| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
6.30 pm
Mr. Bennett: I think that the Government are misguided. If we want to stop crime, why is it logical to specify footpaths rather than roads? In the area that I represent, far more burglars arrive at premises by road than arrive by footpath. Surely, if we want to reduce the incidence of crime, it is logical to close roads as well as footpaths--but, of course, it would be considered outrageous to give in to crime in that way.
When people have been burgled, they feel helpless. They want to blame someone, and they cannot necessarily kick the cat. The police tend to send an officer round--perhaps a crime prevention officer, and often a young officer. That officer will of course be tempted to agree with the distressed householder, and say, "Isn't it terrible--the burglars climbed over the back fence from the footpath." The blame is somehow shifted from the criminal to the footpath.
The Government are raising people's hopes by suggesting that closing footpaths will cut crime. That is nonsense. It is possible that, when a footpath is closed, a criminal will go to a different house, or will enter through the front rather than the back door; but I do not believe that closing footpaths will reduce crime in most instances. Indeed, in my area and, I suspect, that represented by the Minister, it may make life easier for criminals. In the case of many closed footpaths, there will not be barbed wire everywhere making access impossible.
Sometimes foot patrols are introduced. It does not happen often, but it happens a little in my constituency and the Minister's. The other day, a young officer told me that one way of cutting crime is to walk down unattractive passageways. Officers on the beat are looking for crime, but when the passageways have been closed they will have to obey the law that says that they cannot go on to private property unless they are invited, or can prove that a crime is occurring. They will no longer be able to nip along the passageway to see what mischief is going on; they will have to be certain that some mischief is going on before they can investigate the problem.
If we are to do anything at all, we should concentrate on diversion. In particular, we should consider diversions where new housing estates have been built. I can think of two cases in my constituency, and one in the Minister's, in which, to get the maximum number of properties on to new sites, builders arranged for footpaths to be diverted so that they went in at a right angle, went along behind some of the houses, and went out again at a right angle. That meant that there was a small area at the back that no one could look through--not a nice area for people to walk through when going to and from the shops. It is a pocket in which crime can occur.
I hope that the Minister will consider both the points that I have made. First, closing a footpath makes it even less likely that a police officer will go along it; secondly,
in the event of a diversion, it should be incumbent on the local authority agreeing to that diversion to take crime prevention measures to ensure that, once diverted, the footpath is less likely to encourage crime than it would have been if diverted in a slightly different way.The Minister is raising expectations that, by taking away rights to footpaths, he will somehow have a significant impact on crime. He is giving way to pressure--to the suggestion that it is not possible to tackle the real issue, which is the criminal, so something should be done about footpaths. In practice, that will not work.
Mr. David Heath: I, too, welcome the Minister's conversion to the cause. I am glad that the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) drew attention to amendment No. 239. I was not remotely miffed to find that he and his hon. Friends had added their names to our amendment, and I am even more pleased to see it nationalised, although perhaps without compensation. I may have to look to my lawyers, if yesterday's debate is anything to go by.
The most important thing is the loss of the urban designation, which I think discriminated against rural areas. The Minister met with something of a rural backlash in Committee. The argument with which he was provided--that because there was a lower overall crime rate in rural areas, measures that might help to fight crime should not be applied there--was not entirely convincing. I am glad that he has seen the strength of the opposing argument.
Let me give at least a partial answer to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). As I said in Committee, I hope that the power will be used sparingly. There will be few occasions on which it proves to be the right answer. The Government have seen the wisdom of requiring its use to comply with the locally derived crime and disorder strategy, which is a strong point in its favour. If it can help at all, let us support it.
I thank the Minister for his helpful letter about the definition of "school". I understand that there is a provision to enable the definition of a primary school to encompass nursery schools, although it does not encompass the pre-school facilities, playgroups and other nursery provision with which I was concerned in Committee.
I accept what the Minister said in his letter about why it would be difficult to formulate legislation encompassing all the different species. I understand that alternative arrangements can be used, and I am grateful to the Minister for taking the trouble to cover the points that I raised.
Mr. Meacher: It is always a cause of concern when changes made by the Government are solidly welcomed by the phalanxes of the Opposition, and rejected only by our own side. However, I believe that the welcome is justified. I shall try to persuade my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) of that, or at least to placate him a little.
The hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) asked about the meaning of "relevant highway". The Government
amendments extend the provisions to cover restricted byways and BOATs; the effect is the same as that of the Opposition amendments. My hon. Friend asked whether the closure of footpaths would be affected in combating crime. I went to great lengths to make it clear that any diversions should be carefully restricted. I repeat that the powers are intended to be used only where persistent and high levels of crime against properties next to a right of way are being generated by the access that that right of way gives. Those are quite limiting conditions: they are not at all the basis for widespread diversions.I also said that the Bill requires that, before closures are contemplated, the local authority should consider whether there is a reasonably convenient alternative route. If there is no such route, the authority must consider whether it would be reasonably practicable to divert the right of way.
My hon. Friend laid down two conditions for me. In answer to his first point, it seems slightly odd and rather double-edged to argue that footpaths assist burglars and criminals but that we ought to keep them open so that police officers can get to areas where they are likely to find and arrest burglars.
However, I was also asked to consider whether footpaths should be diverted only where there is good reason to believe that to do so would be likely to reduce crime. I share the concern expressed by my hon. Friend that the power that we are giving should not be used to provide indiscriminate opportunities for the closure of footpaths for other reasons that may be convenient to other parties. Use of the power has to be justified on the basis that it would have--or could reasonably be expected to have--a significant impact on crime.
Mr. Bennett: How do we reverse the process if crime is not reduced?
Mr. Meacher: If use of the power does not reduce crime, and there is a strong wish to restore a right of way or footpath, there is no reason why it cannot be restored. Local highways authorities are expected to make available plans for improvements to rights of ways. It is unlikely that the problem described by my hon. Friend would occur. However, if it was decided that an unwise decision had been made, that decision is certainly not irreversible.
Mr. Green: I am slightly worried that the Minister may be falling into a trap laid for him by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish. It would be extraordinary if crime in rural areas were reduced by this measure. Crime is rising so fast in rural areas that any reduction in the increase would go against the trend of the past three years and would be an achievement in itself. The measure would be a success if it did no more than contribute to such a reduction.
The Minister should not be required to defend a non-reduction in crime. Policies for which he has no responsibility are contributing to the rise in crime in rural areas.
- Timeo danaos et dona ferentes.
The question is whether this is a sensible anti-crime measure. If it is not and does not meet the strict criteria that I have laid down, I do not believe that it will be pursued. It is certainly my intention that it should not be.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |