| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. David Rendel (Newbury): Hear, hear.
Mr. Hunter: I note the approval of the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel), who follows these issues
in detail. I hope that the Minister will consider these issues seriously. The preservation of our ancient green lanes demands positive action with minimum further delay, and I look forward to the Minister's reply.1.40 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson): I congratulate the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) on securing a debate on a subject in which I know he is interested, and has been interested for a long time. We are aware of the concern about damage to green lanes as a result of inappropriate use by motor vehicles, not only from the hon. Gentleman's efforts but from letters from hon. Members on behalf of their constituents, from the early-day motion--mentioned by the hon. Gentleman--tabled by the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel), who I am happy to see is present, and from media reports.
Let me say a little about the legislation on rights of way, and local authorities' duties and powers. The term "green lane" is not recognised in law, but it is usually acknowledged to cover all unsurfaced tracks in the countryside. Not all such tracks carry vehicular rights. Some green lanes carry rights only for those on foot, some for those on foot and on horseback, and some carry no public rights at all, being for private use only.
Public rights of way are recorded on definitive maps. If a way is shown on such a map, that constitutes conclusive evidence of the public rights along the way. Local authorities--usually county councils, which involve two tiers--are responsible for definitive maps. They are required to keep the maps under continuous review to amend them when missing rights, or errors in previously recorded information, are identified.
Mr. Harry Barnes (North-East Derbyshire):
Does a definitive map always constitute conclusive evidence? I have had numerous problems in this connection in my constituency, and representations have been made to Derbyshire county council. Is it really the case that, when a bridleway is included in a definitive map, that is it? The Trail Riders Fellowship wants to be able to provide facilities for its members to ride bikes on lanes, and intends to challenge the authority of definitive maps, but it is proving difficult to persuade the police and the Crown Prosecution Service to act.
Ms Glenda Jackson:
I understand that the legal definition of a right of way is what appears on a definitive map, but I am the first to acknowledge that there can be--and often are, in specific areas--differences of opinion on the names that should be given to rights of way.
The rights-of-way network in England amounts to some 169,000 km, or 105,000 miles, and represents an important recreational resource. Footpaths make up about 78 per cent. of the network; bridleways, for people on foot, on horseback and on bicycles, make up about 17 per cent., and byways open to all traffic, or BOATs--a rather unusual acronym, given that we are discussing routes for people on foot, on horseback, on cycles and in or on vehicles--make up 3 per cent. BOATs are intended mainly for use by horse riders and walkers, but vehicular
uses have the right to use them. It should be borne in mind that the description of vehicular users extends beyond motorised traffic. BOATs provide a valuable network of off-road routes for horse-drawn vehicles. The remaining 2 per cent. of routes are currently classified as roads used as public paths.
The duty to record rights of way arose principally from the National Parks and Access to Countryside Act 1949. Under that Act, local authorities were required to record as roads used as public paths--RUPPs--not only footpaths and bridleways, but ways which, while carrying public vehicular rights, were used principally as footpaths and bridleways. The term "RUPP" was misunderstood, however--perhaps because the Act and the accompanying instructions were not sufficiently clear about the ways that they were intended to record.
The Countryside Act 1968 introduced provisions to deal with those misunderstandings, but again the provisions were applied inconsistently, and problems--albeit different problems--occurred. The legislation was reviewed again in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981--on which the hon. Member for Basingstoke made his opinion clear--and provisions were introduced to require local authorities to resolve the legal uncertainty that had grown up over the years about the rights that could be exercised on RUPPs. Local authorities were to review and reclassify RUPPs as footpaths, bridleways or BOATs, depending on the rights that local authorities found to exist.
That reclassification exercise is itself misunderstood. Let me emphasise that no new rights have been created as a consequence; instead, there is certainty about the rights that already existed. One consequence of the 1981 Act was the separation of the issue of rights from management measures available to local authorities to ensure that inappropriate use of ways--footpaths, bridleways or BOATs--does not occur.
Reclassification is not an easy task. It rests largely on historic documentary evidence that was not drawn up for the purpose, and sometimes evidence is or appears to be conflicting. The quality of evidence differs from case to case and from area to area, and, in many instances, must be seen in the local context.
Some authorities have reviewed and reclassified all their RUPPs; others have some way to go. In 1997 authorities in England made some 86 reclassification orders, only a few of which appeared to cause difficulties. Many of the ways reclassified as BOATs see few or no vehicles; some are capable of sustaining vehicular use with no detriment to the enjoyment of others.
It has been argued that ways that were created for the use of cars and carriages 100 or more years ago should not now be open to motor vehicles. I sympathise with that view, but the modern road network evolved in part from the network established in past centuries. When rights that have not been exercised are shown to exist, there is a case for recording them. The question that then needs to be addressed is whether those rights--or any others, if exercised--are likely to cause damage.
That brings into play another key element of local authorities' responsibilities for the rights-of-way network. They are also responsible for ensuring that the use of rights of way is regulated, and is not inappropriate. They can do that by means of their powers to make traffic regulation orders. Such orders can be made for a variety
of reasons, but, in the context of today's debate, the most relevant criteria are those preventing use by vehicular traffic of a kind or in a manner that is unsuitable, having regard to the character of the way and to preserving the character of the way in cases in which it is especially suitable for use by persons on horseback or on foot. Using those powers, local authorities can regulate use for all or some users for all the year, or at times when ways are vulnerable.
Traffic regulation orders, however, have incurred some criticism as a management tool to protect rights of way, and there may be a case for changing local authorities' powers in that regard. Last year, we announced our intention to consider whether the scope for the making of orders should be widened to include nature and landscape conservation. Also last year, we published our document "Making the Best of Byways". I am sorry that the hon. Member for Basingstoke does not share our view that it constitutes a practical guide to management of the use of vehicles on public rights of way.
The guide was prepared with the help of groups representing landowners, farmers, users and local authorities. It is intended to assist and encourage the development of clear management strategies for unsealed ways, and to set out measures that can be taken to protect them as a resource and to benefit a wide range of users.
The hon. Gentleman expressed concern about the introduction to the guide. The guide does not state that all RUPPs carry vehicular rights. To be included in it, ways must be unsealed and also carry vehicular rights. The sub-set in the document includes some RUPPs, some BOATs and some routes formerly defined as UCRs. Excluded from the sub-set are RUPPs that are sealed, RUPPs that do not carry vehicular rights and BOATs and former UCRs that are sealed. The guide goes on to say that rights of way in the sub-set, which for the purposes of the guide are referred to as byways, are available to all users. As all the ways in the sub-set carry vehicular rights by definition, that is true. The guide does not seek to redefine terms used in legislation, or the rights associated with particular statutory definitions.
Nevertheless, we are aware that there is considerable concern about rights of way. The concern is not only about protecting green lanes, or reclassifying RUPPs, but about procedures for the whole network. Last year, the Countryside Commission--as it was then--set out its proposals in a document entitled "Rights of Way in the 21st Century", which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Basingstoke, and which the commission used as the basis for discussions with national organisations with an interest in rights of way.
Much interest was expressed in the commission's proposals on the objective of promoting a more effective approach to managing vehicular use of rights of way. The strong responses were an indication of the feelings on the matter. Some people interpreted the commission's
proposals as an attempt to increase the number and length of routes that may be used by vehicles. However, that was not the proposals' objective--which was to achieve greater clarity over the rights that may be exercised on rights of way.
Following its discussions, the Countryside Commission has made its recommendations for change in "RightsOf Way in the 21st Century, Conclusions and Recommendations", which was published last month. The commission concluded that it was essential to establish clear arrangements to replace the current system, and made several recommendations to that effect. It noted the interest shown in vehicular rights and the antipathy often shown towards any motorised use. It proposed that the Government should invite the new Countryside Agency to establish a working group of representatives of the main organisations with an interest in vehicular use of rights of way to identify and agree specific proposals for improving both the management and recording of byways.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |