| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. David Heath: I tabled three amendments in this group--amendments Nos. 35, 36 and 37. The Minister can very easily satisfy me about the matters that they deal with--nature conservancy, the particular requirements of SSSIs, and consultation with English Nature and the Countryside Council for Wales--simply by telling me that they will be dealt with in the advice to local authorities. However, they must be dealt with in that advice, because they are very important aspects of drawing up rights of way improvement plans.
On amendment No. 37, concerning organisations prescribed by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, the Minister can reassure me by telling me that the substance of the amendment will be dealt with under Government amendment No. 298, and that the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales will prescribe those organisations in regulations. I expect that he will be able to give me that assurance, and I shall be pleased if he does. I welcome Government amendment No. 298.
Finally, I should like to say a few words about the comments made by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). I entirely agree with him that if we are to have rights of way improvement plans, the Government have to give clear guidance on what is intended in the legislation, and provide some real impetus. There is a desperate need to improve the rights of way network for walkers and cyclists, and particularly for equestrians, who have very few safe places in the countryside to ride. Not only do they have to contend with traffic, but the bridleway system is lamentably poor.
If rights of way improvement plans are to be effective, not only must the intentions of the legislation be clear, but there must be resources to back up those intentions. Over the years, there have been good intentions towards rights of way, but local authorities have not had the money to pay for the work to implement them. Unless the Government come forward with the money--either in local authority standard spending assessments, in stewardship schemes or in modulation directly to
landowners--those intentions will not be realised. We have to have those assurances if our intentions are to be anything more than pious hopes.
Mr. Kidney: I welcome Government amendment No. 297--which, astonishingly, represents another success for yours truly. Although it is a seemingly modest amendment--
Mr. Heath: More modest than the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Kidney: Perhaps. Nevertheless, I believe that the amendment will have very far-reaching effects. I think that it might also help to reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), because it will ensure that the Countryside Agency and the Countryside Council for Wales are consulted on every local authority's rights of way improvement plan.
It is important to ensure that there is a consistent approach between different authorities. More importantly, the amendment will enable the Countryside Agency to monitor each area. That will be a useful power for Countryside Agency and the Countryside Council for Wales. They are alert to the dangers of losing parts of the network and to the need to expand the network in the way described by my hon. Friend. In being able to draw attention to the worst performers, and with the assistance, I hope, of public disapproval, they will be able to ensure that matters improve, or that the Government do something about authorities that perform badly. On the brighter side, the Countryside Agency and the Countryside Council for Wales will be well positioned to ensure that best practice is disseminated, so that all authorities can perform to the standard of the best.
I am pleased that the Government have introduced this amendment as a result of the argument advanced in Committee.
Mr. Gordon Prentice (Pendle): I shall speak briefly in support of the amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). Astonishingly, clause 51 contains no definition of "improved network". It may be self-evident what an improved network is, but the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend flesh it out and give some guidance.
I am particularly interested in the re-creation of historic routes. I cannot remember whether I mentioned this in Committee, but in my constituency there is a holloway--a mediaeval road--which runs from Bracewell church to a deserted mediaeval village. The holloway has been there for about 600 years, until the present generation. It is overgrown and neglected now, and I should like local authorities to treat these historic routes seriously and open them up so that people can enjoy them again.
New clause 2, also tabled by my hon. Friend, refers to the desirability of creating new public footpaths where the old one, running along a riverside or a cliff top, has been swept away or eroded.
I hope that the Government will look favourably on this group of amendments. They are sensible, and would give local authorities the steer that is required.
Mr. Mullin: I regret that once again I have to disappoint my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). It grieves me that I have had to
do this so often during today's proceedings, because he has a long-standing and honourable record on campaigning for access to the countryside. I hope, however, that he will acknowledge that although the Bill does not go quite as far as he would like, it represents a substantial advance for the causes that he and I, along with many others, care about. As he has also campaigned for improvements in the regime affecting footpaths and bridleways, I hope that he can take some comfort from what I say, although I cannot satisfy him on everything.Amendment No. 5 would require local highway authorities to include in their rights of way improvement plans an assessment of the desirability of ensuring that the overall length of local rights of way is increased each year. Amendments Nos. 53 to 57 would require assessments of a range of other matters, each worthy in its own right.
I sympathise with the intention of those amendments, in so far as we would expect local authorities, where appropriate, to include proposals in their plans for extending their networks if there was a case for doing so, and for addressing the other points--although some aspects of road safety, for example, in amendment No. 55, are covered in the Government's road safety strategy, which was published on 1 March.
The key point, however, is that the proposals relating to creations and other relevant matters will flow from each authority's assessment, which clause 51(2)(a) requires it to undertake, of the extent to which local rights of way meet the present and likely future needs of the public. This is purposely a broad objective, because there are many factors to be considered in deciding what improvements to local rights of way should be made for the benefit of the public as a whole. We do not want to pre-empt the assessment process by requiring in the primary legislation that particular weight be attached to certain narrowly defined matters as opposed to others.
7.15 pm
I see no advantage in identifying specific individual factors in the Bill. Indeed, there could be disadvantages; it would encourage people who believed that their interests were not represented to seek to add to the list as the Bill continues its passage through Parliament. For example, some might argue that if there is to be a separate assessment of the case for increasing the overall length of local rights of way, there should also be an assessment of the need to reduce or rationalise the network. One can foresee a longer and longer list, with some items perhaps cancelling out others.
We believe that clause 51 provides all that is needed to ensure that each authority undertakes a fair and rigorous review of the current state of its local rights of way network and, on the basis of that review, identifies priorities for action to improve it for the wider public benefit.
New clause 2 would place a duty on local highway authorities to take reasonable steps to implement proposals made in their plans as a consequence of the assessment of the matters listed in amendments Nos. 53 to 57. There is no reason why authorities should be required to implement certain proposals and not others. Moreover, we take the view that a specific duty to implement could be counter-productive, in that authorities
might decide that a prudent course would be to make few specific proposals in their plans. We want to encourage a more ambitious approach.Highway authorities have never previously been required to take a strategic overview of their rights of way networks, and we are keen to see a more creative and positive approach to making rights of way more accessible and convenient, and to having fewer gaps. Local authorities are best placed to judge, in the light of local circumstances, what the range and timing of those improvements should be. They will be required to report on the action that they have taken, and will be accountable to the public if they drag their feet.
As for amendment No. 35, the Bill already contains a number of measures to improve nature conservation and protect sites of special scientific interest. For example, new section 28E of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which is inserted by schedule 8, requires local authorities, among others, to further the conservation and enhancement of the special flora, fauna or geological or physiographical features of SSSIs. Together with other measures--such as section 11 of the Countryside Act 1968 and the complementary amendment to section 29 of the Highways Act 1980 introduced in schedule 6, requiring councils to have due regard to nature conservation in the exercise of their functions--we consider that sufficient.
We are sympathetic to amendment No. 36, in the name of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath). It would give local authorities a duty to consult the Government's statutory advisers on nature conservation in preparing and reviewing their rights of way improvement plans, and we will consider that. The hon. Gentleman also asked whether the regulations would cover organisations such as English Nature. I am told that they will. I hope that he and my hon. Friend will agree not to press the amendments and the new clause.
Amendments Nos. 297 to 301 arise from amendments tabled earlier by Opposition Front-Bench Members and by my hon. Friends the Members for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) and for Stafford (Mr. Kidney). They will give the Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales a power to make regulations prescribing whom, in addition to those already set out in the Bill, local highway authorities must consult when drawing up their rights of way improvement plans. They will also require every local highway authority to consult the Countryside Agency or the Countryside Council for Wales on their rights of way improvement plans, irrespective of whether a national trail passes through their area--a limitation currently in the Bill.
We expect local authorities to consult widely in the preparation of their plans. In Committee we considered a range of options for prescribing who should be involved. Our initial view had been to set out who else should be consulted in the statutory guidance under clause 52(4), but we were persuaded of the merits of a regulation-making power to prescribe consultees on improvement plans. In part, that was because current legislation on changes to rights of way and the recording of rights of way contains provisions requiring consultations with various organisations. It would be useful for other key consultees
to be identified in secondary legislation, while local authorities retain a discretion over who else to consult. I commend the Government's amendments to the House.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |