Deregulation Bill

Lord De Mauley Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd February 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

My Lords, legislation on public rights of way is complex, often archaic and certainly plentiful. I declare an interest as an owner of farmland in Cheshire over which there are a number of uncontentious footpaths.

In Committee, many of the issues behind the proposals in the Bill were examined. One of these was the question of procedures and costs involved in addressing the complexities highlighted by footpaths going through gardens and farmyards and alongside private homes, with the consequential privacy and safety concerns. I agree with the noble Lords that this is an important issue and the stakeholder group did address it. However, the measures in the relevant passage of the Bill should alleviate most of the problems. This is not to deny that there may be the further concerns to which the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, has drawn our attention.

In Committee, we were concerned that these measures and others should be subject to follow-up through a report to Parliament. They are, as I have said, very important measures and progress must be made. From the debate in Committee, it is clear that there are several channels of communication through which progress can be monitored and outcomes highlighted, and I am not sure whether there is a need for this proposed new clause to be in the Bill. The Minister at the time may find that a Written Statement would be entirely sufficient and satisfactory as a method of addressing this, but there may be others. The stakeholder working group can issue reports for deliberation. However, if progress is not forthcoming, then we shall certainly return to the issue.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord De Mauley) (Con)]

My Lords, like my noble friend Lady Byford and the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, I declare an interest as the owner of a farm across which there are public rights of way and, indeed, as a user of public rights of way myself.

We have considerable sympathy for those people, mentioned by my noble friend Lady Byford, who face problems with a public right of way that passes through their farm or garden and who feel that the system has let them down or conspired against them. Where these cases occur, people may indeed experience acute problems, but they are comparatively few and we should ensure that any changes we make to legislation are proportionate to the extent of the problem.

Rather unconventionally, I will go in reverse order, and turn first to Amendment 12, in the name of my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale. I understand that the intention behind the regulation it proposes is to enable the creation of rules prescribing how local authorities must make decisions on applications to divert or extinguish rights of way. We believe that the combined effect of our existing measures, which have cross-party support in both Houses, will make a significant difference and that we should not legislate further before seeing how these measures work out in practice. I will explain why that is.

There is clear agreement among stakeholders on the working group that the major difficulty for landowners is in getting local authorities to make a diversion or extinguishment order in the first place. Our plans to implement the right to apply for such orders are designed to overcome this. The right to apply will enable a landowner to make a formal application for the diversion or extinguishment of a public right of way. With that will come the right to appeal to the Secretary of State if the authority rejects the application or fails to act on it. Therefore, local authorities will no longer be able to ignore requests or dismiss them out of hand; they will be obliged either to make an order or to be prepared to justify their reasons for not doing so on appeal to the Secretary of State.

The right to apply will be extended to land-use types other than those for agriculture, forestry and the keeping of horses—for example, to private residential gardens. The right to apply will be supplemented by guidance that will effectively act as a presumption to divert or extinguish public rights of way that pass through the gardens of family homes, working farmyards or commercial premises where privacy, safety or security are a problem. I suggest that guidance such as this, which has been introduced though agreement among stakeholders, is far more likely to prove successful in practice, regardless of whether it has statutory backing.

I realise that there is the further hurdle of getting an order confirmed. However, my noble friend Lady Byford quoted my words in Committee to the effect that, according to Ramblers, which keeps accurate records of these matters, of the 1,257 diversion orders which have reached a conclusion in the last three years, 94% did not attract any objections. Of the 6% that did, less than 1% were not confirmed following submission to the Secretary of State.

In addition, the guidance will give authorities more scope to confirm orders made in the interests of the landowner in circumstances where a right of way may cause hardship because it goes through the garden of a family home, a working farmyard or other commercial premises where privacy, safety and security are a problem. In light of the guidance, authorities would have to put forward compelling reasons for not confirming an order in such circumstances.

We appreciate, and my noble friend will be the first to point out, that the numbers of orders confirmed without objections may fall under the right to apply. Each case will depend on the merits of the proposal. However, given the statistics I have outlined, we believe that the combination of the right to apply and the guidance will have the desired effect and that we should not rush to legislate before giving these measures a chance to work in practice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord De Mauley]

I understand my noble friend’s point, but I hope he would be prepared to give the provisions in the Bill a chance. They are actually quite far reaching. With great respect to my noble friends, who have raised some important points, we are talking here about points which, in their eyes, would make yet further improvements. I think my noble friends acknowledged in their speeches today that there are already some good, positive changes in this Bill. I hope my noble friend would accept that.

Moreover, under the right to apply provisions, the Secretary of State will be the confirming authority for all disputed orders. The Government will therefore be in a prime position to promote implementation of the revised policy set out in the guidance by setting a clear precedent with any cases that come before the Secretary of State. In addition, the Government will work with rights of way officers, through their professional organisations, actively to promote to local authorities the existing guidance on diversion or extinguishment of rights of way which pass through gardens, farmyards or commercial premises.

To return to the amendment, the existing legislation on extinguishments and diversions, in Sections 118 and 119 of the Highways Act 1980, already sets out rules, which Parliament has debated and agreed, under which local authorities make decisions on applications to divert or extinguish rights of way. My noble friend’s proposed regulation-making power would, in effect, be a power to make new rules by delegated legislation and therefore without full parliamentary scrutiny. I suggest that it is highly unlikely that we would get stakeholder agreement to such a measure, knowing that this was the purpose behind the amendment.

[Lord Skelmersdale]

Will my noble friend give way? I thought, or at least I hoped, that I had made it quite clear that, if my noble friend accepted my amendment—which, clearly, he is not going to—it would be necessary to have a Third Reading amendment to make these regulations by affirmative order. In that case, of course, they would have parliamentary scrutiny.

[Lord De Mauley]

My noble friend makes a fair point.

It has been clear throughout the Bill’s passage that Parliament agrees with our view that that the consensus should be supported by keeping the rights of way package as it stands. I spoke to the stakeholder working group at its latest meeting and learnt at first hand that its overriding aim is to get the package implemented intact. We are determined that the consensus should not be put at risk by adding measures that have not been discussed with stakeholders and, of course, not consulted on.

Amendment 7, tabled by my noble friend Lady Byford, is intended to ensure that the Government review the success or otherwise of these measures after their implementation. That is an absolutely laudable aim and one that, in any event, would be a matter of good practice. However, although we agree with the aim of evaluating the effectiveness of the right to apply and associated guidance, I hope that my noble friend will agree that it would not be appropriate to use a deregulatory Bill to impose on the Government the statutory burden of making a formal report. That would run contrary to the aims of the Bill.

In the other place, the Government have already put on record that the stakeholder working group’s advice will be sought on the constitution of a review panel to advise on how well the reforms are working and whether any further measures need to be taken before the cut-off date. I am happy to put on record now that we will ensure that any arrangements to review the rights of way reforms will include an assessment, within two years of implementation of the reforms package, of how effective the right to apply provisions and the accompanying guidance have proved in getting local authorities to respond positively to applications for public path extinguishment or diversion orders.

The proposed assessment will include an opportunity for people to provide evidence to the stakeholder working group either through wider consultation outside the group or a call for evidence. The assessment will send a message to authorities that the Government are determined that the new policy should work and that if guidance does not bring about sufficient change, we will consider introducing further measures.

My noble friend Lady Byford returned to the issue that we discussed in Committee about the authorisation of gates. We recognise that an amendment to extend the powers to authorise gates and similar structures could be helpful to people with a right of way going through their premises or garden. The stakeholder working group discussed this at some length. While there was agreement about the proposal in principle, the group has not yet arrived at a formulation on which it could agree. Those measures have not, unlike the rest of the package, been widely consulted on and are therefore not necessarily agreed by wider stakeholders, whose views we also have to consider.

Concerns have been expressed by users of rights of way about the possible proliferation of gates and other structures across rights of way. Particular concern has been raised with me by equestrian groups in the stakeholder working group that I attended. They are worried about riders with disabilities who may not be able to dismount or who have difficulties in opening and closing gates without risk of injury to themselves or their horse. Since the House of Lords Committee stage of the Bill I have received correspondence expressing concern about the suggestion that the powers of local authorities to authorise gates should be further extended beyond those changes already being introduced by Clause 24.

My noble friend also raised the point about the right to apply not providing a presumption that paths will be diverted away from gardens, houses and businesses. We have covered that quite extensively. The guidance agreed by the stakeholder working group introduces a presumption that paths will be diverted away from houses and businesses. We believe that the guidance, combined with the right to apply, will have the desired effect. My noble friend also asked whether there should not be a time limit on making claims based on long use. The stakeholder working group has not been able to reach an agreement on that, but it will continue to keep it under review.

On that basis, I hope that my noble friend will withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Byford]

My Lords, although I am grateful to my noble friend for his full response to my Amendment 7 and for his acceptance that the review should take place two years after the Bill becomes enacted rather than after three years, as was originally proposed, I will read Hansard carefully—but this is indeed welcome.

I still have some concerns about the important ongoing work by the stakeholder working group. We get such few opportunities of such legislation coming before us in Parliament, when we have a chance to try to make sure that practicalities are overcome if they possibly can be—although that is not always possible. I hope that the stakeholder working group will continue to work closely together to try to resolve some of these issues. They are not impossible to resolve. My noble friend Lord Cathcart said that it is costly to apply for diversions. I gather that unopposed diversions cost about £2,000, but those that are opposed cost more than £8,000 and can be dearer. We need to keep that in the back of our minds when we are talking in fairly general terms about something that was a problem 40 years ago, to which my noble friend Lord Spicer referred.

Although there are improvements in this Bill, which I have publicly acknowledged, there are still things that need addressing. If that cannot be done within the Bill, I hope that the words that my noble friend the Minister has given me today will fill me with confidence rather than suggesting that he thinks that I have got it wrong.

We have another stage. Other Peers have taken part in this short debate: my noble friends Lord Skelmersdale, Lord Cathcart and Lord Spicer, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester. The noble Lord has, as I do, footpaths across his land and we are happy to have them. Ours are not contentious, but there are people—and 1% is 1% too many—who are having a rough time, because the various interested bodies cannot get together to try to reach a proper outcome to something that I hope is not an insurmountable problem. It may seem a huge problem to those who want the right of way; and those who say that if they were to divert it, that would be of benefit to everybody. Perhaps the working group could attach a little more vigour to some of the outstanding issues.

I thank my noble friend and other noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, and, with my noble friend’s words saying that within two years there will be a review panel rather than a report, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord De Mauley]

8: Clause 25, page 22, line 32, leave out “or (3)(b)” and insert “, (3)(b) or (5)”

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, government Amendments 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14 and 15 in this group are minor and technical in nature and do not make any substantive change to the policy of Clause 25 or Schedule 7. They make in fact the following changes.

One is a correction to new Section 54C(3) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which is concerned with modification consent orders, to make any path or way resulting from such an order “maintainable at public expense” instead of making the surveying authority responsible for its maintenance. This small change in terminology makes the provision consistent with existing rights of way provisions and avoids creating any uncertainty among practitioners. There are extant provisions that enable diversion and extinguishment orders to be severed, where only part of an order is subject to a valid objection. Another change in terminology substitutes “parts” for “modifications” in these provisions. That is because “modifications” has a very particular meaning in relation to definitive map modification orders and is best confined to that context.

The final change is to enable the Secretary of State to decide which procedure to use in deciding appeals and objections on rights of way diversion and extinguishment orders. This will make the procedure consistent with that for recording rights of way. It will enable the Secretary of State to opt for the exchange of written representations rather than a hearing or public inquiry and avoid unnecessary and costly public inquiries where there is no justification for them.

My noble friends Lord Greaves and Lord Bradshaw have amendments in this group, but it is appropriate that they introduce them before I respond. I beg to move.

[Lord Bradshaw (LD)]

My Lords, the problem we are trying to deal with is the unauthorised use of green lanes by 4x4 vehicles and trail motorbikes. This problem is getting worse, making many rights of way impassable and creating an intrusive noise nuisance. Present legislation is entirely inadequate for dealing with this problem. Local authorities which are short of resources are unable or unwilling to commit to dealing with an outdated and burdensome situation.

When the Peak District National Park and other national parks were formed, the use of rights of way by 4x4 vehicles and trail motorbikes for recreational purposes was not foreseen. At present there is no simple way of dealing with this obstructive and noisy nuisance and some fresh way must be found to deal with a problem that prevents walkers and riders enjoying the countryside. The purpose of any new legislation would be to create a right of appeal where a highway authority fails to make a traffic regulation order that excludes motor vehicles from a byway open to all traffic, and other green lanes, where there is evidence that such an action is necessary. At present, local communities have no redress if their highway authority refuses to act.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Grantchester]

My Lords, the stakeholder working group is to be commended on finding and building consensus around the main interested groups to recommend the changes to the Bill as a package, to streamline the process, and to make quicker progress with less contention and confrontation, even though there may appear to be plenty of time until 2026, the cut-off date under the CROW Act 2000. We agree with the measures in the Bill as a balanced approach to speed up the process. We wish to retain the consensus and build on it. I am grateful to the Government for listening to our views and those of many others, reflecting on the proposals and coming forward with these further technical clarifications. We agree that the stakeholder working group must be retained following this excellent report, and its remit extended to experience more contentious, protracted issues. Indeed, in the other place, the Minister agreed to set this up.

The problem raised through Amendment 17 is one that needs addressing, but not in the context of this Bill. This is not to deny that there are issues, costs and damage created by the use of off-road all-terrain vehicles. However, they must be addressed in the context that 62% of byway traffic is due to land management and dwelling access, with the remaining 38% due to recreation. The damage done by this 38% cannot be denied, and the noble Lords, Lord Bradshaw and Lord Cameron, and my noble friend Lord Judd have highlighted this tonight. But 70% of byways are without drainage, and much damage can be done by farm vehicles, water erosion and poor maintenance. The stakeholder working group must be allowed to examine the issue to find solutions first, to be arrived at through dialogue, a process more likely to result in less conflict, more compromise and thus acceptance, reducing the need for enforcement. Ministers could then make better informed decisions. These measures relating to public rights of way will bring benefit to all interests—land owners, local authorities and the public, even with their competing interests.

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, in what is an understandably contentious debate about the recreational use of motor vehicles on unsurfaced routes in the countryside, and particularly inside national parks, we are addressing similar issues to a debate we had in Committee. We sympathise with genuine concerns about the problems that can arise from the recreational use of motor vehicles on unsealed roads, encapsulated in Amendment 17 by my noble friend Lord Bradshaw. I have seen some of the pictures that the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, referred to. We agree that this is an issue which needs to be tackled and some means of resolution found. The Government’s published response to the Joint Committee’s report of pre-legislative scrutiny on the Deregulation Bill said as much, but also recognised that this Bill is not the right mechanism for doing so. The issue of recreational off-road motor vehicle use is an emotive and contentious one, where one person’s pleasurable pastime is anathema to another. The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, said that by no means all damage to unsealed roads and tracks is by the recreational use of motor vehicles, and I broadly confirm the figures that he mentioned.

We believe that the best way to review policy on the recreational off-road use of motor vehicles is for it to be based on the stakeholder working group model. I am grateful to noble Lords who echoed those sentiments. That approach has proved to be successful, as demonstrated by the stakeholder consensus on the rights of way reforms package, of which the clauses in this Bill form the major part. This has resulted in mutually beneficial solutions being arrived at through dialogue and negotiation.

The Government plan to set up such a motor vehicle working group, with an independent chairman, as soon as possible after the Deregulation Bill has completed its passage. My department will work with Natural England to organise a secretariat, and it will invite stakeholders with the relevant experience and expertise to join the group. We propose to invite interested organisations to put forward their suggestions for suitable members. In response to my noble friend Lord Bradshaw’s specific question, I say that a key principle is that the group should contain a balance of interests across all sectors. We plan to have members who can represent the interests of national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty, national trails as well as all the different types of users of rights of way.

Within such a group, recognised professionals can explore all the viable possibilities and their likely consequences. Resolutions arrived at in this way, based on agreement and mutual interest, are likely to result in less conflict and reduce the need for enforcement. Solutions will work best if based on compromise, and I have been assured by those representing the anti-vehicle groups that it is not their intention to change the legislation in relation to allowing motor vehicle trials and competitions. I welcome this approach, as I do the points made by my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale and the noble Lord, Lord Judd.

My noble friend Lord Skelmersdale raised a point about access for disabled people to the countryside. This is a complex issue with many different aspects, which is why it needs to be considered carefully by a working group and fully consulted on.

My noble friend Lord Bradshaw asked about timing. I have said that the stakeholder working group will start its work upon completion of the passage of the Bill. We will set a target time for the group to report. The original stakeholder working group took 18 months to report and I believe that a similar timeframe is realistic for this group to work to. I can confirm that a public consultation will follow the report.

While the group needs to have a clear remit, it will be invited to come up with its own terms of reference. I expect that it will look at all the issues in the round and include assessments of any economic and social benefits of the current recreational use of unsealed roads as well as an assessment of the costs and burdens. On that basis, I hope that my noble friend Lord Bradshaw will be prepared not to press his amendment.

[Lord Bradshaw]

I thank the Minister for what he has said, but what was missing was the question of what happens—

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord De Mauley]

9: Schedule 7, page 118, line 38, leave out from beginning to “(including” in line 43 and insert—
“(3) Where a modification consent order takes effect, any path or way, or any part of a path or way, which is shown in a definitive map and statement in consequence of the order or any special order combined with it under section 54B(5) is maintainable at the public expense”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord De Mauley]

13: Schedule 7, page 138, line 19, leave out “modifications” and insert “parts”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord De Mauley]

15: Schedule 7, page 138, line 42, at end insert—
“( ) In that paragraph, after sub-paragraph (4) (as inserted by sub-paragraph (4) of this paragraph) insert—
“(5) In the case of an order relating to England, the Secretary of State may, instead of affording a person an opportunity of being heard as mentioned in sub-paragraph (2)(b), (2A)(b) or (3)(b), afford the person an opportunity of making representations (or further representations) to a person appointed by him for the purpose.“(6) Where the Secretary of State acts under sub-paragraph (5) by affording a person an opportunity of making representations (or further representations) instead of an opportunity of being heard as mentioned in sub-paragraph (2)(b) or (3)(b), the reference in sub-paragraph (2) or (as the case may be) (3)(c) to the report of the person appointed to hear representations or objections is to be read as a reference to the report of the person appointed under sub-paragraph (5).””

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I can be brief because of the powerful arguments made this evening by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and my noble friend Lord Harris. The points they made were extremely telling. It is incumbent now upon the Government and the Minister to try and answer why an approach that is non-localist and bureaucratic should proceed rather than the current arrangements under the London Local Authorities Act 2007. What is the problem with London that this seeks to solve? It is incumbent on the Government to say.

The Government’s focus on this area is all very well, but is it the right priority at the moment? The Minister will be aware of current figures for recycling rates that show that for England household recycling has pretty much flatlined, with a very small increase in the last figures that I have seen. There are real concerns that recycling rates could potentially decline. I would have thought that the Government should be more worried about that than tying up these bureaucratic arrangements that have been so roundly challenged tonight. I hope the Minister will be able to explain very clearly why the Government are where they are on this.

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, I believe that there is broad political consensus that Clause 44 is needed to introduce a fair system of penalties related to household waste collection in England. This new system will treat individuals more fairly than hitherto and deal effectively with those whose behaviour has a negative impact on residents’ local neighbourhoods, such as leaving bin bags on the street for days on end.

The clause removes the current criminal sanctions available under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The system we propose means that fixed penalties of between £60 and £80 will be available if a person does not present household waste as required and this causes a nuisance or is detrimental to the locality. The clause introduces a “harm to local amenity” test. Civil sanctions will be available to deal with behaviour such as putting waste out in a way that causes obstruction to neighbours, attracts pests, unreasonably impedes access to pavements or is an eyesore.

In Amendments 18 and 19, my noble friend proposes to retain a parallel system in London. We want to change the law so that only people causing real problems for their community will get punished—for example, people leaving bin bags on the street for days on end. The new test of causing harm to local amenity is designed to ensure this. My noble friend’s amendment would enable London boroughs to bypass this important safeguard. That would mean that if a London resident happened to leave a bin lid open or if someone threw the wrong rubbish into someone else’s recycling bin then the householder—that is, someone else—could be punished, in London.

We do not think it appropriate for people to be penalised for a first-time mistake or someone else’s careless action. They should be told what they have done wrong and have the opportunity to rectify their errors. Clause 44 introduces these changes to the Environmental Protection Act 1990. I am confident that this will not add significant burdens compared to how the current arrangements operate in practice. We know that many authorities already communicate well with their residents and seek to educate them if they have difficulties with collection requirements.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

Can the Minister tell us how many instances of the cases he has described have led to action under the London local authorities scheme?

[Lord De Mauley]

I am quite happy to do that. If I cannot do so during this debate, I will let the noble Lord know whatever information I can find for him.

Clause 44 would ensure that this best practice is adopted and that additional safeguards for the individual are available across all boroughs.

I understand that my noble friend is concerned that the process of issuing penalties will take too long. We need to get the balance right between protecting individuals’ civil liberties and dealing with behaviours which damage local neighbourhoods. We intend that this is reflected in legislation. Since the Deregulation Bill was first published in draft, we have amended Clause 44 so that local authorities will not have to issue multiple warnings to people who repeat the same behaviour of causing harm to the local amenity within a year.

We also believe in a fair and measured approach to penalties. A shoplifter committing a first offence may be issued with a £90 penalty notice for disorder. My noble friend’s amendment would levy penalties of £110 for mistakes and carelessness with Londoners’ bins. Clause 44 allows us to set the level of penalties at between £60 and £80 because we do not believe such mistakes and carelessness should be penalised more heavily than shoplifting. I understand my noble friend’s focus on London and know she would like the city to be treated as a special case. However, other cities in England have, for example, high-density housing, transient populations and student populations. I am sure she would accept that a proportionate, fair approach should apply throughout England.

My noble friend asked why the clause needed to be so wordy. We appreciate that the clause and the schedule are long and look complicated. There are two reasons for that. First, we want to be clear about the process that local authorities must go through as we do not want householders to be penalised for a first-time, inadvertent mistake. Secondly, we are looking to align two different systems, set out in the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the London Local Authorities Act 2007.

To summarise, this clause as it stands will introduce the protection that a household needs from being punished for a simple mistake or for people throwing the wrong rubbish into someone else’s bin. It will align all of England with a sensible approach that keeps residents informed and levels of penalties proportionate.

My noble friend Lord Tope asked whether I would be prepared to meet him about this, and the noble Lord, Lord Harris, asked the same question. Of course I would be prepared to do that, but I would not want to raise any expectation that the Government will change their position on this. I ask my noble friend to withdraw her amendment.

[Lord Tope]

Is the Minister able to answer the question that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, put to him about the number of prosecutions? As I understand it, he does not have that information to hand. The fact is that in the six or seven years of operating the scheme there has not been one single appeal against the issue of penalty charge notices. Would he conclude, as I do, that that suggests there have been very few issued and even fewer judged to have been unfairly issued?