HC Deb 14 June 2000 vol 351 cc945-54 3.42 pm
Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome)

I beg to move amendment No. 33, in page 24, line 41, after "path", insert— 'and every way which was shown in any definitive map and statement as a road used as a public path under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 and which was subsequently reclassified under Schedule 3 to the Countryside Act 1968 or section 54 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 as a bridleway, and every way which is shown on any definitive map and statement as a carriage road footpath or CRF, or as a carriage road bridleway or CRB,'.

Madam Speaker

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 34, in page 24, line 42, leave out— 'expression "road used as a public path"' and insert— 'expressions "road used as a public path", "carriage road footpath", "CRF", "carriage road bridleway" and "CRB"'. Government amendments Nos. 291 to 296.

Government new clause 25—Extinguishment of unrecorded rights of way.

Government new clause 26—Excepted highways or rights of way.

Government new clause 27—Bridleway rights over ways shown as bridleways.

Government new clause 28—Cut-off date for extinguishment etc.

New clause 13—Definition of legally relevant objection— '.—In paragraph 13(2) of Schedule 15 to the 1981 Act, after the definition of "council offices" there is inserted— duly made' means an objection or a representation which—

  1. (a) is made within the time and in the manner prescribed in the notice that was published by the authority on making the order in accordance with paragraph 3 to Schedule 15; and
  2. (b) states the grounds on which it is made, being a matter which is capable of affecting the decision whether or not to confirm the order".'.

Mr. Heath

One of the great disappointments of the Bill for a particular group of people who wish to have access to the countryside is its inability to meet the demands of recreational riders. There was considerable expectation, before the Bill's publication, that it would contain moves substantially to extend the number of routes that are available for recreational and carriage riding. However, that has not been the case. The new status of restricted byway is a welcome change, but it does not extend the amount of path available for riding or carriage riding.

Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 re-examine the position of the roads used as public paths—RUPPS—which have been reclassified as a result of the Countryside Act 1968 to become bridleways or footpaths. The reason for that reclassification was the inability or lack of desire to prove that there was vehicular use of those roads. When there was no variation between the rights of a horse-driven carriage or cart and of a motorised vehicle, there was every reason not to pursue that course of action.

As the restricted byway is now an available road category, there is every reason to consider whether there have been cases of incorrect classification or whether roads currently classified as bridleways or footpaths could easily take horse-drawn carriages. That would mean a substantial increase in the number of roadways that could be used for such a purpose. That form of recreation is growing; it is one that the House should support.

The proposal would also help to correct the anomalies in the categorisation of CRFs—carriage road footpaths—and CRBs—carriage road bridlepaths. I am informed, in a helpful letter front the Minister for the Environment, that such phrases should not be used because they have no legal significance. That may be so, but they appear on many definitive maps; they are in common usage. One effect of my proposals would be to remove anomalies and to ensure that we have a proper classification. That seems sensible.

If the Government are minded to take action on that matter, they would receive the thanks of the many people who want an extension of the bridleway system to take account of carriage driving—the disabled, for example, for whom carriage driving is often an effective means of access to the countryside and who are making increased use of it. Furthermore, such action would resolve many anomalies and difficulties in respect of a definitive map.

A bizarre feature of the measure is that those authorities that have not reclassified or which are tardy in doing so will still have RUPPs on their books that have not been downgraded, and those RUPPs will become restricted byways. Only authorities that have addressed these matters expeditiously will experience difficulty. That too seems anomalous. The people who have been most active will pay a penalty in respect of the road network in their area. I therefore commend the amendments to the House.

New clause 13 deals with the definition of legally relevant objections. The Minister will remember our discussions of that matter in Committee. The more I consider the arguments on that matter, the more I become convinced that our proposal offers a win-win solution to many of the problems of the current objection process. It would get rid of objections, which, even though they are well meant and sincerely made, are based on grounds that cannot be considered by the authority or by the Secretary of State. It is in no one's interest to pursue objections—clogging up an already congested system—that have no chance of success because of the way in which the legislation is framed.

Since I tabled an amendment on the matter in Committee, I have received communications from the Local Government Association—of which I suspect I am a vice-president, so I should declare an interest—

Mr. Dafydd Wigley (Caernarfon)

The hon. Gentleman should be able to remember.

Mr. Heath

The right hon. Gentleman is correct: I should be able to remember. However, the role is only an honorary one. I am pleased that the LGA supports the aims of the new clause. It states: The legal burdens on local authorities in relation to rights of way orders and maps are considerable and complex. Proposals, such as this, to reduce unnecessary burdens are to he welcomed. That is obviously true.

I have also received support from associations representing rights of way officers, who have told me that the provision offers a clear and simple mechanism through which many of the burdens could be removed—resulting in a much more satisfactory position.

I commend new clause 13 to the House. I hope that the Minister will respond positively and accept that we need to take action to speed up the process to everyone's satisfaction.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett (Denton and Reddish)

I oppose Government new clauses 25 and 26. This is a very disappointing bit of the Bill. It is a very poor piece of legislation that provides that the historic records should be closed off after 25 years. I can understand its attractions for Ministers, down there on the Front Bench, in that it is most unlikely that they will have to answer for it to the House in 25 years' time.

Mr. Terry Rooney (Bradford, North)

Do not bet on it.

Mr. Bennett

I was just about to say that the Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes), who likes his job so much, may hope that he will still be there as a Government Whip; but I believe that for the other Ministers there will be no accountability to the House on this matter. It is a fudge, and a very unsatisfactory fudge.

Landowners have brought pressure to bear to close off the historic records much sooner, and the ramblers have objected that until this situation has been sorted out, the closing off of records should not even be considered. The clause should contain a way forward. perhaps Ministers will explain the way forward. We should complete this task, which has been under way for more than 51 years—since the 1949 legislation—and has not been satisfactorily completed. We should not be setting a deadline 25 years away; we should be getting to grips with the problem now.

According to information that I have, at the present rate of progress Suffolk might complete the process in about another 200 years. The picture seems to be very similar for other counties—such as Lancashire or Lincolnshire, which expect to take nearly as long. It is totally unsatisfactory. It would be far better for the Government to make a clear commitment to ensuring that the resources will be there to allow the matter to be dealt with. If the Government were proposing in the legislation that the resources would be there, we would not need this very unsatisfactory fudge.

The fudge is unsatisfactory in that it gives voluntary groups no incentive to get a move on and ensure that all their claims are in, and gives county council surveyors no incentive to ensure that footpath measures are given real priority. We need the resources to complete the task and to get a move on.

I have a question for the Minister. As I understand it, at the end of 25 years, public rights of way would not be claimed in this way. However, a very large number of rights are conferred on specific groups of people by private Bills that pass through this House. As I understand it, Government new clauses 25 and 26 do not deal with individual rights conferred by private legislation—mainly enclosure Acts—which did not confer a public right of access but conferred a right on the commoners or the people who lived within a particular village at the time. Instead of solving the problem, we shall simply deny the public the right to make claims, but the right of particular groups of individuals specified by some of this historic legislation will run on, so landowners will not have the certainty that they desire.

I hope that, at this stage, the Government will consider whether it would be better to drop new clauses 25 and 26, and that if they cannot do so now, they will come up with a better solution in the House of Lords. A better solution would be to ensure that the resources are available to make it possible for the claims to be sorted out quickly.

Mr. Wigley

I shall come to the comments of the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) shortly, but first, I wish to express my support for the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath). The issues that have been raised would ring a bell in most rural areas where there has been an immense tangle and problem with regard to footpaths, bridleways and roads. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish touched on an important point when he referred to resources. Many local authorities, including my own, have immense burdens placed on them when they try to deal with these issues, but they do not have adequate resources to do that. Fundamental reviews will be necessary in some areas, so I hope that the resources will be available to carry them out.

The pattern of footpaths that we have inherited does not follow any rhyme or reason. Many of the footpaths that developed in the last century followed the route that the postman took from farm to farm. There is no great logic in keeping footpaths that have no merit, but there is every logic in protecting and developing those that play a significant role in allowing people access to the countryside. We should do that in a way that is consistent with the interests of agriculture.

Equally, some bridleways exist only because the horse was the mode of transport used. By now, many of those bridleways are less relevant, but we should consider how we organise the bridleways that are used by people who ride horses for recreational reasons. Organising them may not follow the same logic as was used for the bridleways that have existed historically. A root-and-branch review is necessary and I shall be interested to hear how the Minister presents the Government new clauses and describes the relevance that they will have to such developments.

The one thing that the Government must take on board—I am assured that they will—is the wish of local communities as regards footpaths, bridleways and roads with a lower classification. The views of community councils in Wales and of parish councils in England should be central. They understand the real needs of their areas and understand which historical provisions may no longer be required. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us what help will be given to local authorities so that they can deal with the issue in a consistent and thorough manner—and can do so without taking too long.

The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher)

Before I turn to this important set of Government amendments, I shall deal with the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath). I have much sympathy for his aim of extending the ways used by horse-drawn carriages. I appreciate their social value to the disabled and to the other groups that he mentioned.

I must resist amendments No. 33 and 34 not because we have a different purpose, but because there is a difference between us on how to reach our aim. The amendments do not accord with the policy objectives that we have set out in clauses 43 and 44. It is not our intention to overturn the outcome of individual reclassifications that have been completed. Rights of way that have been reclassified as a result of reviews carried out under section 54 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, or before that, under schedule 3 to the Countryside Act 1968, have already been considered on a case-by-case basis. As part of those reviews, evidence as to the status of each way would have been taken into account. That may have involved the detailed examination of evidence at a public inquiry.

Moreover, the amendments would require that any right of way shown on a definitive map which happened to be marked with the annotation CRF or CRB—for hon. Members who are unfamiliar with the terms, I must explain that they stand for carriage road footpath and carriage road bridleway—would be treated as a restricted byway irrespective of whether it had previously been a RUPP, which stands for a road used as a public path. As the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome realises, the terms CRF and CRB have no legal significance. We do not intend, through the Bill, to revisit past decisions. The objective is to provide greater clarity over the rights that exist over those remaining RUPPs and to remove the burden of individual reclassification of all RUPPs from local highway authorities. On that basis, I hope that the hon Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

The hon. Gentleman also tabled new clause 13, which, as he said, gives a definition of the term "duly made" in relation to objections or representations about definitive map modification orders. Certainly, there have been a great many problems associated with those in the past. The new clause's primary purpose is to ensure that when there are irrelevant objections to an order, a surveying authority can go ahead and confirm the order—in other words, treat it as an unopposed order.

4 pm

As I said in Committee, I have a lot of sympathy with that objective. However, since Committee stage we have found that the matter is not as straightforward as it may appear. I am afraid that we need a little more time before deciding whether to introduce proposals. However, I remain sympathetic to the new clause. If, having taken account of all the detailed considerations, we can overcome the difficulties, we shall introduce proposals. The hon. Gentleman may not find that satisfactory, but it is all that I can offer now. I hope that he will trust my bona fides and be prepared not to press the new clause.

I shall move on to Government amendment No. 291, a technical amendment that is necessary to ensure that commencement orders can be made under clause 71 to safeguard the effect of orders reclassifying RUPPS. Government amendment No. 294 arises from an amendment tabled in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), and places an obligation on surveying authorities to keep an up-to-date record of applications for orders modifying the legal record of rights of way that local authorities are required to maintain—in other words, the definitive map and statement. We have accepted that idea from my hon. Friend.

Government amendment No. 296 arises from another amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle, and will make existing footpaths, bridleways and BOATs publicly maintainable. The term BOATs does not mean what one might think, and for hon. Members who are not familiar with it, I shall explain that it stands for byways open to all traffic. BOATs were reclassified from RUPPs, which are roads used as public paths; that is the last acronym that I need to explain before proceeding in this complicated area. BOATs did not become publicly maintainable under the Countryside Act 1968 because the special review under which they were reclassified was abandoned. The amendment is line with the intentions of the 1968 Act and the Bill's provisions for restricted byways.

Government new clauses 25 to 28, amendment No. 295 and consequential amendments Nos. 292 and 293 fulfil the commitment that I gave on Second Reading to introduce proposals to encourage completion of the historic record of rights of way within 25 years, at which my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) expressed displeasure. Together with the requirements in clauses 51 and 52 for local authorities to prepare rights of way improvement plans, the new clauses are a key part of our drive to secure a more complete and up-to-date network of rights of way throughout England and Wales.

Despite progress over the last few years, few definitive maps on which local authorities are required to record rights of way are genuinely definitive. It is important to set a target date for recording historic rights of way, the provenance of which may go back hundreds of years and the existence of which may not always be known to the owner of the land that they cross, or to the public who could want to use them. The current system absorbs significant resources, and after 50 years, as my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish said, it has still not provided—indeed, it is still some way from providing—a comprehensive network for all.

My hon. Friend argued that at the current rate of progress, it might take some 200 years to complete the process, but the whole point is that the reason why there has been so little progress until now is that there has been no concentration of minds on this objective and—I agree that this is a very important point—little or no resources have been put behind it. We intend to address both those points.

In our consultation paper we proposed a 10-year period for recording historic rights of way. Many respondents argued that that was not long enough, and on further reflection I agree. We have therefore extended the period to 25 years, with provision for conditional extensions beyond that. There are also further safeguards to ensure that important rights of way are not lost. I shall briefly explain, because this is important and the House needs to have a clear statement about what is intended.

The new clauses apply to rights of way created before 1 January 1949, the date of the legislation that first introduced definitive maps. That is broadly in line with the proposal in our consultation paper. The main elements of the provisions are as follows. Local authorities' duties to record all pre-1949 footpaths, bridleways, restricted byways and byways open to all traffic will continue until 1 January 2026.

After the deadline has been reached, any footpath or bridleway created before 1949 which is not recorded on a definitive map and for which no claim has been submitted will, with certain exceptions, be extinguished. The exceptions are set out in new clause 26. They include savings for the effect of a diversion order or other legal event that occurred after 1 January 1949 and as much of the original footpath or bridleway as necessary to connect it with another highway. There are also savings for any pre-1949 footpath or bridleway which passes over a bridge or through a tunnel and for footpaths and bridleways at the side of carriageways. There are regulation-making powers to exempt other footpaths and bridleways—for example, those that provide access to premises.

After the deadline, any unclaimed higher rights created before 1949 over footpaths, bridleways and restricted byways already shown on the map will also be extinguished. We do not see a need for as many exemptions in those cases, but we cannot rule out the possibility that, for example, evidence of likely hardship might arise as the deadline gets nearer. We believe it prudent, therefore, to have a regulation-making power to exempt rights of way of particular descriptions from extinguishment.

Mr. Damian Green (Ashford)

Before the Minister moves on to completely new footpaths, does he have any idea of the likely number of footpaths or bridleways that would be covered by the exceptions in new clause 26? Are we talking about a very rare phenomenon, or might many hundreds of footpaths need to be exempted from the extinguishment?

Mr. Meacher

That is a fair question, but I cannot answer it. I will ensure that those who can, give me the information, and as soon as I have it I will repeat it to the hon. Gentleman. I do not think that the number is large, but I will confirm that.

Completely new footpaths and bridleways created after 1 January 1949, either by use or by a legal event such as a creation order, would continue to be eligible for recording. There is no deadline for submitting claims for those. A footpath that is wrongly shown on a definitive map as a bridleway at the beginning of the 25 years and is still shown as a bridleway on the cut-off date will have bridleway rights created over it. There are savings for applications to have the way shown as a footpath so long as they are made before the cut-off date.

The Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales will have power to make regulations extending the deadline for a maximum of five years for any local authority area in which definitive maps have been made since the 1949 Act. Some areas were excluded from the requirements of the 1949 Act and therefore have had less time to record historic rights of way. In many cases, the duty to prepare maps for those areas was first imposed by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. The areas concerned include the Isles of Scilly and the former county borough areas. In addition, county councils were able to exclude built-up areas from their maps. The five-year upper limit on extending the deadline does not apply in any of those areas.

Where a highway crosses the boundary between two areas with different cut-off dates, the later date will apply. The provisions do not apply in the 12 inner-London boroughs, which have never been required to prepare definitive maps. The cut-off date will not apply to any highway that crosses the boundary into inner London. I apologise for the complication and detail, but I thought that the House needed a clear statement of intention.

Vehicular rights of way are treated differently from footpaths and bridleways. Restricted byways will not be caught by the deadline because initially all restricted byways will be created from ways already shown on a definitive map. Byways open to all traffic are a little more problematic. Subject to any statutory exceptions, any pre-1949 vehicular rights over a footpath or bridleway shown on the map will be extinguished if not claimed by the deadline. However, extinguishing any hitherto undiscovered BOAT that is not shown on a definitive map in any form is, obviously, more difficult. A BOAT is a full carriageway. Solely for the purposes of being recorded on definitive maps, a BOAT is expressly defined by reference to the degree to which it is used by walkers or horse riders, as well as the rights over it.

Without such a condition, all unclassified roads would have to be researched and recorded on definitive maps, whereas only highways that meet the definition of a BOAT are recordable. There are more than 160,000 miles of such highways in England alone—many more than the 10,000 or so miles of unclassified roads or "green lanes" that people normally think of in terms of vehicular rights of way. We have thought long and hard about the matter but cannot find a satisfactory way of clearly distinguishing BOATs from the many thousands of miles of minor routes that are important to local traffic but were never intended to be recorded on definitive maps. The most pragmatic solution is simply to stop recording previously undiscovered BOATs that have not been claimed before the deadline.

As a category of right of way, BOATs were developed from roads used as public paths—an invention of the 1949 Act primarily aimed at recording ways that were useful to walkers and horse riders. Remaining RUPPs will have restricted byway rights under clauses 43 and 44. We see no case for continuing to record BOATs after the deadline, except for any arising from the creation of vehicular rights after 1949 over any footpath, bridleway or restricted byway that is shown on a definitive map on the cut-off date. I hope that that is totally clear to every hon. Member. I am sure that you did not mean to shake your head, Madam Speaker.

The main objective is to secure completion of as much of the historic record of rights of way as is reasonably possible. We shall use the regulation-making power in clause 59 to require regular progress reports from local authorities, and we envisage a monitoring role for the Countryside Agency and the Countryside Council for Wales.

4.15 pm

I now come to the key point—resources—which was mentioned with such conviction by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish. We are committed to providing local authorities with the additional resources which the regulatory impact assessment estimated would arise from the proposals. Although I cannot anticipate the outcome of the current spending review, I can say that we are also examining the possibility of providing additional funding for research by non-governmental organisations into the existence of rights of way.

It is our intention to concentrate on that because it is sensible to bring definitively to a close the exercise of determining the rights of way network. However, we do not intend to do that without ensuring that there are adequate resources to make it possible for all existing paths that can reasonably be found to be found.

Mr. Bennett

My right hon. Friend spoke of adequate resources. Will he put a figure on that?

Mr. Meacher

I cannot disclose the bid that we made in the spending review that is currently proceeding. The Chancellor will make a statement next month. However, I assure my hon. Friend that it is quite sufficient to achieve the purpose that I outlined.

We believe that those provisions will lead to a more accurate and more complete record of rights of way, and, together with the new rights of way improvement plans, to a network that is more in tune with modern recreational demands and the needs of land managers. I apologise for the length of my remarks and hope that the Government proposals are acceptable to hon. Members in all parts of the House, especially to my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish, who I know has such a strong interest in the subject.

Mr. David Heath

With the leave of the House, Madam Speaker, may I say that we have just had an illustration of the morass of acronyms and technicalities into which we stray as soon as we start to contemplate rights of way legislation? It may be an eye-opener to hon. Members who did not serve on the Standing Committee.

I am grateful to the Minister for the care with which he replied. It is only because of the enthusiasm with which I embrace his new concept of a restricted byway that I want it to be applied to paths that have been reclassified in other forms before. That is the essence of amendments Nos. 33 and 34.

Once vehicular traffic of a motorised variety is differentiated from horse-drawn traffic, roads that are suitable for bridleways will almost all be suitable for horse-drawn traffic, and those which are not will be self-evidently unsuitable because of the size restrictions on them. People can take their own decisions about whether a path is a suitable one down which to drive a cart.

There is a risk that there have been wrong classifications, not because of any intended sleight of hand, but because of the classification system. My amendments would have helped in that respect, but I understand the Minister's argument.

New clause 13 contains a sensible suggestion, and the right hon. Gentleman was kind enough to say that he was sympathetic to the objectives and has undertaken to consider it further. I know from experience in Committee that he is as good as his word: several suggestions that I made in Committee have come back as amendments to the Bill. New clause 13 would assist a wide variety of people—those who objected, as well as those who took the opposite view—and would save local authorities a huge sum. I therefore believe that even before the idea behind the new clause reaches another place, it would be right to reinforce the right hon. Gentleman's intention to reconsider it by dividing on it later this evening.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Forward to