Natural Environment & Rural Communities |
|
Mr. Williams: I thank the Minister for that assurance. The Whip has told me that we may be finishing very shortly and it is good to finish on a successful note. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill. The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 8—Dedication of way as highway presumed after public use for 20 years—
Column Number: 285
Paddy Tipping: I am surprised and delighted to be able to take part in this short debate on new clause 8. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire told us this morning that rights of way legislation needed modernising and, at the risk of running into trouble with some of my hon. Friends, I tend to agree with him. Rights of way improvement programmes may be a way of doing that. The new clause is a clear example of difficulties with rights of way legislation that is not well codified and tends to be out of date. It relates specifically to the notion of bringing into question the public’s right to use a right of way. It is set against an application to modify the definitive map. The Minister has been good about giving examples to the Committee, and I shall give one also. There are arguments in many parts of the country about whether a right of way exists. Put in simplistic terms, if a right of way has been used for 20 years and that can be established, a claim can be made and it is possible that the right of way will be acknowledged and put on the definitive map. 3 pmThere are cases in which walkers using rights of way are suddenly confronted by the landowner saying that the right of way does not exist. Typically, the walkers will be confronted by a sign saying, “No right of way here”, or, as has happened to me on several occasions, a farmer with a shotgun. That is the point of interruption—the bringing into question of the right of way. One way of bringing into question a right of way is to put in a claim to the local authority. There is no confrontation with the landowner. The person desiring to use a path makes a claim to the local authority. There has been extensive discussion involving people who use paths, such as the Ramblers Association, and the rights of way review committee about whether the notion of making a claim constitutes the concept of “brought into question”. The advice of the lawyers—they are certainly earning their money today—is that a claim by itself does not constitute bringing into question the right of way. As I said, there has been a lot of discussion about the matter involving various organisations and the Department. The Minister’s predecessor wrote to the rights of way review committee on 22 June 2004, establishing that there were problems. He said:
I would like to draw this bit to the Minister’s attention: Column Number: 286
The vehicle is here, and I invite the Minister to jump on it. Jim Knight: Clause 63 ensures that where there is historic evidence of use of a route by non-mechanically propelled vehicles, or a historic dedication of a carriageway at a time when horse and cart use was commonplace, that evidence may be used to record a restricted byway. A restricted byway carries a right of way on foot, a right of way on horseback or leading a horse, and a right of way for vehicles other than mechanically propelled vehicles. Thus, the type of vehicles using those routes will be very similar to those entitled to use routes dedicated for vehicular use before the era of motor vehicles. When I spoke at the AGM of the British Horse Society, it wanted an assurance on that matter, so I give it now. The clause also deals with the repeal of section 34A of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The Government set out the rationale for not implementing section 34A in the 2003 consultation paper and in a parliamentary statement made to this House on 9 December 2003. As for the new clause, it is important that routes that have ostensibly been used as part of the rights of way network for a long period should be reflected in local authorities’ definitive maps. Section 31 of the Highways Act 1980 ensures that where there has been a continuous period of use of 20 years, a public right of way may be recognised. However, I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood that I accept that there is some ambiguity in the way section 31 is drafted, which may benefit from clarification. I agree with my him that an application to record a right of way under section 53 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 on the basis of 20-year evidence of use may not constitute bringing the public right to use a path into question and where there is no dispute about the use of the way, that may present a problem. The issue is technical, and I would like to consider it further with a view to returning to it in the other place. With that undertaking, I hope that my hon. Friend will withdraw his new clause. The Chairman: I just want to say to the hon. Member for Sherwood that he does not need to withdraw his new clause, but he may wish to reply to the debate. Paddy Tipping: I simply take the words of the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire: we are making some progress. I will say no more. Question put and agreed to. Clause 63 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 64 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Further consideration adjourned.—[Tony Cunningham.] Adjourned accordingly at five minutes past Three o’clock till Tuesday 5 July at half-past Ten o’clock. |
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2005 | Prepared 1 July 2005 |