| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Forth: I make a plea to my hon. Friend to talk in good old miles rather than these ghastly kilometres to which he seems so wedded. I know that he is a young man with his future ahead of him, but we old folk prefer miles because we do not understand kilometres. How much of that mileage is either in public ownership or is public land has not come out in the debate, and perhaps we can explore that point later with the Minister or in some other way. That distinction must be important, but when I examined the Bill quickly, I did not see it. Does my hon. Friend have any thoughts?
Mr. Ruffley: On my right hon. Friend's first point, I was as shocked as him to see a Conservative research department scriptwriter use kilometres. If my mathematics were quick enough, I would multiply the distance in kilometres by five eighths to get the proper figure in miles. However, my maths is not quick enough, and I must make some progress.
I have not examined or considered my right hon. Friend's second point about the proportion of mileage in private ownership as against public ownership, but it is worth delving into.
Alun Michael:
I cannot help the hon. Gentleman on the proportions, but rights of way legislation deals with rights of way, and not with the ownership of land. On considerable amounts of private land, however, evidence of a right of way would, under the current
21 May 2004 : Column 1267
arrangements, lead to a right of access not only for walkers and horses, but for motorised vehicles, so the Bill would benefit private landowners.
Mr. Ruffley: I am grateful to the Minister, and I hope that that helps my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Ruffley: I could not answer my right hon. Friend's question, but I hope that the Minister's response is of some use.
The legal rights of access to RUPPs cause a great deal of confusion in the countryside. Many people believe that they have vehicular access to a route, when no such formal right exists. We believe that the Bill is not an attack on legally acquired vehicular access rights, but rather a renewed attempt to establish much needed clarity. The number of off-road vehicles has grown spectacularly over the past 10 years, and some estimate the increase to be more than 400 per cent. In that context, the need for clarification is all the more pressing.
It cannot be right that the use of a route centuries ago by horse-drawn carts can be used as evidence to grant access to mechanically propelled vehicles, which have a dramatic impact, particularly on unsurfaced roads. We believe that the loophole should be closed, and that the usage of a road over 20 years should not automatically give rise to vehicular access rights.
Mr. Forth: In our enthralling packed Friday debates in this place, we hear a lot about this or that group lobbying our colleagues. Has my hon. Friend been approached by any interest groups—walkers, horse riders, quad bike users, sport utility vehicle owners, people with horses and carts or perhaps even Prince Philip, as he drives his four, six or eight horses along with great skill—to argue one way or the other about the Bill, or is he completely in the dark?
Mr. Ruffley: Sadly, I have not been approached by the Duke of Edinburgh—but I have been approached in one of my many constituency advice centres by a man from Woolpit. I confess that I cannot recall his name, but he was extremely exercised by the prospect of the Bill biting and preventing him from using his quad bike on the highways and byways of mid and west Suffolk. I fear that what I am about to say, in what my right hon. Friend rightly described as this packed debate, will not be much to that man's liking—but perhaps he is not watching or listening, so I might get away with it.
In fact, I am supporting an official Opposition position, and I can say that we, as the official Opposition, have received many representations. Later in my speech, I shall take some time—
Mr. Ruffley:
I am sure that my right hon. Friend will look forward to that part of my speech, when I shall outline some of the representations that have been made to us on both sides of the argument.
21 May 2004 : Column 1268
The use of routes by mechanically propelled vehicles does not inevitably cause damage, but there are many examples of damage being caused by trail riders and 4x4 vehicles. That has undoubtedly led to the enjoyment and amenity of the countryside being spoilt for many people. In my part of the fair county of Suffolk, there are many walkers of all ages who fear 4x4s and quad bikes tearing down quiet, bucolic country lanes or paths at great speed. That concern has been expressed not only to me but to many of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
The Ramblers Association has reported how green lanes have been scarred by trail bikes and four-wheel drives, at a cost both to those who use them and to those who try to maintain them. The problem is worst when conditions are wet, and large ruts can be gouged in paths.
Mr. Forth: Now that my hon. Friend has started to talk about wets and ruts, this is getting a bit more interesting, but has he any details or statistics on the number of people who have been injured by that phenomenon? As he develops his argument—I am sure that he is still only on his preliminary remarks—it strikes me that there is a distinct possibility that people using quad bikes, SUVs or other such vehicles, including even horse-drawn vehicles driven at speed, may be causing risk to innocents who are simply walking. Do we have any figures? Are they part of the argument?
Mr. Ruffley: It certainly would be an important part of the argument if I had those statistics to hand; my right hon. Friend makes a powerful point. I am always indebted, as are all of us on the Opposition Front Bench, to my right hon. Friend, because he has a brilliant capacity to ask the most telling and trenchant questions—and his latest intervention is true to form. It is a very important point. We should not just support or pass legislation willy-nilly: we have to drill down into the detail. Should the Bill obtain a Second Reading and go into Committee, I would expect that we would have more statistics to hand.
Alun Michael: It is difficult to provide statistics on that point, because statistics depend on the way in which information is collected. During the consultation, many people wrote to us about danger and injuries. The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point about the wider issue of conflicts between different types of users, but the Bill would have only one narrow effect. It would mean that 12 months after it came into effect a claim could no longer be made that would allow use by motor vehicles on the basis of evidence of use by horses or horse-drawn vehicles many years in the past. The Bill would not introduce a complete ban, nor does it seek to try to prevent a wide range of different types of use. It would simply prevent the creation of a new right of way for motorised vehicles on the basis of historic use by horse-drawn vehicles.
Mr. Ruffley:
I am grateful to the Minister, but it is worth pursuing my right hon. Friend's point. The Bill may address a narrow loophole but it is still a proposed piece of legislation, and we do not want to pass legislation for the sake of it. We must be convinced that it cuts out an abuse, rights a wrong or clarifies the law. My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point by asking
21 May 2004 : Column 1269
what evidence is available of loss of life or injury to walkers and others who may be incommoded by vehicles using certain country routes. How serious is the problem?
John Mann: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have read of the case earlier this year of the four-year-old boy in south Wales who was killed on one of these roads used as public paths—or RUPPs—by a motorbike travelling at great speed. Doubtless the hon. Gentleman will also be interested to hear of the concerns of hundreds of my constituents whom I met last weekend, in villages such as Clarborough. They fear injury, but also the disruption of their peace and quiet as they attempt to live their lives.
Mr. Ruffley: I was not questioning whether people were concerned about this issue. Many walkers and ramblers clearly support the Bill, not least for the reasons that the hon. Gentleman gives. I was making a slightly different point, which is that if we are to have good law based on a proper rationale, we need to test all the propositions. My right hon. Friend made a good point by asking whether we could quantify the occurrence of danger, injury or fatality. The hon. Gentleman gave a powerful example, about which I recall reading, but we need more empirical data before we make any final decisions on the Bill.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his typically forensic analysis. We do not want to pass laws only on the basis of good intentions: they must be founded on evidence.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |