Cycle Tracks Bill

HL Deb 05 June 1984 vol 452 cc561-75

7.29 p.m.

Lord Henley

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Henley.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The LORD AYLESTONE in the Chair.]

Clause 2 [Prohibition of driving or parking on cycle tracks]:

Lord Gisborough moved Amendment No. 1: Page 2, line 35, after ("any") insert ("land or").

The noble Lord said: Perhaps it would be right for me to take Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 together. Amendment No. 2: Page 2, line 36, after ("being") insert ("land or").

Many of the footpaths across the country are also vehicle tracks, even though public access is only made available as a footpath. In these cases under this Bill these footpaths turned into cycleways will only be open to emergency in the fire service, the highway authority and statutory undertakings. There appears to be no provision for the owner of the land, the farmer or whatever, who already will use these tracks, to continue using them unless he is visiting premises. The word "premises" implies a building or a particular part of land. These tracks which are and will be used for management, keepering, forestry inspection, general land management, and so on, lead to no particular premises or particular part of any land, but to land in general. I feel therefore that to the word "premises" should be added the word "land", so that there can be no doubt that those who have work in the countryside, their employees, and also such people as ADAS representatives and people who, for some reason or other, have to go into the countryside along these tracks, and who have done so in the past, are able to continue to do so.

Lord Henley

I do not think that the amendment is necessary. Clause 8(2) of the Bill, dealing with interpretation, provides that: Except where the context otherwise requires any expression used in this Act which is also used in the 1980 Act that is the 1980 Highways Act has the same meaning as in that Act". Section 329 of the Highways Act defines "premises" as including land and buildings. Therefore the point of my noble friend's amendment is already covered. I hope that in the light of this explanation he will be prepared to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Gisborough

On that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]

Lord Gisborough moved Amendment No. 3: Page 2, line 36, after second ("part") insert ("to which he has legal right of access and").

The noble Lord said: This amendment refers to subsection (4). It allows as a defence for someone going on to the land the fact that he is going to a certain place. This need not be an owner or a farmer. It may not even be a visitor. It may be someone driving on a cycle track in order to go somewhere to admire the view. The intention of the subsection is surely that the track should be restricted to bona fide vehicles, that is to say, those used by the owner of the premises, the farmer or someone involved in the management of the land. It could even he a caller, a salesman or anyone else who is a genuine visitor. I do not believe, however, that it is intended to give access, as it is written, to anyone who simply says that he wants to get from A to B without any reason and with no legal authority. The amendment is intended to ensure that someone who wants to use a cycle track has to have some legal right of access as a visitor or whatever. I beg to move.

Lord Henley

My noble friend's amendment has caused us to look again at the defence contained in Clause 2(4). I am grateful to him for making us look again at the drafting. Our examination has shown that the subsection could be improved. Any vehicular use of a cycle track to gain access to property must be based on a clear legal authority so to use the cycle track. To use a cycle track to gain access to property, even if it is the sole reasonable means of vehicular access, may involve unlawful use of the cycle track. Clearly, it would be wrong to condone, as the present drafting of the subsection appears to do, such unlawful use.

In addition, if a person had lawful authority at present to use the cycle track but had another means of vehicular access, the clause as drafted would take away that right without compensation. This would obviously be wrong. My noble friend's amendment, I am afraid, does not adequately cover these points, and I propose to bring forward a suitable amendment at Report stage. In the light of this, I hope that my noble friend will perhaps reconsider the need for his amendment.

Viscount Long

I should like to intervene for a moment. I agree with my noble friend Lord Henley, who is dealing so admirably with the Bill, that we must ensure that the basis for vehicular use of a cycle track rests on there being clear, lawful authority for that use. We shall therefore assist, if I may say so, my noble friend in the drafting of his amendment.

Lord Gisborough

I am grateful to my noble friend, and on that basis, ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 [Conversion offootpaths into cycle tracks]:

Lord Gisborough moved Amendment No. 4: Page 3, line 8, after ("footpath") insert (",whether fenced or unfenced.").

The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, I would also like to discuss Amendment No. 6. Amendment No. 6: Page 3, line 8, after ("land") insert ("or which leads only to such land").

These amendments, which are somewhat similar, concern the position where there is land farmed and where there is a fenced track running along agricultural land. That land may be owned or farmed by the same person on both sides, or maybe by different people. It is absolutely necessary that just as a farmer can stop a track being made into a cycle track going across his field, so he should have control over a track running between two hedges or fences through his land. This is particularly the case in Amendment No. 6 where the fenced track leads to a dead end. It could well happen that the track could come off a road and continue for a long way perhaps to a farmhouse, and that it could be a public footpath as well as a private road. The footpath could then well go off into open land, moorland or perhaps rough grazing.

While one would hope that the farmer would have control of the footpath over the rough grazing, he would have no control over the making of the footpath in the lane between two hedges. This is a slightly dangerous position. I therefore consider that something along the lines of the amendment to include the words "whether fenced or unfenced" is necessary and that the Bill should also underline the case where a fenced track leads to open land. I beg to move.

Lord Henley

This amendment and Amendment No. 6 deal with Clause 3(2). The clause was inserted in another place following discussions between my honourable friend Mr. Cecil Franks and both the NFU and the CLA. It is intended to provide protection for agricultural activities when footpaths cross agricultural land. The term "agricultural land" is defined. My noble friend talks about the case where a footpath goes adjacent to a field between two hedges. That would not be covered by agricultural land and would therefore be dealt with under the ordinary procedure; in other words, the landowner himself would not have the total veto that he has if it crosses right across the middle of agricultural land. But he would have exactly the same power as anyone else to object and the matter could then be dealt with at a public inquiry. In view of that, I think it will be found that the owner of that agricultural land will be perfectly well protected—in fact, probably better protected than he is at the moment.

I hope that when the Secretary of State comes to make regulations under subsection (4) of this clause he will insist that owners of land and owners of adjacent land will be notified of any proposed cycle track. In view of this, I hope my noble friend will be prepared to withdraw these two amendments.

Lord Gisborough

I am grateful to my noble friend for that explanation. I do not think I am very satisfied, but equally I do not think there is a case for pressing the amendment. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

7.41 p.m.

Lord Gisborough moved Amendment No. 5: Page 3, line 8, after ("agricultural") insert (", forestry or moor").

The noble Lord said: This is a much more important amendment. The farmer or landowner has considerable control over the putting in of a cycle track on a path over agricultural land; obviously that is practical and necessary. But apparently this does not apply to forestry or moorland. There are many who feel that once one gets into moorland, one gets into the wild areas that people usually think are public property and are looked after totally by God. In fact, both forestry and moorland are looked after by managers. Forestry requires an enormous amount of capital and work throughout the life of the forest, and moorland requires an enormous amount of keepering and burning and general management for the sheep and the grouse.

Without that management, the game and other wildlife would disappear. The heather would cease to flower because it would become too big. The management of moorland and the amount of work needed on it are very considerable. Because technically it is not agricultural land, there would be less control by the owner on the conversion of a footpath to a cycle track. This goes back to the previous amendment where one has the fenced road perhaps going up to a national park and then a footpath going across the open land which could be made into a cycle track.

This needs more control. Most cyclists are respectable and responsible people, like everybody else, but it only needs a small percentage to be irresponsible. These are the chaps who will always be a problem. In some cases it would be unacceptable for the managers of moorland and forestry not to have the same amount of control as the farmer over the conversion of the footpaths to cycle tracks. I beg to move this amendment.

Lord Underhill

I am a little worried about this amendment. As I am sure all noble Lords know there is a vast number of footpaths going through forestry land and also over moorlands. According to subsection (2), a highway authority cannot make an order if a person who has got a legal interest in the land has not given consent in writing. I wonder how far this will start to infringe on the Bill dealing with access to the countryside and access to the mountains. Many moorlands are mountains.

Therefore, I am rather worried, unless there is something in the Bill—I cannot see it—whereby if a person who has a legal interest does not give consent there should be opportunity to appeal beyond that. Later in the Bill there is provision for an iquiry to be held where a person seeks to object to an order. Surely there ought to be some opportunity for appeal if a person with a legal interest in the land refuses to agree to the conversion of a footpath to a cycle track. That will become more of a problem if it is extended to forestry land and to moorland.

Lord Henley

I think the noble Lord is worrying too much. It is only the owner of agricultural land who has a right to object to the conversion of a footpath to a cycle track. It can still continue to be a footpath. whatever his objections. At the moment this does not affect moorlands. I would rather not have this amendment.

Lord Underhill

My reading of the amendment is that it refers to a footpath which crosses any agricultural land, forestry or moorland. So it will affect moorland if the amendment is carried.

Lord Henley

If the amendment is carried. I hope it will not be. My noble friend's amendment seeks to extend to forestry and moorland this protection which, as I said, at the moment is only for agricultural land. We feel this is a very significant extension of that protection. I think it is very unlikely that there will be many cases of footpath conversions on forestry or moorland. If there are, the introduction of cyclists will be unlikely to cause any significant extra disruption in the uses of footpaths. It may also be rather difficult to establish exactly what consititutes forestry and moorland. The subsection defines agricultural land, which is fairly easy to define.

If proposals are made to convert footpaths which cross forestry or moorlands—or, for that matter, any other footpath—objections can be made in the usual way. These will be considered by the Secretary of State and there will be the usual inquiry procedure. So, as always, there are the same safeguards. It is felt that agricultural land ought to have special protection. I might add on a technical point that in any event my noble friend's amendment cannot be accepted in its present form as it defines the term "agricultural land", which is defined later in the subsection. Therefore, the whole thing would have to be redrafted.

7.48 p.m.

Viscount Long

I should like to come in at this point because there is some difficulty about who is going over whose land and what path it is. The subsection as drafted seeks to give an additional protection where a footpath crosses agricultural land, that is, crosses farmers' fields and could disrupt agricultural activites. If one finds a path going from left to right across a field and one deals with it that way, one will find that it is disruptive to a farmer. Therefore, the Government fully accept that the additional protection is needed for agricultural activities.

There are many rural footpaths which do not cross agricultural land. There may be circumstances where in the interests of safety a local highway authority wishes to convert such footpaths to cycle tracks. We consider that the authority should be able to do this, subject, of course, to a clear right of objection when an order is made. However, we do not consider that the protection given by subsection (2) should be extended to forestry and moorland. There are problems of definition which may not easily be overcome. If I may say so, the activities undertaken on such land tend to be more robust and less sensitive to disruption than do many agricultural activities. Again, the right to object to any conversion remains and, having considered all the circumstances, we agree with my noble friend that this protection is adequate.

Nor do we consider that there is a need to provide specific protection for footpaths leading only to agricultural land. Therefore, we cannot envisage that such footpaths will be candidates for conversion. The right to object to conversions should suffice in the unlikely event that any particular case arises.

My noble friend is quite right in saying that the drafting is not quite adequate at the moment. I would ask my noble kinsman to have another look at this matter. We would willingly help him in strengthening the Bill in this way, if he so wishes.

Lord Gisborough

I am grateful to my noble friends. Obviously I must withdraw this particular amendment, but I should like to consider it further and see whether I should come back with it at a later stage. On that basis I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]

Lord Gisborough moved Amendment No. 7: Page 4, line 29, at end insert ("and order such works or advertisements to be made as it thinks fit to inform cyclists of the quashing of the order.").

The noble Lord said: This amendment relates to the situation where an authority announces, as it may well do, that a certain track is to be made into a cycle track. One can visualise that immediately thereafter cyclists will start to use it. Then there may be an objection and the court may suspend the order. In that case the cyclists will have become used to using the track and although the court may have suspended the order, and although the local authority may have ceased to claim it to be a cycle track, nevertheless it will be extremely difficult to stop cyclists using that track or to inform them all that the track is no longer a cycle track.

Therefore, the amendment is designed so that when such an order is made the court may, if it thinks fit, order that the council undertakes such advertisements and works as may be thought fit to ensure that all cyclists are aware that they can no longer use the track. I beg to move.

Lord Henley

My noble friend's seventh amendment proposes to amend Clause 3(7). It is novel in that it seeks to give to the High Court powers to specify advertisements and works to be undertaken to give effect to its quashing of an order. I know of no other circumstances in which such powers are given to the court. If the court quashes an order, the footpath concerned will remain a footpath, and it is the local highway authority 's duty to ensure that the rights of those using the footpath are protected. It would be an exceptional move to give the High Court power to take action, either by insisting on advertisements or on the undertaking of specified works, to enforce one of its own decisions.

Responsibility for the protection of footpaths rests, and should remain with the local highway authority. If that authority fails in that, it could be held to be in breach of its statutory duty under Section 130 of the Highways Act 1980. I should also say that it may reasonably be expected that challenges in the High Court will receive a certain amount of local publicity and therefore people should get to know that the original order has been quashed. In the light of what I have said, I would ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Brougham and Vaux

I should like to ask my noble friend a question. My noble friend says that it is the responsibility of the local highway authority. Do I take it, therefore, that the cycle tracks will have little discs stating that cycling is permitted, and that if such tracks are no longer permitted to be used by cyclists, those discs will be removed in the same way as they are in the parks in London?

Lord Henley

Yes, obviously there will be some sign indicating that every cycle track is a cycle track. If it ceases to be a cycle track, there will no longer be any signs stating that it is a cycle track, and it will revert to being a footpath.

Lord Brougham and Vaux

In those circumstances I think that my noble friend Lord Gisborough should withdraw his amendment.

Lord Gisborough

My noble friend has talked about the court taking action. However, that was not part of the amendment. The idea was that the court should order the local authority to take action. Whether or not it will work remains to be seen, but I should be very surprised if it did. However, there is the resort to Section 130 and I think that one will just have to hope that that works. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Clause 4 [Provision of barriers in cycle tracks, etc.]:

7.56 p.m.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley moved Amendment No. 8: Page 5, line 17, leave out from ("authority") to ("necessary") in line 19 and insert ("shall, in the case of any cycle track which is adjacent to a footpath or foot way, provide and maintain such barriers as are").

The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of your Lordships' Committee to consider Amendments No. 8 and 9 together, Amendment No. 9 being, to a certain extent, consequential upon Amendment No. 8. Amendment No. 9: Page 5, line 22, leave out subsection (3).

We now turn to the point which I raised on Second Reading about the protection of the blind and the visually handicapped. Clause 4, which we are considering concerns the protection of various classes of people, beginning with subsection (1) which deals with the safeguarding of the people actually using the cycle track. Subsection (2), which these amendments seek to alter, deals with the protection of others with whom they may be brought into contact.

The various societies and authorities which represent the blind and the visually handicapped are considerably perturbed about this Bill as it stands at present. There have, indeed, been conversations with the Government about the necessary steps which should be taken and the necessary precautions which should be introduced for the safeguarding of the visually handicapped. The Government are being extremely helpful in this matter and are trying to do their best.

But we think that the precautions in this Bill should be reinforced. In that respect I address myself equally to the proponents of the Bill—the noble Lord, Lord Henley, and those others who have put this forward—and to the Government themselves. Therefore, these amendments have the following effect. Where the original Bill says that: A highway authority may…provide and maintain such works as they think necessary for the purpose of separating, in the interests of safety, persons using the cycle track from those using the footpath or footway the amendments state "shall" instead of "may", and, such barriers as are necessary instead of, such works as they think necessary". Therefore, the amendments make it a matter of quite definite fact and obligation on the part of the local authorities to provide for the safety of pedestrians, in particular those who are in any way handicapped.

It does not seem to me that there is any reason at all—I may be wrong about this—why those who are putting forward this Bill should object to these particular amendments. But I think it is a matter for the Government to consider because we have a problem at the moment where, due to the general state of the economy, the local authorities are under very considerable financial pressure as to what they may or may not do. In fact, we have been discussing that throughout the afternoon and no doubt we shall be discussing it for the rest of the evening. In this situation there is a very real danger that if this is merely permissive, the precautions which are taken may not be sufficient.

For instance, at various stages in discussing this Bill there has been talk of the painting in of white lines to separate cycle paths from pedestrian paths. White lines are a perfectly good way of alerting cyclists to the area to which they must keep; they are not nearly such a good way of alerting the blind to the area to which they should keep. It is absolutely necessary to ensure that there are physical barriers of one kind or another—perhaps the textured barriers which are now being tried in various parts of the country, including, for instance, the textured surfaces by the pedestrian crossing not far from your Lordships' House.

All sorts of experiments are taking place, and I am not saying that we can lay down in any detail what particular form these barriers should take. But that there should be barriers, that they should definitely be there and that they should conform to a standard which not only the local authorities think is adequate but which any reasonable person thinks is adequate, is a step which is urgently necessary. I beg to move.

Lord Brougham and Vaux

I have a great deal of sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, has said. He has said everything that has been going through my mind as a cyclist, so I await the comments of my noble friend on the arguments put forward by the noble Lord.

Lord Henley

In the drafting and consideration of this Bill the concerns of groups representing the blind and the partially sighted have received our closest consideration. My honourable friend Mr. Cecil Franks discussed the provisions in the Bill with the Royal National Institute for the Blind, and my honourable friend the Minister of State for Transport has discussed the Bill's provisions with the Joint Committee on the Mobility of Blind and Partially Sighted People. Noble Lords will be aware that her department has undertaken a comprehensive review of the advice that it issues to highway authorities on cyclists' use of pedestrian-only facilities, and my noble friend on the Front Bench might possibly want to comment on that.

The Bill seeks to improve the safety and convenience of cyclists, but not at the expense of others. Throughout the Bill we have sought to ensure that it is balanced. Indeed, we consider that in many important respects the Bill improves the position of blind and partially sighted people. If they or any other persons object to a footpath conversion, under Clause 3 the decision on that conversion must be made by the Secretary of State following the usual public inquiry procedure.

In drafting Clause 4 we have also sought to improve the position for blind and partially sighted people and other pedestrians by giving powers to highway authorities to construct any works that they consider necessary to separate a cycle track from an adjacent footpath or footway. We all accept that the best way of improving conditions for and the safety of cyclists is on the road itself. But this may not always be possible and it may be necessary to consider allowing cyclists to use facilities previously reserved for pedestrians. A wide variety of circumstances may arise where this may need to be considered, and it must always be for sound safety reasons, and must always increase the safety of cyclists.

But in every case it will be necessary to balance the safety benefit to cyclists against the risk of endangering or, for that matter, inconveniencing pedestrians. Each proposed conversion will be different. We can establish guidelines but we cannot and should not seek to establish absolutes. The particular requirements of each location must be determined following careful survey and consultation, and highway authorities must, therefore, be able to respond flexibly to a range of different circumstances and different requirements as the situation demands.

To require them to provide barriers, as this amendment would do, and never to alter or remove them whatever the circumstances, eliminates flexibility. It may also eliminate from consideration many locations where a positive safety benefit can be made for cyclists without putting the safety or security of others at risk.

These amendments seem to strike at the very balance that we have sought to provide in the Bill. They impose inflexibility when the Bill seeks to provide a balanced and cautious response to the safety problems and risks which cyclists face daily on our roads. I fully understand the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, but I cannot agree to accept his amendments.

Viscount Long

Perhaps I could try to help the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont. The Government are very serious about this Bill as it affects the safety of cyclists, the blind and the partially sighted. We are trying to bring a very serious piece of legislation together as soon as possible. I do not say that we are riding roughshod over the Bill, but we want to get it through Parliament in order to help the local authorities which are in need of help, the landowners and the owners of adjacent land. Therefore, we are working to an end, and that is to get the Bill properly through Parliament.

The amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, have been requested and drafted by the National Federation of the Blind. From what I have to say to the noble Lord in the next few moments, he will realise that the Government have not worked alone on this subject, and nor could they. They have had to take the best possible advice. My noble friend Lord Henley has worked very hard trying to help this legislation through Parliament, as has also my noble kinsman.

The amendment seeks to place a duty on highway authorities to erect (and this is the amendment to subsection (2)) and maintain in perpetuity (which is the amendment to subsection (3)) barriers whenever a cycle track is alongside a footpath or footway. The amendment to subsection (3) would also mean that harriers provided on any cycle track under subsection (1), whether or not it is adjacent to a footpath, could not be altered or removed by the highway authority. The amendments conflict with the existing statutory framework, which is aimed at providing highway authorities with discretion. I failed to tell the noble Lord just now that the highway authorities are very much involved in this through the 1980 Act, and so on.

The amendment's requirement for separation by barrier runs contrary to the advice that the department proposes to issue on shared pedestrian-cycle facilities. The department considers that while segregation by barrier or kerb or other physical means would be best, white-line separation and unsegregated sharing as safety measures of last resort must remain available to highway authorities. White-line separation has operated satisfactorily in practice.

With the support of the Joint Committee on the Mobility of Blind and Partially Sighted People, on which the National Federation of the Blind are represented—and the noble Lord knows this well—the Transport and Road Research Laboratory is currently undertaking research on forms of tactile surfaces which might assist blind and partially sighted people using shared facilities. I think I can refer to the fact that not far away in Westminster there is a tactile surface. I mention to the noble Lord at this moment the Road Research Laboratory. That is where the expertise is to come from as to what is to be the best and safest measure for the blind and the partially blind.

The department's proposed advice that shared pedestrian and cycle facilities should be considered when there is no other way of overcoming the problems that cyclists face on the carriageway, together with the right to object to footpath conversions, and for such objections to be considered by the Secretary of State, should give adequate protection against ill-conceived footpath conversions, which I think the noble Lord, as well as other noble Lords, are worried about. Highway authorities must, in any event, be allowed to retain flexibility in the types of protection they can provide based on their assessment, following careful survey and consultation, of what is needed at any particular location. One geographical area is obviously going to be different from another in terms of the safety area.

The Government are aware of the concern about certain forms of shared pedestrian and cycle use felt by blind and partially sighted people. It was because of that concern that the Department of Transport undertook a comprehensive review of its advice on shared use. Indeed, perhaps I may tell the noble Lord—I know that he said he has not yet had his supper, and nor have I, but I like to give him a carrot to eat on—that tomorrow the department, with the National Federation of the Blind, is organising a seminar for Pavement Day to discuss the problems faced by visually handicapped people on pavements.

The department's review included issue of a consultation paper and meetings with members of the Joint Committee on the Mobility of Blind and Partially Sighted People. Almost all those who responded to the consultation paper accepted that, in appropriate circumstances and on a limited basis, shared use could make a valuable contribution to the safety of cyclists. My honourable friend the Minister of State for Transport has now agreed the revised advice that will shortly be issued by her department.

There is no intention of allowing cyclists general use of footpaths or footways. The advice starts from the basis that shared pedestrian and cycle use is a cycle safety measure of last resort to be considered only when there is no other way of overcoming the problems cyclists face on the road—and they are increasing. Cyclists face dangers on our roads. Unfortunately and tragically, the number of accidents involving cyclists shows a steady increase. The honourable lady's department is examining ways of helping cyclists on roads through its programme of innovatory cycle schemes and cycle route research. The department's safety campaigns seek to improve cyclists' safety generally. There will, however, always be circumstances where shared use will need to be considered. Shared use should be proposed only after full survey and consultation.

The department's advice will place particular emphasis on the need for highway authorities to obtain the views of blind and partially sighted people, as well as other likely users of the facility. The department's advice will clearly state that where cycle tracks run adjacent to footpaths or footways, segregation by barrier or kerb is best. Where barriers or kerbs cannot be provided and there is a clear cycle safety problem to be overcome, then white line separation or unsegregated sharing may need to be considered.

Lord Gisborough

Do I understand from what my noble friend is saying that cycle ways are to be used strictly for cyclists to get from A to B and not to get them into the countryside on recreational cycle tracks? Does my noble friend mean that categorically?

Viscount Long

I think that my noble kinsman has it two ways. First, there are already tracks that go into what he knows as the forest, for recreation, and there are those tracks, which I am trying to define at the moment, which are for safety, for helping cyclists to get off the main roads for more safety.

The advice will also clearly state that white line or unsegregated sharing will often be unacceptable if the route is used by elderly—and this is another point that has to be looked into—blind, partially sighted, or physically handicapped people. White line separation has been carefully monitored and found to work satisfactorily. However, we recognise that white line separation offers no guidance to blind and partially sighted people, and with the support of the Joint Committee on the Mobility of Blind and Partially Sighted People the Transport and Road Research Laboratory is undertaking research on the use of tactile surfaces and central markings or humps to assist blind people using shared facilities. This work is at an early stage and full site testing will be needed to assess effectiveness. Subsection (2) of this clause, as currently drafted, is intended to give highway authorities powers to install such tactile surfaces or humps.

We consider it essential that highway authorities should be able to have flexibility in the way they separate cycle tracks from adjacent footways and footpaths. We do not consider that it is right to insist that barriers be provided whatever the circumstances. Other forms of physical separation may be equally effective. The form separation can take can be decided only after full consideration of local circumstances and after consultation with interested parties.

Another essential when former pedestrian-only facilities are made available for use by cyclists is that they should be closely monitored. If problems emerge with any form of separation, highway authorities should have the ability to alter it. Subsection (3) is essential.

I have outlined in general terms our policy objections to these amendments. May I now look at the effect of the amendments in more detail. I apologise for my long brief, but it is essential that we try to get it right for all those concerned. The provision of a complete length of barrier may operate against the effectiveness of the cycle track, footpath or footway in that it would bar all access across the adjacent way. The pedestrian, including the blind or disabled pedestrian, could not cross the cycle track from a footway in order to cross the carriageway. He may not cross the adjacent footpath to gain access to premises. The cyclist could not dismount and cross the adjacent footway to reach the shops. All these examples show that the amendment is too restrictive and inflexible. I see that the noble Lord shakes his head, but he is not giving enough flexibility to it.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley

Both the noble Viscount and the noble Lord, Lord Henley, seem to have missed the point. If these amendments are carried, it does not mean that local authorities must put in a barrier.

Lord Henley

Yes, it does.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley

No, it does not. It means that they should put in a barrier if it is necessary for safety. That is what it says, and that is what it means. It does not mean that they have to put in a barrier. Both the noble Lord, Lord Henley, and the noble Viscount the Minister have been arguing as though the amendment made it compulsory for the highway authorities to put in a barrier whether or not it is necessary.

Viscount Long

What we are trying to do is to give strength to the elbow of the local authority, whether they want to do it or not. At the moment they cannot do it, or if they can do it, they have not the exact power to do it. Therefore, I think that we must go on as we are in this particular instance. I do not think we have lost the point. I think it is essential that we look at the Highway Code as well.

The mendment also removes the power for highway authorities to provide works to segregate a cycle track from an adjacent footpath or footway if they are works of a kind that fall short of being a barrier. It therefore takes away the power to implement the results of the work being undertaken by the Transport and Road Research Laboratory; and they are the ones who at this very moment are seeking to find the best ways of helping the blind and the partially blind. We must not restrict them in any way at all.

The amendment will also add considerably to the costs incurred by local authorities by imposing an obligation to put up barriers where none now exist even if existing arrangements can be shown to have been working effectively. The amendments conflict with the existing safety provisions in Section 66 of the Highways Act 1980, where highway authorities exercise their own judgment in the use of discretionary powers for the provision of guard rails and so on.

My noble friend Lord Henley has referred to the balance in the Bill. He pointed to additional protection given to those who are worried about the principle and practice of shared use by the right of objection given when footpaths are proposed for conversion.

The needs of blind and partially sighted people have been borne in mind in the drafting of this Bill. In the Bill as it stands we consider that we have struck the right balance—and my noble friend said this a moment ago—between seeking to increase the safety and convenience of cyclists and protecting the interests of others. I therefore ask that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, withdraws his amendment, because either I do not see that he has allowed himself enough flexibility in his amendment to allow others such as the research laboratories to carry out the research, or he is tying down the local authority too much.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley

My Lords, the noble Lord the Minister has produced a very detailed explanation of what is being done and what is planned, and for that I thank him very much. I asked for it and I wanted it and it is something which I will go away and study. There were points in what he said that gave me some comfort. I am particularly interested and will go away and study what he was saying about the rights of appeal. But the main arguments which he produced, and which the noble Lord, Lord Henley, produced, were based, as I said in my intervention, on a complete misunderstanding of the amendments and went on for a long time dealing with a non-existent bogey. If my amendments were agreed to, subsection (2) would read: A highway authority shall, in the case of any cycle track which is adjacent to a footpath or footway, provide and maintain Lich barriers as are necessary for the purpose of separating, in the interests of safety, persons using the cycletrack from those using the footpath or footway". There is no question about raising barriers if they are not necessary. Quite clearly they do not. There is no question of having to put up barriers which run for miles and miles and stop the poor blind moving across the cycleway to get to the road. There is nothing about that at all. It is merely to make the question as to whether it is safe a matter which is judicable, which is juridical, which is not just dependent upon what the local authorities happen to think when they are tempted—as they must be, poor things—by the desire to save money. The local authorities will have most of the freedoms except for the freedom to disregard the rules of safety.

I do not think that most of what I heard, and certainly the arguments which the noble Lord, Lord Henley, put forward in relation to these amendments were satisfactory, though I pay tribute to him for bringing forth this Bill, which I think is a very good Bill, and I congratulate him. There may be sufficient embedded among the misunderstanding of the case produced by the Government to satisfy me, but of that I am not at all sure. I will go away and study it, and I will consult. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]

Clause 4 agreed to.

Clause 5 [Compensation]:

On Question, Whether Clause 5 shall stand part of the Bill?

Baroness Nicol

My Lords, very briefly, I have two queries on the compensation suggested in Clause 5. I appreciate that I have not given notice of this and I am quite prepared to wait for the answer, but I feel that I must put the questions now.

In subsection (1) there are the words, "where any person suffers damage". May I be told whether that damage refers to material damage or physical damage, or whether it would refer, for example, in an urban situation, to a case where a trader has a cycle path going past his delivery entrance and the vans will, now according to the rest of the Bill, have to park elsewhere while being unloaded? Could the trader in those circumstances claim damages for delay or inconvenience? In other words, I should like clarification of the word "damage" in that case. In subsection (2) there are the words, Where…any person suffers damage by the depreciation in value of any interest in land". If, perhaps owing to a situation on the edge of town where the land in question was of little value at the time when the cycle track was first put in, the land gained in value as a result of housing or other development along the edge of it, would the owner be entitled to claim damages retrospectively for depreciation; or will there be a time limit on the point at which he can claim damages?

Those are my two questions. I shall understand if the answers are not forthcoming but, if they are not available, I wonder whether I may have them before the next stage of the Bill so that an amendment may be produced.

Lord Henley

My Lords, as I understand it, "damage" under clause 5(1) concerns damage by reason of the execution of the works. In other words, it is the actual creation of the works. I presume— I am open to be corrected and will inform the noble Baroness when I know— that that would cover any financial loss that one could put against the execution of the works.

With regard to her query about damage under subsection (2), I am not sure if I can help the noble Baroness at the moment. May I get in touch with her later before the next stage?

Viscount Long

I did hear the noble Baroness's speech at Second Reading. It is considered at this stage of the Bill that it is unlikely there will be many claims under the new procedures or that substantial sums will be involved. Under the clause as drafted, disputes go to the Land Tribunal, and Section 307 of the Highways Act 1980 is applied. None of the sections of the Highways Act to which Section 307 is applied place time limits, which is what I think the noble Baroness was asking about in relation to the submission of compensation claims, and it would be considered appropriate to err in favour of a possible claim rather than specify a time limit in respect of claims made under Clause 5. We have been advised there would be no great difficulty in assessing compensation in case of retrospective claims. I wonder whether that helps the noble Baroness.

Baroness Nicol

Yes; I thank the noble Viscount. It is not a complete answer, but it goes some way and I will investigate a little more before the next stage.

Clause 5 agreed to.

Remaining clauses agreed to.

House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.