| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mrs. Gordon: The proposed plaques on street signs would represent a very simple, dignified recognition of the bombing. The streets have, of course, been repaired; one would not think that anything had happened. Essex road has been returned to its state before the bombing. We want to commemorate the bombing to let the people who live there know what happened, and so that the young will always remember.
Mr. Spellar: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Although the physical scars of the bombing may have been removed, mental scars among families and communities are still apparent. I was very pleased to hear of her local authority's concern and encouragement, and its favourable indications that that awful night will be remembered on the street signs. That is important, and ties in very well with the church's proposal, with which I shall deal later. My hon. Friend also drew attention to the enormously encouraging interest among many youngsters in this country's history--how their grandparents stood up against totalitarianism and fascism, and the suffering that they endured.
As well as commemorating the service of those who worked on the home front, the memorial will commend their self-sacrifice to future generations. I am so pleased that schools are taking that up. I am also pleased to say that a campaign is under way to raise funds for a memorial to the women of the second world war, which will commemorate those who served in civilian roles as well as in the armed forces.
I turn to the specific subject of civilians who were killed during the war. More than 60,000 United Kingdom civilians lost their lives as a result of enemy action during the second world war. As my hon. Friend pointed out, 30,000 of those were killed in the London blitz alone--quite apart from all those who were injured during those awful attacks. Men, women and children of all ages and all walks of life lost their lives, as the bombing in Romford represents.
Since the end of that war, more than 120 memorials have been erected to the memory of civilians who were killed. Understandably, many of them are in London and on the approaches to the capital--both of which suffered terrible losses during enemy bombing raids. A plaque was recently installed at St. Paul's cathedral, commemorating those who were killed in the blitz. The people of Romford are therefore seeking to follow a well-established, admirable and honourable tradition.
As we have learned from my hon. Friend, a parachute mine was dropped over Essex road and the surrounding roads in Romford on the night of 19 April 1941. In Essex
road alone, it demolished 17 houses, and 38 civilians were killed. Of those, 34 were identified, and their funerals were held at St. John's church, Romford the following week. Other roads were similarly affected; as my hon. Friend said, a total of 55 people died in the locality. The names of the 34 people who were identified are inscribed in a book of remembrance that is kept in the church.
I read with interest and humility the information that has been prepared by the vicar of St. John's church. It is impossible not to be moved by it; my hon. Friend's speech demonstrated that better than I can. A dreadful toll was extracted from that one road: 38 people were killed in one night and several families lost as many as five members. Nearly a third of the dead were children. The effect on what was, no doubt, a tightly-knit and supportive community must have been devastating and, indeed, lasting, which has been shown by the response from Romford.
It is important to say that, although the great conurbations--London and the west midlands are the two I know best--may appear to be great, amorphous sprawls to people who live outside them, they contain a mixture of local communities, many of which include families who have lived there for many generations. The impact of such incidents on local communities in those areas is as great as it would be on more isolated villages and towns across the country. It is right that we remember that, which is why this particular venture is so much to be encouraged.
As my hon. Friend said, amidst the rubble, a reproduction of Holman Hunt's famous painting "The Light of the World" survived, and still survives, in St. John's church. A passage quoted from "Ordeal in Romford" says that
The people of Romford are also to be commended in that the proposed memorial will extend beyond local loss of life and will pay tribute to all civilians who lost their lives in warfare. The service of commemoration, which is to take place at St. John's church this Sunday, will also be an act of prayer for peace in the world.
As hon. Members will know, it has long been the policy of successive Governments that war memorials should be erected following a public appeal for donations, rather than provided by Government funds. That is because the Government receive many requests--from individuals, groups and organisations--for assistance to fund war memorials. It would be neither fair nor possible or practicable to support one application and not another.
Public subscription also has the advantage of being a way in which the people of this country can make a direct and unmistakeable demonstration of their respect for those who lost their lives. That is what my hon. Friend and the community that she represents are proposing, and the venture has the Government's warmest approval and support. I welcome this opportunity to wish the organisers every success with their fundraising activities.
I also welcome the support from the local paper, the Romford Recorder, which will stimulate further interest in the campaign. I look forward to hearing of progress
and my Department would be more than happy to provide the organisers with advice on fundraising, about which my hon. Friend inquired, and to offer representation at any dedication ceremony when the memorial is in place.
I join my hon. Friend, on behalf of the whole House, in paying our respects to the memory of the civilian war dead of Romford and in expressing our admiration for those who are undertaking this most worthwhile venture to perpetuate their memory.
Mr. Andrew Hunter (Basingstoke):
It has been said:
The process of reclassifying public rights of way under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 has, at the very least, been profoundly unsatisfactory. Clarification is urgently needed, and has been for some time. More than that, there is growing consensus that we need to adopt a wider land management approach to our green lanes and the countryside through which they pass--an approach that goes beyond merely classifying user rights.
Without doubt, some of the damage to our green lanes is caused by agricultural vehicles--perhaps a considerable amount. Much of it is caused by 4x4s and other recreational vehicles. In parenthesis, I acknowledge that national organisations representing the interests of 4x4 drivers and many 4x4 clubs are environmentally aware and operate extremely responsibly.
My first substantive point is that the root cause of much of the misuse by vehicles of our green lanes in recent times has been, and remains, the reclassification process under the 1981 Act. In 1996, my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), who was then Under- Secretary of State for the Environment, registered concern that legal dedication of vehicular rights was being established on the back of wrong advice from a number of highway authorities.
In the then Government's opinion, some highway authorities were misconstruing the 1981 Act. The present Government, as I understand the situation, have followed suit. In July 1997, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions issued guidance in the form of a legal view that it is unlawful for vehicles to use roads used as public paths--RUPPs--unless vehicular rights have been established in accordance with the Road Traffic Act 1988. In Stevens v. the Secretary of State, of 16 January 1998, the High Court, on appeal, upheld that position. There is a presumption of only bridleway and lower rights attaching to RUPPs, unless and until higher rights have been shown to exist.
However, the judgment in the Stevens appeal went on to say that recent vehicular use could be used as supporting evidence of historic rights and that to rule vehicular rights out before the matter of historical rights had been determined would be to prejudge the issue. That second part of the judgment has complicated rather than resolved matters, because there is now considerable debate and uncertainty over whether it is illegal to drive on a RUPP unless it has been proved that there are historic
vehicular rights and whether it is legal to drive on a RUPP until it has been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that there are no vehicular rights.
In other words, what should be straightforward criminal proceedings can become complex civil matters. It is therefore no wonder that reclassification under the 1981 Act appears to have stalled in some counties. I submit that it is imperative that the issue is clarified. My own position is that I support those who vigorously argue that vehicular use of RUPPs should be illegal unless or until historic vehicular rights have been proved.
Secondly, I turn to a related point: the Countryside Commission's objective 8, which is to reclassify all RUPPs and unclassified country roads as a new category of byways. I share the concerns expressed by the Country Landowners Association in its submission to the Countryside Commission, and by the environmental group Green Lanes Environmental Action Movement, known as GLEAM, and others.
I argue that this proposal is a step in the wrong direction. If implemented, it would create vehicular rights over many routes where such rights do not currently exist. It would extend the potential to inflict damage on our green lanes. We know perfectly well from the process of reclassification under the 1981 Act that many RUPPs sustain bridleway rights, not vehicular rights. The proposal would extend vehicular rights to hundreds of RUPPs for the first time. Much the same line of argument applies to the unclassified county roads. In a letter dated 24 August 1998, which was generally circulated, the Department confirmed that the status of individual UCRs must be established on a case-by-case basis. Many UCRs are nothing more than unsealed minor tracks. Most important, a significant number of UCRs have been held, after public inquiry, not to carry vehicular rights.
If UCRs and RUPPs are to constitute a new category of byways, vehicular rights will also apply to them. The Countryside Commission's objective 8, if implemented, would expose more of our green lanes to misuse by vehicles. I greatly hope that the Government will, in due course, accept the Country Landowners Association's recommendation that, instead of the objective8 reclassification, all RUPPs and UCRs should be shown on definitive maps as bridleways.
I want to refer to the management of byways open to all traffic where vehicular rights exist. Some of my hon. Friends feel instinctively uneasy when they hear the word "regulations", and I am not unsympathetic to that point of view. However, there is a strong case for national regulations to regulate the use of byways open to all traffic. The Minister will note that my remarks again reflect the CLA position. National regulations could restrict use to motor vehicles below a certain weight and fitted with flotation tyres, apply a speed limit to all motor vehicles, ban use by motor vehicles during winter months, perhaps, although controversially, make exceptions to enable continued use by agricultural and forestry vehicles if they are part of the ordinary traffic of the neighbourhood, and require all restrictions on use to be shown on signs on all BOATs where they meet other highways carrying vehicular rights.
In the context of preserving such byways, it can also be argued that two changes to local traffic regulation orders are desirable. One of those changes would be to provide that such orders can override any national
regulations on BOATs by adding or removing specific preservations in relation to specific byways and specific types of traffic.
A second change would be to widen the grounds for making traffic regulation orders to include avoiding disturbance to livestock, game or wildlife, andprotecting flora, fauna, geological, geomorphological or physiographical features. That proposal highlights the need to consider the sustainability of rights of way not only to maintain their surfaces, but--and I emphasise this point--for their wider wildlife and environmental value.
I welcome the fact that the Minister for the Environment, in a written answer on 5 February 1998, emphasised that wider dimension. He also referred to the Government publication "Making the Best of Byways", which he described as
Secondly, among the unsealed ways that carry public vehicular rights the booklet lists
Thirdly, some argue that the Government are adding further confusion to this complicated issue by inventing a new definition of the word "byway". According to the booklet,
"in a sea of devastation, 'The Light of the World' remained--a reminder and a challenge".
I find it heartening that, 58 years after that tragic event, the people of Romford have kept the reminder and risen to the challenge. They clearly still have their civilian war dead very much in their minds, and are setting about doing something to ensure that their memory will be perpetuated.
1.23 pm
"I welcome the opportunity provided by the debate to return to a subject that I have raised with successive Ministers during the course of several years. I do so without apology because the subject is important in its own right and of increasing concern to many people. I refer to the appalling damage inflicted each year on hundreds of miles of the unmetalled green lanes of our countryside."--[Official Report, 17 July 1995; Vol. 263, c. 1426.]
I acknowledge that it may be regarded as the height of vanity to quote oneself, but that is how I started my previous Adjournment debate on this subject, nearly four years ago. I have repeated those words today because, tragically, the situation has not improved in key respects. Sections of the country's green lanes are being extensively damaged through misuse by modern vehicles.
"a practical guide to managing vehicles on byways".--[Official Report, 5 February 1998; Vol. 305, c. 730.]
It is unfortunate that "Making the Best of Byways", at least in the opinion of some people who follow these issues closely, is misleading in key respects. First, the booklet states that its focus
"is upon unsealed ways which carry public vehicular rights. These include: roads used as public paths (RUPPs) (where rights of way for vehicles exist)."
As it stands, that is highly ambiguous. The last phrase in brackets could be taken as asserting that vehicular rights exist on all RUPPs, which is not the case. As has been pointed out to the Government on a number of occasions, the ambiguity would be removed if that phrase were corrected to read "in cases where rights of way for vehicles exist." I find it hard to understand the Government's reluctance to issue such a correction.
"routes formerly defined as unclassified county roads".
Surely the Government are mistaken. Some years ago, the Secretary of State, in the Cumbria decision, held that the term "UCR" was only administrative. In the letter of 24 August 1998 to which I have referred, the Department acknowledged that the status of UCRs should be established on a case-by-case basis, and, most important, that a significant number of UCRs had been held, after public inquiry, not to carry vehicular rights. In the light of that, it is hard to understand why the Government assert that UCRs carry public vehicular rights.
"this word byway has been used in the guide to cover all three classes"--
that is RUPPs, BOATs and UCRs. I use the term "green lanes". Over the years, there has been a Government-led convention that the word "byway" should be the accepted abbreviation for byways open to all traffic. It is argued that it is a dubious practice suddenly to give the word a new and wider meaning.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |