government intended to give to the new provisions of this Bill. I am grateful to him for having given me notice that he was going to do so. We shall issue a press notice at the appropriate time and we shall also be writing to the local authority associations to remind them that the Bill will shortly be coming into effect.
However, I suspect that the noble Lord principally had in mind the farming industry in the context of straw and stubble burning. This is an area to which we attach great importance, and special arrangements will apply. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will once again be mounting a publicity campaign in the early summer to encourage farmers to burn safely and to use alternatives wherever possible.
Road safety and the new provisions in this Bill will be a prominent feature of this year's campaign, which will be designed to ensure that the message about the Bill reaches all cereal farmers. In addition, I understand that the National Farmers' Union intends to publish a new version of its code of practice which will take full account of the Bill's provisions and will also give them suitable publicity in its journal, which goes to over 100,000 farmers.
So far as those farmers who do not belong to the National Farmers' Union are concerned they should be aware of the Bill through the Ministry of Agriculture's publicity. Although the details of this year's campaign have not yet been settled, I can say that as part of last year's campaign every cereal grower in England and Wales was sent a leaflet reminding them of the advice in the code of practice and of the alternatives to burning. In conclusion, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick for guiding this Bill through your Lordships' House, I re-emphasise the Government's support for it and I commend it to your Lordships.