| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Representation of Overseas Territories
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay accordingly presented a Bill to provide for the representation of Gibraltar by a Member of Parliament, subject to limitations, and for limited representation of other overseas territories at the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; to include Gibraltar within a European parliamentary constituency; to confer upon Chief Ministers the right to petition the House of Commons at the bar of the House; to improve for elected members of the Legislative Councils access to and communications with Members of the House of Commons; and for related purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 21 July, and to be printed [Bill 140].
Orders of the Day
Countryside and Rights of Way Bill
As amended in the Standing Committee, further considered.
Clause 43
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"'
'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--
(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
(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 from 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 be welcomed.
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.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |