|
|
VICTORY FOR REASON OR DECEIT?
 A small number of MP's and Lords took another step towards turning our countryside into an idyll for their friends and the wealthy. A piece of legislation has just been passed that turns somersaults to ban recreational motorists from many minor roads.
The legislation removes public rights and hands them back to the landowners from over half of the country's un-surfaced roads and quite a few minor tarmac ones too.
Why this was done seems to be as the result of lobbying, and not the study into the topic that Government commissioned. Some walking groups have long resented the presence of vehicles on un-surfaced roads, preferring to leave their gleaming Chelsea Tractors on the verge after driving out from the towns.
What they resent are the few vehicles on roads as roads were when the motorcar first came into common use.
There is the perception, backed only by anecdotal evidence that these vehicles were apparently spoiling the country idyll they had come to visit or retire to.
Only 5% of the trails actually permit vehicles but why should walkers be restricted to 95% vehicle free, shouldn't they have it all - why should anyone want to enjoy the countryside any other way? The arguments might have ranged back and forth as they had for 30 years or more but the truly wealthy and powerful saw their opportunity - to grab back some rights from the unwashed masses who had the nerve to exercise public rights driving on their land . With a bit of luck some lanes will become overgrown and completely unused.
The government allowed the handful of MP's and Lords to have free reign with exaggeration and deceit in order to pass the legislation. Only one Lord challenged the statements with facts and was largely ignored. We should be asking why?
Pictures of hordes of motorcycles racing through the countryside were painted, of 4x4s tearing up footpaths, local government swamped by demands to turn footpaths to race tracks. Strange because the facts told a very different story. But what does the truth matter these days?
Any reader doubting the recreational motorist's story should spend more time in the countryside and see for themselves. Spend time walking on a range of trails and see how many legal, recreational vehicles are encountered.
Consider the following facts:-
- Only 5% of trails permitted public vehicles.
- Public vehicles were already illegal on footpath and bridleway.
- The majority of traffic on RoW is for land management or access and will not stop. Government research found 62% of traffic on byways was this type.
- It is not possible to make footpaths or bridleways vehicular only to insist on existing vehicular rights being recorded where for various reasons they are being denied. Where vehicular rights exist they were being exercised anyway so correcting the signs and maps is unlikely to change traffic patterns. The question should perhaps be asked how and why there were attempts to remove rights.
- Noisy, unregistered vehicles were already illegal everywhere public.
- A responsible, legal user community has been disenfranchised whilst the harder to target illegal use continues, perhaps supplemented by once responsible citizens?
- Why is this being done? Who benefits and why did a handful of parliamentarians need to mislead their colleagues to get the legislation passed. Why did a government minister suddenly stop correcting the misinformation?
Ian Packer.
TRF PR Officer.
email: pr@trf.org.uk
Website: www.trf.org.uk
Background for Press
The following points, or direct quotations, from the debates in Parliament are typical of the kind of argument that is being advanced as a basis for changing the law under section 61 and 62 0f the NERC Bill.
A factual repost follows each point.
- TRF Moratorium is ( falsely) portrayed as having failed: In the debate in the commons Hansard records: 11 Oct 2005 Column 227.
Jim Knight speaking.' In certain counties the moratorium has been effective. In others, there has been a considerable increase in the numbers of applications to have routes recorded as byways on the definitive map and statement. I see the hon. Member for Salisbury (Robert Key) is in his place and we heard from him earlier. Wiltshire county council has received over 70 applications for new byways with the last few weeks. Clearly, these voluntary measures, however well intended, are not having the desired effect'.
Response: Not True: TRF compliance throughout the Moratorium was 99.9%
In a parliamentary question (PQ 1556 05/06) by Bob Laxton (Derby North) asked 'How many byway claims were made to (a) Wiltshire C.C. and (b) other county councils between 5th August and 11th Oct (duration of the moratorium) and how many of these were attributable to the TRF in each case?
This elicited a tabular response for 36 shire counties from Defra. In Wiltshire there were just 12 byway applications of which only 3 were attributable to the TRF (one member who had not seen the message), the remainder in Wilts were from bridleway groups and parish councils. Further extrapolation and investigation of these figures demonstrated that only 3 members of the 3000 membership of the TRF had submitted claims during the period of the Moratorium: a compliance of 99.9%.
- The Moratorium was a Ruse or Smokescreen by the TRF and therefore cooperative management schemes would not work :
Response: Not at all, the commons was misled by a selective quotation taken from a message sent by Geoff Wilson , chair of the TRF to all its members. Subsequent to the debate in the Commons Geoff Wilson wrote to the Under Secretary of State Jim Knight on 23rd Oct 2005 as follows:
'During the debate in the House you were misled on many points about which I had expected you would have been sufficiently well briefed to have been able to defend or draw the truth. In particular I refer to the points made by Mr Paice ( and added to by other MPs) concerning the moratorium applied, at your recommendation and request, by LARA.
My role was specifically referred to in the House by Mr Paice when he quoted me in the following way to illustrate his opinion that the moratorium had not worked and was a hollow exercise.
From Hansard: Mr Paice: I want to conclude this item by referring to one particular quote, which says: 'However, nothing is more certain than if we are seen to be breaking the moratorium, and by doing so illustrate that user groups cannot control the actions of their members and that members care nothing for the proposals that have been submitted to the Minister for the future provision and management of our activity, then the pressure will be increased further to BACK DATE the cut off date for claims.
'So the TRF DEMANDS that no claims are submitted until at least after the NERC Bill 3rd Reading, which will be between 11 - 15 Oct. TRF Officers will reconsider the moratorium after the 3rd Reading. Regards, Geoff Wilson Chairman TRF'.
This extract from a longer message from me to national officers and group secretaries of the Trail Riders Fellowship was taken out of context from the larger message. The whole message was very clear to those to whom the message was intended (rather than to those who 'stole' it from the TRF web site). It warned them to anticipate that the moratorium may NOT be lifted following the 3rd Reading of the Bill. It had been made clear to TRF members and other LARA organizations that the future of their recreation depended on time being made to work through and implement the Sustainability Assessment Process that had been presented to you in draft form'.
Jim Knight replied - one month later - in a letter dated 21st Nov 2005: (But damage done) 'I also understand your concern about the way your words (from the TRF website) were construed by James Paice; I can see that they might be open to interpretation.
However, although it is, of course, open to you to do so, I do not think it appropriate for me to advise James Paice how he should interpret your words'.
ON THE APPARENT EVIDENCE OF THE POINTS ABOVE THE ONE CONSTRUCTIVE AND POTENTIALLY WORKABLE MANAGEMENT SOLUTION WAS DISMISSED
- Vehicle Users are claiming more (new) Byways: Hansard : 30th June 05 Column 261
Response: Not true claims are for well used existing Routes with their status incorrectly shown on the DM. The impression being fostered is that Users Groups are 'inventing' new routes for their use in the countryside.
Lord Bridgeman in a debate on 10th Jan 2005 implied as much when he spoke of the claims being made in Derbyshire by the TRF.. 'some of which are hardly discernible on the ground'. This is simply not the case.
The Derbyshire TRF responded with a letter to the then Minister, Alun Michael, explaining their how their research procedures were the same as the Gov'ts own DLW programme and showing typical photographs of 40ft wide stone surfaced carriageways. Derbyshire is one of the much cited counties by anti-vehicular lobby, as a 'hot spot'.
This is simply because, in spite of an additional grant of £20,000 over 5 years from the
Countryside Agency to clarify RuPP status, it only has 3 BOATs on its definitive map, 1/40th of the national average in a county which because of its early mining and industrial heritage could be expected to have more than the average number of carriageways; which research is now proving to be the case. NO new byways have been claimed Derbyshire only corrections under current legislation to the status incorrectly shown!
- There is a 'Tidal Wave of Claims': Hansard 30th June 05 Column 260 referring to the increase in claims over previous years.
Response: in 4 stages:
- This was only to be expected as a result of the Governments CROW Act 2000 which changed the law: promising to freeze the status of routes 'as shown' on the DM by 2026 unless 'corrected' by the public with whom they now placed this burden instead of the Highway Authorities whose outstanding and incomplete duty it had been for the last 37 years.
Furthermore, the burden of prove for a route over which vehicular rights were claimed had now passed to those who would use it. A previously legitimate status quo had been disturbed and vehicle users were now required to demonstrate their (long held) evidence. A surge in applications as a consequence of this was inevitable.
But this was known to Parliament. In response to a Parliamentary Question (PQ 2182 05/06) 'What estimate was made by the Countryside Agency, at the time of setting up Discovering Lost Ways Project of the extent in kilometres of (a) footpath, (b) bridleway and (c) byway open to all traffic which would need correcting or adding to the Definitive Map before it could be considered accurate and complete?'
Defra replied saying following a survey Co Ag had replied in March 2002: that 17% of a total of 20,000 claims would be for byways. (2,700 km).
- To assist with this corrective process the government charged the Countryside Agency with setting up a Discovering Lost ways Project to research and make claims for the omissions and corrections.
Naturally the vehicle user groups waited for this to come to their assistance. But nothing was produced. In response to a Parliamentary Question (PQ 2184 05/06) 'How many claims have been lodged with the surveying authorities in England since the inception of the Discovering Lost ways Project?
Defra's response in December 2005 was 'As yet no claims have been lodged with the surveying authorities in England as a result of the DLW project'.
- (3).Defra suddenly threatening to curtail the time for byway research from the original 25 years to just 1 year.
This naturally introduced a sense of urgency among the vehicular research workers.
- It is said there has been an influx of 2000 Claims: But what is the provenance of these claims, where have they come from?
The TRF, the acknowledged source of the majority of the substantive claims, are at a loss to understand: they can only account for at most 500 because the process is so demanding. TRF figures for hours required to make the necessary research (excluding the additional work to identify Landowners which can be just as demanding) runs at 20 + hours per claim. (typically 8 or more corroborative pieces of evidence is required to make a claim substantive). 2000 x 20 = 40,000 hours, from people who are, with few exceptions, in full time work ? and require access to the Records Office only open Mon - Friday It doesn't add up.
- 'We cannot tolerate local authorities being deluged with applications in an attempt to thwart the aims of the Bill' Hansard: Jim Knight 11th Oct Column 227.
Response: Nothing shows more clearly the polarity or dichotomy between Parliament and Public (vehicle users) thinking and position than this statement. The vehicle users are responding to current legislation (CROW Act 2000) which requires there to be certainty over the status of routes shown on the Definitive Map and places the onus for correction with the public using tried and tested local government procedures - V - politicians responding to a clamour of protest at the result of that legislation: so that they would wish to ignore it, pretend that it isn't the root of the problem, and attempt to vilify those who are acting properly within current legislation to provide that clarity in law.
There has been a de-coupling of Cause and Effect which defies rational thinking and problem solving.
- 'The intention of the Bill (NERC) is to restrict the recording of additional byways on the definitive map and statement on the basis of historical horse and cart use'. Jim Knight responding on 13th Dec 2005' to Clive Betts MP (and others) by letter.
Response: this is a corruption of existing Highway Law which is largely based on judgements made in civil law. There are criteria for establishing carriageways which permit amongst other things motorized vehicles. There are no roads that were designed (only) for horse and cart.
Similarly, with the exception of Motorways (circa 2000 miles) and Town By-Passes (circa 1000 miles) there are no roads in England designed for motor vehicles. The vast majority of roads between towns and villages that make up the current network come from well before the advent of the motor vehicle.
They are all carriageways delineated by various Parliamentary Acts like the enclosure awards and intended to be maintained to a standard commensurate with the traffic that they have to bear.
As a consequence most have become tarred - many to meet the needs of two world wars - but some, those we are talking about here, escaped that tarring process.
However, there is no legal difference between country roads that remain un-tarred and those used every day by the majority of traffic that are tarred. The argument that these old unsurfaced roads are 'Roads only designed for the Horse & Cart' is nothing more than a sound bite.
- To prevent the expansion (of vehicular use) onto tracks which were never intended for use by motorized vehicles. Jim Knight in responding to MPs (see above).
Response: this is a theoretical argument leading to an absurd conclusion. Our network of country roads is centuries old and therefore clearly in use before the motor vehicle was ever thought of. But that does not, and has not, prohibited these roads from legitimate access by motor vehicles - if it were so, 95% of our current rural highway network would be out of bounds to the motor car : surfaced or unsurfaced makes no difference, that is just a question of the standard of maintenance adopted by the local Highway Authority.
- We can't have claimants overwhelming the HA with claims.
Response:
- The proposed solution of making the evidence on which current highway law is based - invalid - to avoid legitimate claims would destroy the credibility of the map as definitive, everyone would know that it had been fudged as a political expedient.
- HA will become overwhelmed anyway as at least the same number of restricted byway claims will be made, necessitating the same investigative process by the HA, as for BOAT. The overload comes as a result of the HA having failed in their statutory duty to regularly up-date the DM since its inception, in the case of RuPPs for the last 37 years since the Highway Act of 1968.
- Lord Bach said for the Government that Vehicle users are not having their present network of Byways reduced. Hansard 7th Nov 2005 Response: Not so, (Defra later corrected this to say by byway he meant BOATS). Current legislation allows use where higher, i.e. vehicular rights, can be shown to exist: that is to say, in spite of the inaccuracies on the DM. NERC would simply declare such evidence invalid -substantially reducing the legal network.
For example Derbyshire has only 3 BOATS, 1/40 of the national average, in a county where more than average might be expected because of the County's considerable history of mining and early industrialisation. This is solely due to the attitude of the HA which has obfuscated the situation by conducting a minimal exercise and declaring only the minimum rights found for the route.
Indeed, more thorough research has shown there should be at least the national average number of BOATS
- Human Rights: Parliament is not removing an existing right. Hansard 30th June Column 262 'a person cannot plead they will be effected by the taking away of a right that they do not have'.
Response: Not so, the claimants seek to correct an inaccuracy on the DM of public rights that already exist and for which evidence can be supplied that those rights exist. Politicians are trying to take those public rights away by making the pertinent evidence inadmissible.
|
