| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Ruffley: As always, my right hon. Friend puts his finger on the point. I make no comment as to whether the official Opposition seek to talk out the Bill. As I am sure my right hon. Friend agrees, I am merely ventilating some of the issues, so that we can give a balanced reflection of who is for and who is against the Bill. The Minister has intervened twice to imply that my remarks were not pertinent to the Bill, but I believe that they are. Depending on whether the Bill goes through, there may be more or less use of motorised vehicles on country routes and that is what I am looking at.
I shall turn to what the Bill is trying to achieve and the more positive set of remarks about it, which have been amplified by the Ramblers Association. It referred to the Ridgeway and, although the Minister might intervene to say that this case should not be quoted in the context of the Bill, the views expressed reflect the opinion of ramblers generally on the principle of recreational motor vehicle use and how that might affect the use of the countryside by ramblers and others who wish to enjoy the highways and byways. It said:
"We are not campaigning for a ban on recreational motor vehicles, we are campaigning for a ban on their use on rights of way which came into existence before the motor car was invented, and have never been designed to support such use. There are many sites dedicated to off-roading where this activity can be enjoyed."
The Ramblers Association has expressed a fair and balanced view in support of the Bill.
The Friends of the Ridgeway and the Yorkshire Dales Green Lanes Alliance have also made supportive comments. The Friends of the Ridgeway said recently:
"The 'rights' arise from historical legal anomaly. Until the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, UK law did not distinguish between motorised and non-motorised vehicles when it came to a consideration of rights of way. Once upon a time it was possible to drive through the centres of many of our towns and cities that are now pedestrian precincts. Sometime in the future we will look back on the banning of motor vehicles on The Ridgeway and see it as just another step in protecting the 'rights' of the majority".
The Green Lanes Environmental Action Movement—GLEAM—is yet another organisation that is in favour of the Bill. About 150 MPs and Members of the European Parliament of different parties are apparently honorary supporters of GLEAM.
Mr. Ruffley: As my right hon. Friend points out, they are not here today. There do not seem to be many people who support the Bill in the Chamber today. None the less, its supporters appear to number more than 100.
Mr. Ruffley: Yes, in absentia, and demonstrably so.
Jim Dowd: They are on their way.
Mr. Ruffley: There is a lot of sedentary intervention, but I will ignore that and try to press on.
Mr. Forth: I appreciate my hon. Friend's helpful analysis, because we need to hear the different views. However, before he concludes, will he give us his reaction to the Bill's explanatory notes? He has a distinguished record in the House as a custodian of the public purse and he may be alarmed, as I was, by paragraph 14 of the explanatory notes, which states:
"Local authorities may experience a surge of applications to record byways open to all traffic on their definitive maps before the legislation is commenced but their longer-term workload will be reduced."
Does my hon. Friend interpret that to mean, as I do, that there may be a considerable additional burden on the local council tax payer—yet again? The council tax payer will take little comfort from the fact that it may be reduced in the longer term, which never really arrives.
Mr. Ruffley: My right hon. Friend makes an important point. I hope that it will be picked up should the Bill ever be debated in Standing Committee. I know that he pays much attention to the resource implications of all legislation. We need full advertence as regards the cost implications of this Bill, as we do with all pieces of legislation.
It is important to ensure that there is a balance between the various users of the countryside, including those who walk in it and those who drive their vehicles down highways and byways. The Conservatives have a proud tradition of conserving that which is best. The beauty of the British countryside, not least in Suffolk, which is clearly the most beautiful county, should not be spoilt, but protected. We lean in favour of a regime that protects the environment from spoliation by vehicles. We are not against all vehicular use of byways, but on certain routes vehicles should not have untrammelled access as of right.
The loophole arising from the precedent set by the historical use of routes by vehicles such as horse-drawn carts exploited by those whose mechanised vehicles might despoil some of the lanes and routes needs to be considered. For that reason, we find merits in the Bill.
21 May 2004 : Column 1274
On balance, it is an appropriate and proportionate response to a muddied—no pun intended—legal situation. We hope that the unjustified conversion of paths for vehicular usage can be stopped. In so doing, we hope that everyone can enjoy our cherished countryside free from disturbance and free from damage. We shall support the Bill should it be put to a vote.
2.22 pm
The Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality (Alun Michael): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) for trying to tease out some of the things that would be affected by the Bill. When my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Janet Anderson) announced her intention to introduce such a Bill, I was unable to be in the Chamber to hear her remarks, although I know that she referred to the fact that I had explained the reasons for my absence. When I read what she had to say, I offered all the help that I could in pursuing her objective.
The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds raised a number of issues, some of which go wider than the Bill's scope. That is fair; a piece of legislation fits within a wider context. The consultation received many responses and raised many issues. In particular, I was pleased at the large number of Labour and Opposition Members who said that they thought the problem needed tackling in a comprehensive, proper and thoughtful way. They also said that they supported this specific measure.
The Bill is carefully measured. It effectively attempts to cap the extent to which the public right of way network is open to use by motor vehicles. Essentially, we are dealing with past vehicular use by horse-drawn vehicles long before the invention of the internal combustion engine. In many cases, roads and motorways started off by being used by horse and cart, but they have been subject to continuous use and the development of appropriate surfaces. We are concerned here with routes that have not been used by any sort of vehicle over many years and have never previously been used by mechanically propelled vehicles. Such use does not form part of the evidence for routes to be considered under the Bill.
I therefore emphasise the support for the limited nature of the Bill to underline the fact that, as was indicated in earlier interventions, it is not retrospective; it does not seek to curtail existing rights of way. It provides a window of opportunity for applications to be made under the current arrangements and for a year after the Bill reaches the statute book, rather than during a period that lasts until 2026, which is the provision in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. It merely means that, after that window of opportunity has closed, any rights of way that are asserted on the basis purely of walking and horse-drawn vehicles will give rise to the right to use that route on foot or in a horse-drawn vehicle rather than in a motorised vehicle—it will go no further than that.
I hope that, with those assurances on points of concern and in the knowledge that it will be widely welcomed as a small step in the direction towards a coherent means of properly protecting and using our rights of way, the Bill will receive the support of the House.
21 May 2004 : Column 1275
2.26 pm
Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con): I suppose I should start by declaring somewhat of an interest, in that I am the happy owner of an SUV. Mine is a pretty little Jeep Wrangler of which I am inordinately proud. It is, of course, derived from the original second world war jeep and it is a true four-wheel drive vehicle. I have to confess, however, on behalf of my Wrangler, that it has never been off-road—it is a London-based SUV—so it has not yet been able to disrupt anyone's quiet or peace and sadly may never do so. I should put that on the record, though, because I have a potential interest in the contents of the Bill, rather than a present one.
I say for the sake of the record that the Minister has had the gall to stand up and say how many MPs support the measure—something that we often hear in the House on Fridays. You and I know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that at the last Division in the House, about an hour ago, only 12 MPs out of 659 voted, and looking around the Chamber now, there are 10 Members present. If we were to divide the House to establish the true level of support for the Bill, I would hazard that we might get 10 or 12 Members voting out of 659.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |