Deregulation Bill — House of Lords, 2015-02-03
Topic: Agriculture
Hazel Byford (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, I should remind noble Lords of my farming interests, that I am a member of the CLA, and of the other interests that are set out in the register. Clauses 20 to 27 cover the "Use of land" where, thanks to the excellent work of the stakeholder working group on unrecorded rights of way established by Natural England, improvements have been made to the legislation before us. However, there are still some outstanding areas of concern. Amendment 7, which is supported by my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale, proposes that there should be a review within two years of: "Applications for public path extinguishment of diversion orders" I moved an amendment in Committee that such a review should be carried out within one year, but on reflection I do not believe that that would have allowed adequate time to assess whether the proposed changes in the Bill had been successful or not. In Committee I was very grateful for the contributions made from around the Chamber by the noble Lords, Lord Rooker and Lord Cameron of Dillington, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and by my noble friends Lord Cathcart and Lord Plumb, to name just a few. We debated the whole question of wider access for the public to farmland and, in some cases, through people’s gardens and close to their houses. I accept that philosophical differences were reflected in those contributions, but I have to tell noble Lords that for those families who are affected by such intrusions, this has proved to be distressing, to say the least I am grateful to the Minister, my noble friend Lord De Mauley, for arranging a meeting at Defra for myself and my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale at which we were able to debate this issue further. However, I understand that following a recent meeting of the stakeholder working group, the CLA has raised three further issues with the Minister to which it has not received a response. Is he in a position to clarify these matters as they reinforce my belief that an earlier review is needed? Perhaps I may quote the association: "CLA remain concerned that the ‘right to apply’ does not provide a presumption that paths will be diverted away from gardens, houses and business, nor does the right to apply ensure a different outcome for the landowner "The legislation does not provide a means by which a farmer, for example, who wishes to put a gate on his drive to make his farm less susceptible to theft, or wants to put bollards to prevent illegal vehicles, can do this. He cannot apply to the authority for such a structure, and the authority, even if it is sympathetic would have to be extremely creative with current legislation, to satisfy such a request. Structures can only be requested if required for the control of livestock. The SWG recommendation that a clause be inserted allowing authorities to consider structures in a wide variety of circumstances was a pragmatic, deregulatory solution to a currently very regulated and constricted practice "There is also the issue of right to access in extremely intrusive areas such as through private gardens and yards based on memory of a path rather than hard evidence. It can only be right that any access or right of way should have to be based upon objective evidence rather than subjective opinion and memory. This is especially important given that there is no time limit within which claims can be made—thus claims can be made about very detailed routes which people claim to have walked 30, 40, 50 years ago "The Deregulation Bill presents an opportunity to ensure clear guidance for users, landowners and local authorities in what can be the very emotive issue of rights of way" In Committee, my noble friend Lord De Mauley quoted figures from research undertaken by the Ramblers which recorded that of the 1,200 diversion orders applied for, some 94% were granted without any objections, which is good. Of the remaining 6%, only 1% were not confirmed by the Secretary of State. But some of those were affected, and I have received evidence citing many examples from different counties around the country where great distress has resulted. In one case, an owner was subjected to an onslaught by the council, and it was feared that all that worry was one of the contributing factors to his later suicide. When speaking to his own amendment in Committee, my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale said that: "The stress and the financial hardship involved in employing specialist lawyers, only to learn that one has virtually no legal rights, have led to illness, mental breakdowns and at least two suicides".—[Official Report, 28/10/14; col. GC401.] Noble Lords may be wondering why I am quoting these remarks. It is to reinforce my view that we need to bring the review forward, particularly if we are not going to see further changes to the Bill to address the three outstanding issues. Given that, waiting three years for a review is three years too long, but if the Government did not like my suggestion of one year, I hope that the halfway house of two years might be considered This is an important debate and again I thank the Minister for his courtesy in talking about these issues through the amendments we tabled in Committee. I beg to move.