FOOTPATHS

HC Deb 22 February 1979 vol 963 cc755-66

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

9.58 p.m.

Mr. Michael Spicer (Worcestershire, South)

Having been fortunate enough to be called first at Question Time, and now that I am winding up the proceedings of the House, I seem to be the Alpha and Omega. In fact, I seem to have been popping up and down all day, because I also caught the eye of the Chair in the debate on mental health.

I am grateful for the opportunity to raise what I believe to be a much more important problem than perhaps first meets the eye. I think that the rights, usage, routes and costs of rural footpaths are a matter of considerable significance.

There are 120,000 miles of footpaths in England and Wales. In the county of Hereford and Worcester, part of which I represent, there are 5,000 miles of footpaths, which is equivalent to the total highway network. The cost to local authorities of these footpaths, if they were fulfilling their statutory obligations, which are severe and considerable, is very high. I am told, for instance, that West Sussex spends £100,000 a year on footpaths.

Unlike the highways, this vast network of footpaths has been handed down, with very few modifications, from an age when passage across the countryside on foot and on horseback was critical to the social and economic life of the community. It is perhaps small wonder that in country areas such as my own—

It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed without Question put.

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

Mr. Spicer

I was saying that it is perhaps small wonder that in country areas such as mine the question of how to maintain those historic rights in an era very different from that in which those rights were established, and where the cost of continuing to maintain those rights has grown daily, is causing great anxiety.

To an extent, the problem can be seen as a further stage in the tension, which has existed for at least the last 200 years, between the ever-encroaching tentacles of towns and big cities such as Birmingham and the increasingly threatened countryside. In recent years, this tension has acquired several new twists. For instance, on the one hand, there has been a determination by the Government and by all parties to increase the efficiency and effectiveness with which agriculture is undertaken. The Government's recent White Paper is an example of that. On the other hand, there is an acceptance that people, especially in cities, will have a rapidly increasing requirement to fulfil their growing number of leisure hours by, for instance, rambling in the countryside.

These conflicting demands are, to my mind, perfectly illustrated by the problems surrounding the footpath network. They are problems which, unless a solution can be found, will in the future greatly aggravate what are at present latent tensions between town and country.

The footpath question easily breaks into two parts. There is first the most contentious issue, which is the question of extinguishment of some of the existing rights of way. Obviously it would be in the interests of local authorities and landowners to cut the network as much as possible. But, against this, there is the convincing argument put forward by the Ramblers' Association and other bodies that access to the countryside should be available to everyone, at least to the limit of historical rights. I believe that this argument applies even to those footpaths that are not particularly heavily used, since one of the problems with which we are faced is not only our inheritance but also what we pass on to our successors, who may well have a much greater use for the footpath network than people in this day and age.

I should like to have the Minister's confirmation that the Countryside Commission report, which I am told is to be published in May, will cover the question of extinguishment in detail. It is just possible that all parties who have an interest in this matter will be willing ultimately to accept that where there is a clear case of duplication—for instance, between some bridle paths and what used to be called "wet weather" paths running in parallel—there may be a case for some rationalisation.

However, it is on the second aspect of the problem that I believe there is a real need for concentration and real possibilities exist for compromise between the conflicting interests. It concerns the question of footpath diversion. I believe that all three parties could be persuaded that they have a common interest in making the process of diverting footpaths easier. At present the position is governed by section 111 of the Highways Act 1959, in which there are two criteria for diverting footpaths—first, the securing of a more efficient use of land, and, secondly, the provision of more commodious and shorter paths. The first helps the landowner, and the second, by and large, helps the user.

There are two problems with the Act. First, it is restricted. For instance, it does not take into account in an increasingly congested countryside the important questions of security of property and privacy. There is therefore a need for consideration of a longer list of qualifications for diversion. Secondly, the legislation provides no limit to the grounds on which an objection to diversion can be brought. In practice this is often a major deterrent to the applicant and extremely costly to public funds. A single objection to an application can result in the matter being taken out of the hands of the local authority and passed to the Minister's Department and from him back to a local inquiry. That can be a protracted and expensive process.

The procedure for protecting historic rights should be maintained. Legislation should take account more fully of contemporary conditions and problems faced by the applicant. The objector should perhaps have to consider more carefully his objections.

If the process of diverting footpaths was made easier, everyone would benefit. The landowner, and particularly the farmer who has genuine concerns about, for instance, the safety of a barn against lighted matches—at present that is not a ground for diversion—would clearly benefit. That would in turn facilitate more efficient agriculture. County and parish councils would save legal and administrative costs of putting into effect current diversion policy. The users of footpaths could also gain. Under diversion improvement they would not be losing walks but in many cases would be benefiting from routes that were more appropriate to their requirements. Perhaps even more important, it would be a saving to the local authorities in legal and administrative costs of diversion orders. That money could be used more effectively to carry out their responsibilities of clearing obstacles and generally maintaining rights of way.

In Hereford and Worcester it is difficult to get a clear picture of the total costs properly attributable to footpaths. In order to fulfil the obligations of the statute, between £85,000 and £100,000 annually would have to be spent by local councils. But because of the way the rate support grant has discriminated against country areas, they do not have the money and spend only about £5,000 on direct maintenance. They also spend about £10,000 on legal and administrative costs to maintain the policy on diversion. Although it may be an oversimplification, it is probably not far from the truth to say that if they could halve the cost of administration they could double the amount of money spent on directly maintaining footpaths.

The question of footpaths is extremely complex. It goes to the root of our social history that has been developing over hundreds of years. It is remarkable that in an island as small and as crowded as ours we have managed to preserve the countryside in such a way. It is right, and essential, that we have established a tradition whereby those who live in towns and cities and those who are not owners of land but who wish to travel across land have access to and rights in our beautiful countryside. But it is time to consider whether the current policy towards footpaths is in the best interests of all concerned.

I shall be grateful if the Minister will give the Government's reactions.

10.10 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Kenneth Marks)

I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer) for raising this matter tonight. We do not often get the opportunity to talk about subjects such as footpaths. His expression "rights, usage and costs" summed up the whole problem in a few words.

I live in and represent a metropolitan area, so I am interested in the historic rights and the needs for recreation. The matter is included in my ministerial duties, so I am aware of the desires of ramblers and those who walk short and long distance. Also, people who live in rural areas and who are not farmers are particularly interested in this matter.

I shall report on the progress that has been made over the past few years in dealing with some of the problems. There have been some new initiatives and some very welcome discussions between the National Farmers' Union, the Country Landowners' Association, ramblers and other country organisations.

During the last two years there have been two comprehensive reviews covering this wide field—the countryside review committee's discussion paper "Leisure and the Countryside" and the report of the Dartington amenity research trust, DART—to the Countryside Commission on modification of rights of way. As the committee and the Commission have not yet made their recommendations to Ministers, it would be inappropriate for me to express a firm view on some of the problems covered in these studies. It is sometimes argued that such reviews provide a ready excuse for lack of action, but I am satisfied that these two studies have been well worth while. The issues are complex, there are many conflicting views on the major problems, and detailed studies have been necessary to provide a firm basis for future action.

On the modification of the public path network, the Government set out their policy in their 1975 White Paper on sport and recreation. In paragraph 53 of that document, we said: In the Government's view there is scope for local initiatives to modify the existing network of footpaths and bridleways in order to reconcile the increasing demands for access for recreation with the needs of the farming community. The amenity interests have expressed some fears that such modification, or rationalisation as it is sometimes termed, inevitably leads to a reduction in the path mileage, but we have made it quite clear that this should not be the aim.

We sought the views of the Countryside Commission and it was agreed that an appraisal should be made of modification schemes which had already been undertaken. These had been initiated by local authorities, voluntary bodies and landowners, and some of them had been grant-aided by the Commission. It was considered necessary to assess existing schemes in order to determine the best ways of reconciling the conflicting demands of path users and agricultural interests and the most effective procedures for more extensive modification of the path system.

The Dartington amenity research trust was appointed in early 1977 to carry out this research. It studied 11 areas in detail and collected information and received views from a wide range of official and voluntary bodies and from individuals. Its comprehensive draft report was circulated for comment among the main interested organisations, and a revised report, taking these comments into account, was issued last September.

I understand that the Countryside Commission expects to make its report and recommendations, based on the DART report, by May, and we shall give the interested organisations an opportunity to comment before we reach firm conclusions on whether any legislative or administrative changes are needed to facilitate future modification schemes and on whether any other changes are necessary to rights of way procedures.

I cannot give any assurance that the question of extinguishment will be included in the Countryside Commission report. That is a matter for the Country side Commission. But I shall be very surprised if it is not included. We shall examine that report and the points raised by the hon. Member. We shall also consider the point he makes about the cost of inquiries to farmers. In fact, this whole aspect of planning inquiries is being examined.

Many organisations have already put forward their views on certain aspects of footpaths and bridleways in response to the discussion paper "Leisure and the Countryside" which was published in July 1977. The CRC sought views in particular on whether there was a need for new legislation and whether there should be any change in local authority responsibility for footpaths. Strongly opposing views were submitted on many of the issues raised. Those views are being carefully considered by the CRC and I await its conclusions. It will deal with many other aspects of the use of the countryside for leisure purposes as well as footpaths.

One type of highway that the hon. Gentleman did not mention has been the subject of a special study. In 1977 I asked the Countryside Commission and the Nature Conservancy Council to look into what are termed "green lanes" and the old hedges often associated with them. Green lanes are not a statutory category. They are ancient tracks or droveways, many of which were classified as roads used as public paths or RUPPs following the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949.

Where RUPPs have a status higher than that of footpath or bridleway, conflict has arisen from the use of these unmetalled tracks by motorists, motor cyclists, walkers and horse riders. However, if the roads used as public paths are reclassified as public paths, arising from the special reviews instituted by the Countryside Act 1968, they may become liable to be ploughed up. The Countryside Commission engaged the Dartington trust to carry out a special investigation of the problems associated with these green lanes. I understand that its first draft report has recently been received by the Commission.

There are certain other public path matters on which we have decided to proceed with legislation in the current Session. In the Countryside Bill, which received its Second Reading on 30 January, clause 11 relates to temporary diversions where it was necessary to pasture bulls in fields crossed by public rights of way. That is to be complemented by new model byelaws banning bulls in such fields except in certain circumstances.

Our package of proposals was based on the recommendations of the Advisory Council for Agriculture and Horticulture, which reported on the problem in 1975. We believed that it represented the best compromise between the amenity and the agricultural interests that was likely to be obtainable at that time. As I announced on Second Reading, the organisations representing these conflicting interests, the ramblers, farmers and landowners, have been having discussions. I hope that they will present an alternative to clause 11 which will prove acceptable.

The wardening of public paths is important to farmers. The House will recollect that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State announced on Second Reading of the Countryside Bill that it is our intention to amend clause 10 of the Bill so that the power of national park authorities and local authorities outside the parks to appoint wardens will be extended to apply to footpaths and bridleways. I think that this could be of considerable benefit to visitors to the more popular areas of the countryside and to farmers.

The DART modification study drew attention to the difficulties caused by delays in the issue of up-to-date definitive maps. The 1949 Act made provision for the review of such maps at least every five years. At that time it was envisaged that the amount of work involved in these reviews would be significantly less than that required for the first definitive map, but a written answer I gave to a question in the House in July 1978 highlighted the large number of objections which the current reviews have attracted and the very long delays which were expected before the consideration of the objections was likely to be completed. The delay is due largely to the combined effect of staffing restraints in central and local government. The hon. Gentleman mentioned some of the problems for local government, and there are the same problems nationally due to restraint on public spending.

Mr. Spicer

I want to ask the Minister a question about wardens. Is he envisaging yet extra burdens being placed on local authorities? I realise that the Government are pregnant with Commission reports to which birth has not yet been given. Does he accept that certain local authorities which have a much greater footpath problem than others are discriminated against? Will the Government intervene directly on this matter?

Mr. Marks

As I see it, the local authorities will have an opportunity to do this, but we are hoping that the Countryside Commission, with its grants from the Government, will also come in. This is already happening in the urban fringe areas where there is co-operation between local authorities and the Countryside Commission. I was talking about the considerable delay that is taking place over the definitive maps. When restraints are imposed on local government and on national Government in staffing and other matters, a subject like footpaths tends to some extent to get pushed into the background.

We have decided that changes ought to be made urgently to simply and speed up the procedures. A draft consultation paper is being sent out today to a large number of bodies setting out the problems and our proposals for dealing with them, and seeking their comments.

I should like, in the short time available, to say something about signposting and waymarking, because these matters are important to ramblers and farmers. As I travel around the countryside, it appears to me that many highway authorities have made good progress in signposting paths where they meet or cross a metalled road. The Countryside Commission wrote last year to highway authorities to ascertain the extent to which the authorities have fulfilled their obligations in this respect. The results of this survey, when it is completed, will be awaited with interest. Some progress has also been made on waymarking, which is the term used to describe the marking of routes on the paths themselves. The system recommended by the Commission uses yellow and blue arows. However, it is clear that a lot more waymarking needs to be carried out.

The Commission's poster and leaflet entitled "Waymarking of Public Paths—a practical guide" has been distrbuted to local authorities and voluntary organisations. I hope that the authorities will make greater progress on this work in conjunction with those voluntary organisations which are willing to carry out the practical work involved. I understand that the Ramblers' Association's waymarking officer, whose appointment was grant-aided by the Commission, has been fostering this co-operation and will be making recommendations soon on how progress might be made.

I should like to say something about long-distance routes. More than 2,000 kilometres of paths on 11 long-distance footpaths and bridleways are now open. Efforts are being made towards completing these routes and on opening several more, including the Wolds Way on the Yorkshire wolds and the Peddars Way and coastal path in Norfolk. Several months ago Norfolk county council engaged a field officer, again funded by the Countryside Commission, for work on the latter route.

The long-distance walker is now generally well catered for. In its policy statement "Footpaths for Recreation" issued in October 1976, the Countryside Commission recommended that there should be a change of emphasis and that higher priority should in future be given to improving opportunities for the great majority of visitors to the countryside who do not walk long distances or spend more than a day on a walk. The Commission suggested—I quote from its booklet—that there should be networks of linking routes providing walks of various lengths and circular walks ". I am sure that such paths can provide great pleasure to a large number of people and I hope that many local authorities, in conjunction with voluntary organisations, will follow the example of the organisations in Calderdale in West Yorkshire in establishing routes like the Calderdale Way. I have mentioned the severe strain on central Government resources, and the hon. Gentleman mentioned the strain on local government resources. It is difficult to justify significantly increased public expenditure on these paths, but I hope that local authorities and other organisations will make full use of the Manpower Services Commission schemes on such work as path construction and clearance of overgrown paths.

I talked to the chairman of MSC earlier this week and he said that the Commission would welcome more projects in rural areas for the youth opportunities programme. It has been proposed that MSC regional staff should discuss this and other matters with regional councils for sport and recreation where there is representation from all organisations. There is also considerable scope for the use of volunteers.

I was interested to see from the 1977 report by the British Trust for Conservation Volunteers that many of its tasks have involved construction and maintenance of footpaths and bridleways. In its policy statement "Footpaths for Recreation" the Countryside Commission refers to the increasingly important contribution which voluntary groups can make to maintaining footpaths and clearing them of obstructions and carrying out waymarking. The opportunity exists for them to have volunteer labour and to use the MSC schemes to get help towards administrative costs, even though they may be small, as well as the wages of adults and grants for young people.

In the White Paper, the Government expressed their belief that the modification of public path networks can be achieved only on the basis of co-operation between landowners, farmers, walkers, riders and local authorities. We said: Provided that it is clear from the start that the object is neither to pare down the existing network nor to enlarge it, but to adapt it in ways which, taken together, are clearly beneficial to farmer, rambler and rider, the Government are confident that such co-operation can be achieved and be effective. I have therefore been greatly encouraged by the spirit of co-operation which is developing. The public right of way advisory committee set up in 1977 by the Countryside Commission to help guide it on research and experimental work and other aspects of public rights of way matters has provided a useful forum through which the path users, farmers and landowners, and local authorities and other official bodies can express their views and seek common policy.

I trust that what I have said has demonstrated that encouraging progress is being made in dealing with some of the long-standing problems. I regret very much the delay in discussions on modification proposals, but that has been inevitable in the circumstances.

The studies to which I have referred will provide a sound basis for other changes. In closing, I should like to reiterate what my right hon. Friend the Minister of State said in the House on 30 January. If the ramblers, the recreationists and the amenity organisations can work harmoniously and constructively with farming and landowning interests, as they appear to be doing on some aspects of the Countryside Bill, some of the problems that have given rise to difficulties in the countryside may be problems of the past, and we consider that that augurs extremely well for the future.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes past Ten o'clock.