HC Deb 08 May 2001 vol 368 cc36-8W
Mr. Mackinlay

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list those shire counties which have had no reported cases of foot and mouth disease and which have opened(a) less than 25 per cent. of the total length of their rights of way and (b) 50 per cent. or more of the total length of their rights of way: and if he will make a statement. [160729]

Ms Beverley Hughes

The county councils which have had no reported cases of foot and mouth disease and which have opened less than 25 per cent of the total length of their rights of way are: Lincolnshire (0 per cent.), Buckinghamshire (5 per cent.), Hampshire (5 per cent.), West Sussex (10 per cent.), Bedfordshire (12 per cent.), East Sussex (12 per cent.), Nottinghamshire (15 per cent.), and Dorset (22 per cent.).

The county councils which have had no reported cases of foot and mouth disease and which have opened 50 per cent. or more of the total length of their rights of way are: Norfolk (59 per cent.), Surrey (70 per cent.), Suffolk (75 per cent.), and Cambridgeshire (85 per cent.).

These figures show that many local authorities continue to keep rights of way closed unnecessarily. The Government's veterinary and scientific advisers have confirmed that outside Infected Areas there is no justification for keeping so many paths closed. Councils that ignore this advice are failing in their duty to their residents, their visitors, and their local businesses to open rights of way wherever it is safe to do so.

Several authorities lag so far behind public opinion and professional advice that they continue to keep closed even paths across woodland and arable land. This cannot be justified. Local authorities quite rightly wish to take account of the views of farmers and land managers, but they need to balance these with the views of the many other businesses in their communities whose livelihood is threatened, as well as the interests of their residents and visitors. Unnecessary closures mean unnecessary inconvenience, unnecessary economic damage, and in some cases unnecessary danger where people are forced on to busy roads because paths are closed.

In authorities which have taken a more balanced judgment of needs, such as Surrey, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire, well over half the path networks have been reopened. There is no reason why the worst performing authorities should not achieve a similar or better performance. I urge all councils, and especially those without infected areas, to make significant progress towards reopening their rights of way wherever it is safe to do so.

Mr. Todd

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the cost to councils of awarding hardship relief to assist businesses affected by the outbreak of foot and mouth; and if he will provide additional assistance to smaller district councils to help meet this cost. [160266]

Mr. Meacher

To date no formal assessment of the costs borne by local authorities in implementing the hardship rate relief scheme has been undertaken. However, we have extended the central Government contribution to the cost of the relief from 75 per cent. to 95 per cent. in cases where the business is located in one of the 151 eligible rural districts and has a rateable value of £12,000 or less.

A number of small rural district councils have made representations that it will be difficult for them to find the 5 per cent. of the cost that the scheme requires. I am looking into that, though it is important that local authorities do retain ownership of the scheme if distribution of relief is to be undertaken rigorously.