My Lords, I will take the same tack as the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and add my voice to his, following his welcome return to his place in this Chamber.
Unless I have misunderstood the proposal—if I have, the explanation is well buried—why proceed with a cut-off date on the registration of these long-forgotten rights of way at all? They are an ancient and important contribution to our social fabric in England. For a thousand years and more, these rights of way have evolved into a wonderful network of publicly accessible walks and bridle paths, which are much enjoyed by a large and growing cross-section of society.
The objective of the 2000 Act appears to be a desire to create
“a final and complete record of historical public rights of way”.
There seems to be no reason for not adding to maps as old, long-lost or forgotten rights of way come to light; simply update the records. As we know, this Government agreed to drop the cut-off date and, for no good reason, wish to reintroduce it. Scotland and Northern Ireland do not want a cut-off date. There is no explanation for why we need this. It sounds as though it is the result of a horse deal between different lobby groups of landowners and farmers. Where did the public fit into this discussion? I do not think that they have a voice or that they have been heard at all. I do not deny that irresponsible walkers in the countryside are a nuisance, but they are a small minority. Without access to the countryside, those who abuse it will never have a chance to learn the rules of good behaviour and learn to treat this resource as something so precious and special.
There has been comment on the backlog awaiting registration. This is a resourcing problem that can be dealt with, but the Act is not about resourcing; it should be about access to this national network. Defra says that it will
“speed up and streamline … bureaucratic procedures”
for the recording process. That is good news, but it is not a reason to prevent new registrations. The Explanatory Memorandum states, as we have heard more than once, that there will be no impact on businesses, charities, voluntary organisations or the public sector, but there is no mention of human beings. What about the impact on them—citizens, the public and society as a whole? Does Defra not credit this greater good?
5.30 pm
I too thank Ramblers for its briefing. As we have heard, it suggests that tens of thousands of miles of unrecorded public rights of way may exist and need to find the daylight. What Government who claim to represent the people would want to extinguish this public right? It is rather like locking the gates to public parks in towns and cities permanently. That is unthinkable, of course, but is snuffing out this public
resource any different? As the Motion tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, underlines, this is an important national asset.
I support the CLA and the NFU and the good work that they do for farmers and landowners, but to prioritise their interests over those of the public is not reasonable. The wider public do not have a collective voice in these matters, notwithstanding the good work of the many organisations that represent those with a keen interest in the countryside. Referring to prioritising farmers and landowners’ interests over those of the public is not a generalisation or a political statement; I am simply suggesting that the public should be entitled to continue to enjoy the rights of way which have existed in former times and yet have been lost through whatever reason and then latterly rediscovered. I am asking not for special treatment for the public but simply that their rights continue to be recorded.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, mentioned Covid, which taught us how important the countryside is to those needing and able to escape their bubble to walk upon footpaths in these green spaces. I did it myself when dispensation was allowed. The Government are preparing resilience for a possible future pandemic—something that we all hope will never happen—but part of that process should be expanding the network of publicly accessible green spaces, not preventing the re-emergence of long-lost rights.
Another consequence of the pandemic was the impact on families and people living alone being bottled up in small spaces for months at a time with too little space to study or work—and the mental health crisis which has followed. Hundreds of thousands of working people are now out of work as a result of mental health conditions which emerged from those constraints, surely another sound reason to do all that we can to open up the countryside for public enjoyment. Once again, I remind the House that I am asking not for unlimited access but simply the right to enjoy the rights of way that were enjoyed by past generations but which will be lost under this proposal. Those rights are unlikely ever to be recovered for the benefit of society as a whole. I consider this to be a terrible loss to the people of this country, notwithstanding exemptions.
Let us not strangle the continuing emergence of lost rights of way. I ask the Government to embrace it.