The Bill is at its second reading and will proceed next to Committee.
The state of our highways is the subject of regular media scrutiny but seldom the subject of political scrutiny at a policy level.
Sir Christopher Chope MP, a barrister and Conservative MP for Christchurch, has introduced a Private Members’ Bill which proposes to substitute the defence of reasonableness with a requirement that a highway authority demonstrate that it took “all possible steps”.
Plainly such wording would impose a much higher hurdle for the defensibility of highway claims. The meaning of “all possible steps” would have to be clarified and developed through case law. The words used are also unusual. Where Parliament intends to impose strict liability the legislation will normally adopt the word “shall”.
However, the tone and substance of the amendment are inescapable. This is not the first occasion upon which Parliament has reacted to national highway challenges or defensibility. Many highway authorities will recall that in 2003, politicians swiftly imposed a duty through s.41(1A) of the Highways Act 1980 to deal with winter maintenance in response to the decision in Goodes v East Sussex. It remains to be seen if this particular Private Members’ Bill becomes part of an election campaign, or indeed if the Bill is successful. Many Private Members’ Bills ultimately fail.
Read the full text of the Bill.
The Bill is at its second reading and will proceed next to Committee. It is therefore critical that stakeholders make their voices heard through representative groups and that feedback is provided at Committee level in respect of the Bill.
The Weightmans Public Sector team are on hand to offer any advice and assistance required.
For more information on the defence of highway claims, contact our local government solicitors.
