Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill |
|
Mrs. Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab): The Bill is an opportunity for us to consider our past and our future. In many respects, we are trying to protect our past and heritage by protecting our natural landscape and our biodiversity. We are trying to recognise that there is a great danger that much that we have that is specific, precious and unique to this island could be lost unless we take responsibility. At the same time, however, the clause seems to bring together that strange past of an England of horse and carts with today. We are trying to prevent the loss of biodiversity caused by our modern lifestyle, but we are not protecting it from one of the greatest causes of damage: the motor vehicle. We are not trying to limit access to the countryside. 10.15 amI moved to Wales 30-odd years ago when my husband, who is an ecologist, became the first warden of what was then a local nature reserve but is now a national nature reserve and a European site of special nature conservation. We spent much of those early years battling against trail bikers on the reserve who carved up a precious and fragile landscape. Much as the hon. Member for Bassetlaw described, a white van would arrive and out would come the trail bikes, many of them unlicensed and uninsured, and off the bikers would go across the reserve. In the Bill we are looking for sustainability, but we cannot sustain what is happening at the moment. We have tighter and tighter legislation and management of traffic on our roads, so many people are seeking their thrills and spills with their motor vehicles by going off road. They are carving up the countryside with their trail bikes, Land Rovers and so on to get the excitement that, thanks to speed cameras, they are no longer allowed to get by speeding along motorways. We have said that the Bill must be cost-neutral and we are seeking to achieve that. However, in many local authorities the cost of examining applications for upgrading to BOATs is tremendous. The hon. Member for Bassetlaw described the number of applications in his constituency and the green lanes coalition said that many local authorities must consider a huge number of applications. That will not be cost-neutral. Like other hon. Members, I ask the Minister to explain how we can protect biodiversity, as well as those habitats that in other parts of the Bill we have clearly signalled our intention to protect, unless
Mr. Williams: I support the clause because, while I applaud the work of the hon. Member for Bassetlaw in identifying an historic anomaly and of the then Minister, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Alun Michael) in his consultation, we all realise that to upgrade from a RUPP to a BOAT on the basis of historic use a long time ago, whether by the Royalists or the Romans, is not the right way to proceed. My regret in the Bill is that we are not addressing the real issues, which is to put rights of way legislation in place so that we have a rights of way network for the 21st century rather than the 20th, 19th or 18th centuries. People’s needs, whether to get from one place to another or for recreation, have changed and we are using an out-of-date system to meet their needs. I welcome the clause because, as the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire said, it looks to the future. There are opportunities in the countryside for walkers, people who ride horses and people who use mechanically propelled vehicles. The question is, whether they are doing those things in a way that sustains the resource that they want to enjoy, or in a way that destroys it. One can make a case that walkers cause a huge amount of erosion. In fact, one of the most costly exercises that was undertaken in the Brecon Beacons national park was to restore the path up Pen-y-Fan, which is the highest point in the Brecon Beacons. The erosion was caused entirely by walkers, and repairing it was hugely expensive. I can point to many such instances in my constituency. Mrs. Moon: Has the hon. Gentleman considered other costs? Restoring a footpath to the top of Pen-y-Fan would be expensive, but one seeks to get people involved in healthy exercise and in visiting and enjoying the countryside. Has he compared the costs of footpath restoration with the year-on-year costs of restoring many other habitats because just one vehicle—not hundreds of walkers—has gone across a piece of land? Mr. Williams: I take the hon. Lady’s point, but I am also making the point that all forms of access to the countryside bring problems. Indeed, the commercial use by pony trekking organisations of rights of way can cause a problem as well. One often sees on open countryside that pony trekkers have used a right of way but then have gone farther and farther away from it as it becomes impassable due to their use of it. I look to this clause, which deals with people who want to access the countryside on mechanically driven vehicles, as a way forward. I think of a bank manager
The other thing is that there is huge demand. If we say no to such people, all we do is create a pent-up demand that will break out somewhere. We must make provision. Clause 61 allows us to do that, but on the basis of what is and is not acceptable, rather than the historic anomaly that has been identified by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw and others. Mr. Paice: Like the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire, I support clause 61 because it begins the process of stopping the anomaly that the hon. Member for Bassetlaw described—the fact that one can trace historic rights back to all sorts of previous things. Obviously, we shall discuss later how to adjust the process. I am not sure that I am particularly proud that Richard Cumberland parked in my constituency, bearing in mind that he then went on to inflict the nearest thing to genocide that we have ever had in this country. Nevertheless, the hon. Member for Bassetlaw is right: it is absurd that somebody can use horse and cart or even chariot traffic in history to say that people ought to be able to use a route for four-wheel drives or whatever today. That is clearly daft, and I support the Government in trying to get rid of it. I confess that I found the issue that the hon. Member for Bassetlaw addressed difficult to follow at times; my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) made it absolutely clear. The issue is whether we set about retrospectively removing the right to use routes such as the Ridgeway, where the right is already established. That is not clearly addressed in the clause. Perhaps we shall discuss it at a later stage. No one has tabled an amendment, but it would have been helpful if someone had done so. I confess that I have not, but I hope that the Minister will address the issue when he responds. In any case, clause 61 as it stands is a significant step in the right direction. I understand the comments made by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire on making provision for those who want to carry out certain activities on trails and so on, but the answer is that within the context of the use of land, not necessarily as a right of way but for commercial activity by farmers and landowners— It being twenty-five minutes past Ten o’clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. Adjourned till this day at One o’clock. |
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2005 | Prepared 1 July 2005 |