HC Deb 01 February 1963 vol 670 cc1385-94

Motion made, and Question proposed,That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Peel.]

4.1 p.m.

Mr. John Parker (Dagenham)

I should like to raise the general question of the Thames towpath maintenance and then say something about a particular section of it, in Oxford. It will be within the knowledge of all Members that, as river transport by barge came into being on the Thames, horses were introduced to pull the barges, and so a towpath grew up along the whole length of the river, right up to where the Severn Canal left the river just above Lechlade.

With the disappearance of horse-drawn barge traffic, the towpath has fallen into disuse. In particular, of course, the ferries which were used to take horses across from one side of the river to the other where the towpath changed its position from one bank to the other have, in the main, disappeared. Therefore, the path as a possible route by which people could walk from one end of the Thames to the other has ceased to exist.

Since the towpath ceased to be used for the purpose of pulling barges, legal arguments have arisen as to its ownership and the responsibility for its maintenance. The Thames Conservancy has taken the line that it was entitled to give grants towards its maintenance but has no responsibility for its maintenance and, on the whole, has not the necessary money available for that purpose. Local councils have been unwilling in general to maintain the towpath as it would increase the charge on the rates. In one or two cases private owners have taken the view that the right of way was a right of way for horses but not for individuals and that they have no responsibility for maintaining the path if it happened to be washed away. In fact, if it was washed away they did not think that the ground immediately behind continued to carry a right of way over it.

Despite the decay of the towpath, there has grown up an interest among many people—ramblers particularly, but also among all people who enjoy the countryside as a whole—who thought that it would be a very good idea that the tow- path should be put into good condition for the whole 136 miles from Teddington to Cricklade, which would create a long-distance walk through very pleasant country. This is felt to be an amenity which the community should be able to afford and enjoy.

It was suggested by Lord Silkin, Mr. Silkin as he then was, when he introduced the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Bill of 1949, that this was one of the things which the National Parks Commission might be able to get carried out when it came into being. However, when the Commission was set up, It considered the proposal but turned it down in 1952, and later suggestions that it might re-examine the matter have also been turned down.

I understand that the main reasons why the Commission turned down the proposal were the considerable cost of restoring the towpath and of its maintenance after it had been restored, and particularly the difficulty of replacing the ferries which had disappeared and which presumably would have to be replaced by wooden footbridges, or by some other way of crossing the river.

Finally, there was the important argument that in the main the towpath was really a river bank and, therefore, it was the job of the Thames Conservancy and of the local authorities to maintain it and to prevent the land being washed away or drowned by flooding, and that that was not the task or responsibility of the National Parks Commission. The result has been that the whole idea has been put off to the Greek Kalends. It is accepted as being desirable to be done sometime, but not now.

As I understand the position, what has happened is that all the riparian counties, except Gloucestershire, from London upwards have submitted maps under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act. Many of these show the towpath as a right of way, but there are variations between counties on this point. I understand that all the towpaths in Berkshire are shown as a right of way, but not so in Oxfordshire; the Oxford County Council taking the view that the inclusion of the whole of the towpath might involve considerable high costs of maintenance owing to the danger of the river washing away the towpath in places.

I am told that there are fears by a number of local authorities that when the Highways Act, 1961, comes into force in August, 1964, if they have declared the towpath to be a right of way they might find themselves involved in considerable expense in its maintenance and repair.

I should like to know the Minister's views about the desirability of creating this long-distance route. Is it still his view that it should be done some time? If so, could he take steps, if necessary over a long period, to try to get it done? Will he work out a plan to achieve this purpose? Will he press local authorities to take over sections where they have not done so and to put them into a satisfactory state of repair? Will he explore the possibility of alternative routes over existing bridges which might replace ferries which have been withdrawn?

I suggest that if the matter were looked at as a whole and plans were drawn up, large sections of the towpath might be got into a satisfactory state of repair and taken over by local authorities in the reasonably near future. When that has been done, it might be possible once more to ask the National Parks Commission to look at the whole problem and to consider whether it could prepare a scheme to bring the whole of the walk into being.

I should like to turn from the general picture, which is important and would be a valuable amenity to the country as a whole, passing, as the path would, through charming parts of our countryside, to the particular position in Oxford. North of the Folly Bridge, the river really runs through a slum. It is proposed to redevelop the St. Ebb's area and as part of the redevelopment scheme possibly to provide a riverside walk, presumably to be maintained by the council when it carries out this redevelopment.

The section which I should like the Minister to look into is that between Folly Bridge and Iffley. This section of the towpath is commonly used when races take place between the different colleges at Oxford. It is also widely used as a public footpath by the citizens of the town, who enjoy walking along it, not only to see the races, but generally to appreciate the open country and surrounding fields.

This towpath was put into a state of repair in 1948 as the result of an appeal by the Oxford Preservation Trust. When that was done, the trust sought to get the city council to take over responsibility for its maintenance. This the city council refused to do on the ground that it would be a charge on the rates.

Once more, the towpath has fallen into disrepair and money is required to put it into a decent state. Once again, arguments arise about who should do it. The Oxford Preservation Trust naturally feels that having taken the initiative and got the towpath into a decent state of repair fifteen years ago, it should not again undertake responsibility of trying to raise funds to put it into a proper state of repair if, when it has done so, the city council or some other public authority will not take over the responsibility of future maintenance. It does not feel that it is part of its job to keep up a continual series of appeals for this particular purpose every time the towpath falls into disrepair. Official and timely action is needed to sort out this problem.

I would suggest that some responsibility lies on the Ministry to try to get the various interested parties together to try to get the problem sorted out not merely as a local question but as part of the general Thames-side towpath picture which I presented earlier on, because it is a section of that towpath, and all the legal arguments which apply generally about the towpath equally apply to this section. I do hope, therefore, that the Ministry will feel able to give some leadership about the particular Oxford problem and also about the long distance problem of the Thames-side towpath as a whole, for the towpath would be a very valuable amenity for everyone.

4.11 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. F. V. Corfield)

The subject the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) has raised, when one comes to look into it, appears as one of rather greater complexity than it looks at first sight, and to almost every general proposition which one wants to make one finds there is a qualification. It is, therefore, perhaps rather difficult to guarantee to be completely accurate in a limited time. So in case I should run beyond time I think I should revert immediately to the specific questions which the hon. Gentleman has put to me.

I think from what he says that he understands the background of the various bodies which are involved, with their powers, liabilities, permissive powers and obligations. So far as the long-distance route is concerned, as I think he appreciates, the initiative lies with the National Parks Commission, and we take the view that that is where it is rightly placed and that is where it should operate. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman also is aware that the finance for any project of this sort would come to my right hon. Friend for approval but, having been approved, it would come entirely from the Exchequer, whereas with the other methods which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, various county councils' powers and so on, the expense falls upon the rates.

Apart from my right hon. Friend's jurisdiction with regard to this approval, he has no powers whatever to initiate action. In other words, he has negative powers and can say "No"—I am not in any way going to anticipate his decision should this come before him—he has no powers to say to the National Parks Commission. "You will reconsider this" or, "You will make this designation" or whatever it may be. As for the default powers, they are powers which arise after that decision has been made and the approval given, to ensure that other bodies, generally local authorities, carry out the results of the Commission's decision.

I think it is right that, having set up the Commission, we should leave the decision, at any rate to make the initiative, with the Commission, and that we should not be looking over its shoulder and doing its job for it. I think that on the whole it does its job adequately and with enthusiasm.

With regard to the particular stretch of the Thames at Oxford to which the hon. Gentleman referred, here we come to another set of powers, so to speak, namely, the responsibilities of local authorities, because I do not think this is by itself a long enough stretch to come within the National Parks Commission's sphere as a long distance route. Here the difficulty really arises as to whether the local authorities are prepared to take steps to establish that there is a public right of way here, and, having done so, to take over the responsibility for its maintenance.

I would put this to the hon. Gentleman, that here I think is a particular case which is essentially local in character. Whereas it can be argued that the path throughout the length of the Thames is of national concern, I should have thought that this stretch was of particular value, not exclusive to the citizens of Oxford but much more exclusively than to the nation as a whole. I would put it to the hon. Member that this is an almost classic example of a case where the local inhabitants should bring pressure to bear on their representatives on the Oxford City Council. County boroughs are not in quite the same position as county councils with regard to the prolonged procedure of producing definitive and provisional maps and so on, but they have powers to do this, although they are not obliged to do it as county councils are.

They have powers both to prepare a survey and to make the various orders under the Highways Act. One of these orders enables them to create public paths where there have not been any, or where a path has collapsed into the river. That order comes before my right hon. Friend for confirmation. This therefore seems to be a matter basically of local interest and one on which those who are representatives of local interests have powers to do what the hon. Member wants. It is true that having established the public right of way they have to accept the obligation and the cost of maintaining it, but I would not have thought that if a path is maintained consistently over a period of years and not allowed in the meantime to get into a bad state that the cost would be excessive.

On the more general aspects of the case, I am sure that the hon. Member appreciates that a towpath as such is not necessarily a public right of way. Perhaps this is at the bottom of our difficulties—that because of that there is no general liability for maintenance. Where there is a public footpath the local highway authority is responsible for this mainten- ance up to, broadly speaking, its standard when it was first taken over as a public right of way.

The length of river, which I think the hon. Member mentioned, between Teddington and Cricklade is about 136 miles. I understand that there are public footpaths over about two-thirds or about 96 miles of that distance, although they do not by any means always follow the towpath. Perhaps this is relevant to the hon. Member's remarks on ferries, because they are sometimes on the opposite side of the river to the towpaths. It does not follow that the ferries would be in exactly the same place as they used to be for taking horses across, or that it would be desirable or necessary to link up these towpaths.

The public right of way is not continuous and there is the further complication that the navigation authority, which is the Thames Conservancy, owns only a limited length, of about 18½ miles. The remaining length of towpaths is used by it under licences, some of which are of very ancient origin. Their exact terms would be as difficult to trace as the common rights with which we get tied up in other connections.

Again, there is the difficulty that although it is clear that if there is a public footpath the local highway authority has the obligation to maintain, it is not by any means clear what its obligation is to prevent it slipping into the river. At one end of the scale, if the path collapses into the river I understand the right of way itself is lost, and, therefore, to repair that one would have, in effect, to go through this procedure, in the absence of agreement, of creating another footpath under a footpath Order or by agreement.

At the other end of the scale is the very slight long-term erosion, and I think that broadly, probably, there is an obligation for that type of maintenance. These problems are very largely the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport. I am advised that the law is very complex and that each case has to be judged on its merits and that one is unwise to make very broad, general and sweeping statements.

Mr. Parker

Surely the Thames Conservancy, as a river authority, has some responsibility for maintaining the banks and, therefore, one should not imagine that the whole of the responsibility rests on the National Parks Commission.

Mr. Corfield

As I understand it, the Thames Conservancy comes into this more under its hat as a navigation authority than as anything else. I think that in so far as erosion affects navigation rights or facilities the Conservancy would readily accept responsibility. Indeed, it readily accepts the desirability of what the hon. Gentleman wants, and I think it would be delighted to see the long-distance route, but it maintains that this is a land-based amenity. It has no funds to undertake works except in so far as they are essential to navigation, and, therefore, it cannot undertake this work without an arrangement with local authorities to meet the costs.

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Surrey and Middlesex County Councils have recently reached an agreement, and this work will be carried out by the Thames Conservancy. The Conservancy makes a substantial contribution in kind in that it does all the technical supervision, the plans and so on, and that is helpful.

I could perhaps usefully take this opportunity of saying how important it is in the light of experience that local authorities should not delay too long. The experience of Surrey and Middlesex shows that had this agreement been reached 10 years ago the cost would have been very substantially less, not merely because the value of money has altered in the meantime, but because the effect of erosion has made necessary much more extensive works than would have been needed in the past; if those had once been undertaken, the maintenance would have been a relatively minor liability.

I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware of the problems of the county councils in arranging their surveys and in producing the three sets of maps, and of the rights for objection and the final rights of anyone who contends that a path on his land is not a public right of way to go before the magistrates. But I do not think that in this area, so far as I know, any great questions of that sort arise.

The main problem is the financial one in that probably most local authorities would be willing to do the work if somebody else paid for it. But I feel—I hope the hon. Gentleman will accept this—that this is to a very large extent a local matter, particularly on the stretch he mentioned. I hope he will not wish to press us to alter our, I think, satisfactory relationship with the National Parks Commission, in which it is left to run its own show and we come in only when it is a question of approving capital expenditure. If the Commission should revise its earlier decision, we will then, of course, look at the matter on its merits, and although I cannot anticipate the decision, I certainly do not anticipate our immediately turning it down and saying "No". Equally I cannot anticipate that we should immediately throw our hats in the air and say, "Yes." But there is no antagonism to this in my Department and certainly not on the part either of my right hon. Friend or myself.

I hope that I have made our position clear and have demonstrated that we are not unsympathetic but that bodies exist which can carry out these functions despite their complexity. We do not think it unreasonable that the cost should fall on the county councils, should they consider it desirable to make public footpaths in these places—particularly when one looks at the cost in relation to their resources. These particular county councils are not the poorest in England. It is not as though we were dealing with some of the more sparsely populated Welsh counties. That being so, it is right to leave the responsibility and the initiative either to local authorities or to the National Parks Commission.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes past Four o'clock.