Rights of Way (Hansard, 26 March 1996)

§ 4. Mr. Clifton-Brown
To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has to simplify the procedure for diverting rights of way. [20939]

§ Mr. Clappison
Current procedures are well established and enable all parties to express their views. However, we recognise that some people wish that the procedures were simpler and more flexible. Therefore, the rural White Paper states our intention to evaluate local experience in managing the network before consulting on proposals for change.

§ Mr. Clifton-Brown
May I warmly welcome my hon. Friend's endorsement of the target that all paths should be usable by 2000? Does he agree that, if that target is to be reached in that period, paths will become increasingly more contentious, and we will therefore need a simple procedure to divert paths? May I ask his Department to re-examine its recently introduced procedure whereby a separate order is necessary for cancellation, diversion and re-creation of paths, which would make it far more difficult and expensive to divert footpaths?

§ Mr. Clappison
The Government remain committed to our ambitious rights of way target for 2000. As my hon. Friend says, in some quarters it is thought that the system is not simple enough. We have undertaken to look at local experience, particularly that of parish councils.
My hon. Friend's point about procedures is interesting and important. I understand that there is no reason why combined procedures for combined advertisements should not be adopted—but I shall look further into that.

§ Mr. Sheerman
The Minister will know what a powerful lobby the farmers and large landowners are, and how they often get rid of public rights of way. Will he bear in mind the fact that the people of this country have a right to the countryside, and that it is consistently obstructed by many farmers? Is it not about time that the hon. Gentleman did something to open up more public rights of way, not to close them down or even divert them?

§ Mr. Clappison
I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman pays no heed to our target for rights of way by 2000. We rely on farmers and landowners to play their part in 819 managing access to the countryside. The hon. Gentleman's vision of uncontrolled access would not be in the true interests of the countryside or of those who want to enjoy it constructively.

§ Sir Jim Spicer
In his initial reply my hon. Friend said that some people would like the system simplified. In my view, 99 per cent. of the people of this country would like the rights of way system simplified. It is only the other nutty 1 per cent. who force us into great expense and time wasting. Without them, we could have better rights of way and access for more people—no one in the countryside does not want that. Will my hon. Friend consider the views of the 99 per cent., not the 1 per cent?

§ Mr. Clappison
I take my hon. Friend's point. His views may well be reflected in the local experience that we are looking to.