Rights of Way (Amendment) Bill (Hansard, 21 May 2004)

§ Jim Dowd (Lewisham, West) (Lab)
With the permission and consent and, indeed, at the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Janet Anderson), I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
My hon. Friend is deeply sorry and sends her apologies to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the House for the fact that she is not here today to move the motion. All hon. Members experience, from time to time, an unfortunate dilemma and a conflict between our duties in the House and those in our constituencies, and she is currently in her constituency on a very pressing personal engagement. Rather than lose the opportunity today at least to air the principles underlying the Bill, she has asked me to step into the breach. I apologise to the House and to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the fact that you are getting the dustcart instead of the lord mayor's show today.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen has a particular concern about the matters covered by the Bill in relation to her constituency, with its large concentrations of urban dwellings and industry flanked by beautiful countryside. Open green spaces are increasingly important resources for constituents who seek respite through countryside recreation and the associated benefits of fresh air, peace and tranquillity. Even though my own constituency is urban and part of inner-London and we do not have similar issues pressing there, it is a pressing matter for my constituents. They, like the constituents of hon. Members throughout the House, use the countryside more and more for recreation, especially if they live in urban areas for the working week.
The tranquillity of our greener areas is threatened by the invasion of scrambler bikes, bikes incorrectly but almost universally known as quad bikes, and four-wheel drive vehicles known as off-roaders. Irrecoverable damage is being done to sensitive land and it is becoming increasingly commonplace to see such damage owing to the inappropriate and inconsiderate use of those vehicles. Other rights of way users feel intimidated by convoys of vehicles, and reckless motorised use continues even through the winter months, turning many fragile countryside routes into deeply rutted and impassable mud baths.
Early-day motion 380 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) has been well supported by some 110 Members from all parts of the House. Although I know that some hon. Members would go as far as a complete ban on vehicles on rights of way, the Bill does not attempt to achieve that. It does not seek to prevent vehicles using the 4,500 km of recorded vehicular rights of way in England and Wales.
Use by vehicles of rights of way is not always in itself undesirable or damaging. There are already legislative provisions such as traffic regulation orders to regulate use where rights for mechanically propelled vehicles already exist.

§ Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman no doubt has an intimate knowledge of 1263 the explanatory notes—in fact, I would not be surprised if he helped to draft them. I was rather puzzled by the sentence in paragraph 4: A public right of way for all vehicles may also arise where mechanically propelled vehicles have used a route for the 20 year period, even where that use is illegal. Can the hon. Gentleman explain to me how illegal use has been allowed to continue for that length of time?

§ Jim Dowd
There is a passage in my notes that deals with that in part, and I shall come to it later. The right hon. Gentleman is aware that part of the reason for introducing the Bill is precisely the lack of clear regulation in this area. I shall come to some of the antecedents of that and some of the conflicts that it is creating. I share his view that the matter is subject to considerable confusion and needs clarification. The Bill presents us with an opportunity to adopt a partial, though not a complete, solution to the problem.
It is evident that existing motor vehicular use of the rights of way network will increase to unsustainable levels over the next 20 years. The figure of 20 years is used because there is a deadline of 2026—which is actually 22 years away—under the terms of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 for claiming historic rights to use highways and byways.
Many claims are already being submitted to local highways authorities to upgrade existing footpaths and bridleways to motor vehicular ways. Most alarmingly, the claims are generally based on the production of evidence of use by horse-drawn vehicles many years, if not centuries, ago.

§ Mr. Forth
Will the Bill's provisions be retrospective? I am interested that the hon. Gentleman says that there is a process whereby claims are now being submitted. He will know, because he understands these matters better than most, that there is always an issue with legislation such as this that seeks to put right something that is claimed to be wrong. Were the Bill to become an Act, would it have any retrospective effect in nullifying the claims already submitted and established?

§ Jim Dowd
As far as I know, there is no retrospection in the Bill. It is only a clarifying measure. However, having said that, I note that the Minister, who is far more intimately aware of its detail than I am, seeks to intervene.

§ The Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality (Alun Michael)
People are sometimes confused about the date at which provisions take effect. The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 put a limit on the date by which a claim could have been made in terms of a right of way existing because of use in the past, which was 2026. That means that a long way into the future there would be a degree of uncertainty. As I understand it, the Bill allows a period of 12 months from its coming into law. So, far from having any retrospective effect, it allows a window of opportunity for evidence to be put forward under the existing arrangements, but for a year rather than for some 25 years.

§ Jim Dowd
I am grateful to the Minister. Those are exactly the words that I would have used myself, but he has saved me the effort.
1264 We are talking about establishing rights based on horse-drawn vehicles using tracks many years ago, which bears no resemblance to modern day use by powerful vehicles, sometimes weighing as much as 2 tonnes. This seems to be a perverse way to determine the accessibility of the rights of way network by motor vehicles.
The Government have recently consulted publicly on this issue in the consultation paper on the use of mechanically propelled vehicles on rights of way. Clearly, it is an emotive issue, which often creates conflict and ill-feeling between those who use mechanically propelled vehicles on rights of way and those who do not. However, I commend the Minister on a comprehensive consultation paper that directly confronts the issues of concern.
My hon. Friend seeks, through the Bill, to build on the proposals in that consultation paper. The Bill has a very simple purpose, which is to clarify those vehicular rights that can be recorded on local authorities' maps of rights of way, known as definitive maps, in England and Wales. At present we can only speculate on the extent of the historic evidence yet to be uncovered that would support claims in favour of their use by motor vehicles.
The Bill seeks to curtail claims for rights of way for mechanically propelled vehicles, known as byways open to all traffic, or, for those who like acronyms, BOATs. The impact is clear. When the Bill becomes an Act and its provisions are commenced, it will no longer be possible to add further byways open to all traffic to the rights of way network.
It may be helpful if I clarify how the Bill seeks to achieve that. The Bill limits the creation of any new public rights of way for mechanically propelled vehicles by ensuring that evidence of use by non-mechanically propelled vehicles in the future would not be sufficient to establish a public right of way for mechanically propelled vehicles.
The Bill also seeks to extinguish any unrecorded rights of way for mechanically propelled vehicles. This means that it will not be possible to rely upon any evidence of horse and cart use or an express dedication for such use to establish a right of way enabling motor vehicular use. But this historic evidence should not count for nothing. The Bill also provides for the recording of these rights as restricted byway rights—that is to say, rights on foot, on horseback or for non-mechanically propelled vehicles.

§ Mr. Forth
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his generosity and the relaxed way in which he offers the Bill to the House on behalf of his hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Janet Anderson). Can he reassure me that the claims that will be allowed for another 12 months, following the Minister's helpful intervention, will be considered on exactly the same basis as hitherto, and that the Bill will in no way seek to change the criteria that have been used to consider these claims?

§ Jim Dowd
I believe that I can give that reassurance. As I mentioned, the Bill does not seek to change the balance; it seeks to establish a system of regulating the competing claims. As I also pointed out, it does not seek to extinguish existing rights that have been established; 1265 instead, it seeks to resolve conflicts between what could be perceived as the conflicting rights of users of footpaths and byways.
We are not discounting historic evidence. The Bill provides for the recording of restricted byway rights—rights for those who are on foot or horseback or are using non-mechanically propelled vehicles. That separates such byways from those that are open to all traffic rights. In most cases, recording rights under that category will ensure that rights of way are used in a way that reflects their historic past.
There are property owners or occupiers who rely on unrecorded public vehicular rights of way to gain access to their premises. They need to be protected from being landlocked. The Bill ensures that landowners and occupiers who are adversely affected by extinguishment of unrecorded rights in respect of mechanically propelled vehicles will retain those unrecorded rights to the extent that they need to exercise them in order to access their land. Of course, the provision would also extend to people who are legitimately visiting such owners or occupiers.
The Bill provides an opportunity for Members of the House to highlight their concerns about the use of motor vehicles on rights of way, and I am confident that the evidence will demonstrate that action is needed now if we are serious about having a sustainable rights of way network. The Bill is a major step forward in addressing the problems associated with motor vehicles in the countryside. It seeks not to ban vehicles, but merely to ensure that their future use is not dictated by past use that bears no comparison with the circumstances of today.
On behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen, I thank all the hon. Members who have helped her in preparing in the Bill and who have expressed their support, as well as those outside the House who have sent letters and e-mails expressing their support. I again thank the Minister and his staff for their considerable efforts and assistance in drafting the Bill, and I thank him for his decisive approach.
If the House, in its infinite wisdom, gives the Bill a Second Reading today, my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen will do all that she can to ensure that it achieves the further stages of its parliamentary progress—and she would do it in person, I am certain.

§ John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
A Bill that can unite in my area all farmers without exception, all horse riders without exception and dog walkers—I cannot confirm that it unites all dog walkers, because I have not spoken to all of them, but all whom I have consulted in many of the 80 villages around my constituency would warmly welcome a Bill such as this—is to be welcomed. Should a Committee consider the Bill, I shall earnestly offer my services to assist in its further progress.
I have one question, which I hope the Minister will answer, about what will happen if changes of the sort that are proposed should be introduced, whether through this Bill or other means. I want to ask about retrospective action, as it appears to me that in areas such as mine or the neighbouring constituency of Newark, where applications are currently under way, 1266 there needs to be clear guidance on the potential use of traffic regulation. When people wish to ride quad bikes and other such motorised vehicles, including motor bikes of all different kinds, licensed and unlicensed, legal and illegal, on the footpaths and bridleways of my area and that of the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer), such guidance is needed to ensure that we have the opportunity properly to put a case on our constituents' behalf in order to restrict such rights and allow people to get on with their lives in peace, rather than alongside the horrors of organised sport invading the countryside in an inappropriate way.
I hope that the Minister can consider providing some guidance, irrespective of the progress of the Bill, on how traffic regulation orders could be used by decent, law-abiding people in order to protect their rights.

§ Mr. David Ruffley (Bury St. Edmunds) (Con)
The use of a loophole to convert more public paths into byways open to all traffic is a cause for concern. Conservative Members therefore welcome the Government's consultation on mechanically propelled vehicles, which closed in March, and we also welcome the Bill.
It is important to understand the scale of the problem. In England, there are about 188,000 km of public rights of way, of which more than 146,000 km are footpaths, just over 32,000 km are bridleways and 3,700 km are byways open to all traffic. An additional 6,000 km of roads are used as public paths or RUPPs—roads used as public paths—and they are currently being reclassified under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

§ 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 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. Forth
Not much.

§ 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. Forth
Oh yes, please do.

§ 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.
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 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.

§ Mr. Forth
rose—

§ Mr. Ruffley
If my right hon. Friend will allow me, I will make some progress.
As I said, the problem is at its worst when conditions are wet. It leads to degradation of paths and routes, makes them difficult to use by walkers, many of whom are often deterred from returning to some areas, as they expect these motorised vehicles to return and disturb their peace as they go about their business walking along. The Ramblers Association states that the 85 miles of the Berkshire-Oxfordshire Ridgeway has suffered particularly badly from off-road vehicles, and the damage has cost Berkshire county council many thousands of pounds to repair.
Earlier, I promised my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) that I would refer to some of the representations that we have received. He might be interested to learn that there are arguments on both sides. There has been criticism of the Bill and its implications from the Trail Riders Fellowship—I do not know whether he is familiar with that organisation. In the consultation response to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, it said: We are aware that the Minister continues to be lobbied by groups and individuals who wish him to totally eliminate the use of mechanically propelled vehicles from rights of way. We believe that the claims made in support of prohibition are very selective, misinformed and exaggerated"—

§ Alun Michael
It would be a great disservice to the House and the public were two things to be confused.
1270 One is the question of the suitability of rights of way for particular use—the hon. Gentleman referred, for instance, to the Ridgeway, in which I have taken a considerable personal interest. There is a right of way along the Ridgeway. The damage to the areas that he mentioned needs to be tackled via traffic regulation orders, which local authorities of a variety of political colours and MPs across three parties currently support. That is a coherent way of dealing with damage to a right of way. The Bill does not address those issues, and nor did the consultation, a response to which he was quoting. The Bill simply considers whether, if there has been use of a particular way by horses in the past, that should automatically lead to future use, after the 12-month post-implementation period, so that not only is there no backdating but there is a window of opportunity for using the current legislation. That is the only issue with which the Bill deals. It is important not to confuse the issues because organisations such as the Trail Riders Fellowship have been confused in making representations that have nothing to do with this Bill. The consultation to which he refers is much wider, and is not relevant to the specific proposals that we are considering.

§ Mr. Ruffley
I am grateful to the Minister. I hope that I am not missing anything, but it seems to me that the precedent that certain motorised vehicle users can now pray in aid—that a track had been used by a cart and horse for 400 years—which the Bill seeks to close off, is relevant. If that loophole is kept open, as the trail riders and others wish, they would be able to damage certain pathways and routes. Therefore, the suggestion by the trail riders that they should have a right to go down those routes and do what they like to the surface seems pertinent to the Bill. If the loophole is not closed, they will be allowed to go about their business and to cause damage. The ramblers to whom I will refer shortly object to that. Therefore, I am not quite sure why the Minister suggests that damage to some of those routes is not pertinent to the debate. If the loophole is not closed, more damage will be done. Is that not the point?

§ Alun Michael
The hon. Gentleman quoted responses in relation to general protection of rights of way and damage to rights of way that exist now. I made the point that traffic restriction orders are the means of dealing with that issue. The question in the Bill is simply whether it should be possible in future for people to claim a right of way for a motorised vehicle where the only evidence of previous use is that by walkers or horses, sometimes in the distant past.

§ Mr. Ruffley
I am grateful to the Minister. I do not think that we are disagreeing, because that is our understanding of the Bill. If that loophole is not closed, which the Bill seeks to do, it seems that there is potential for people who use motorised vehicles to pray in aid a precedent created by horses, for example, which would enable them to use their mechanically propelled vehicles and to cause damage. Therefore, if that loophole is not closed, there could be more damage to the countryside. That is the ramblers' argument.
May I continue quoting from the response of the trail riders to the consultation? I will be happy for the Minister to intervene if he thinks that this is not 1271 pertinent to the Bill—I think that it is. One of the key arguments of those who oppose the Bill is that all vehicles that use rights of way do not necessarily use them in a careless and destructive manner. The trail riders and others think, fairly or unfairly, that they have been tarred with the brush of being destroyers of rights of way and of certain routes. They say: Legislative changes driven by such claims would be disproportionate to the problem and would bear down unreasonably on the law abiding and responsible. It would also be a replication of previous attempts to manage recreational use of countryside by tampering with legislation that have largely failed.

§ John Mann
How would the hon. Gentleman respond to the case that has been put in my constituency? It has nothing to do with the Ramblers Association or the Trail Riders Fellowship. If those rights of way were authorised and lawful, those wishing to go lamping and to case isolated farms such as that of my constituent, Mr. Geoffrey Wheatcroft—the story appeared inThe Sunday Telegraph—would be able to do so. Concern has been expressed by 80 members of the National Farmers Union in my constituency and by the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer), the hon. Gentleman's Front-Bench colleague. They are worried not about organised trail riders but about the individuals who would have those rights and therefore would legitimately be in such areas on motorised vehicles, to the detriment of the security, safety and rights of the individuals living and working there.

§ Mr. Ruffley
The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point. I repeat that the official Opposition are in favour of the Bill. I am merely trying to ventilate some of the different views. I was referring to the fact that some trail riders and British motorcyclists think that they have been hard done by. It is only fair to air their grievances. This is not a Bill that has universal support and there are arguments on both sides.
The British Motorcyclists Federation said: The consultation paper proposes measures that will curtail "cowboy" usage. However to be effective in doing this it is likely that any legislation will shape the activities of sensible and authorised users.

§ Alun Michael
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that he is again talking about a consultation that ranged over a wide variety of issues, which go way beyond the limited elements covered by the Bill? By drawing in so many issues that are extraneous to the consideration of the Bill, he gives rise to the suspicion that the official Opposition have decided to talk out the Bill. It would be helpful and interesting to hear whether he has anything to say about the actual provisions of the Bill.

§ Mr. Ruffley
I am grateful to the Minister for that intervention. I do not agree that my references to the consultation are irrelevant to consideration of the Bill. As I said earlier, if the Bill is successful, it will close off a loophole and will, on balance, reduce the amount of motorised vehicles driven along some of the highways and byways of this country. If, on the other hand, the Bill does not go through, those wishing to use vehicular transport will be able to go down country routes by 1272 praying in aid the precedent of usage by horses, carts and so on over many generations. It thus seems to me that the general remarks of motorcyclists on the one hand and ramblers on the other about their view of their activities in the countryside, and their responses to the consultation, are extremely relevant, because the heart of the Bill is whether there should he more or less use of country routes by motorised vehicles.

§ Mr. Forth
Notwithstanding the bluster of the Minister, who obviously needs a refresher course in charm and persuasion, is my hon. Friend tempted by the thought that a better way to resolve a Bill such as this would be to test the will of the House in a Division, as the Government did on the last Bill? Does he recall that on six previous occasions this year, on Fridays such as this, it was Ministers who talked out Bills? If someone is still on their feet debating a Bill at 2.30 pm on a Friday such as this, it is more often than not a Minister.

§ 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-reading 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".
1273 The Green Lanes Environmental Action Movement—GLEAM—is yet another organization 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. Forth
Not today.

§ 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. Forth
In absentia.

§ Mr. Ruffley
Yes, in absentia, and demonstrably so.

§ Jim Dowd
They are on their way.

§ Mr. Forth
Using a byway.

§ 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. 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.

§ 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.

§ 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.

§ Jim Dowd
There are 11 Members here.

§ Mr. Forth
I had been intending to mention the hon. Gentleman, but I am happy to bring forward my praise for him. He points out that there may be 11 Members present, and I happily concede that.
As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am something of an anorak. I still believe in what the House does and in the legislative process. I am here every private Members' Bill Friday, but sadly not many of my colleagues are. I am not impressed by those who say that this or that Bill has the support of many Members of all parties—100 here, 150 there. The true test of support for a Bill, in the legislative sense, is bums on seats or, to put it more accurately, bodies in Division Lobbies. To me, therefore, the proper measure of that support is when we divide the House and see how many people are here. Very sensibly, our forefathers set the quorum for the House at 40 Members. I do not think that it is asking too much to say that 40 Members should be present to make law. Let us clear all that nonsense out of the way before we even get started.
I had been about to sing the praises of my near neighbour, the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Jim Dowd), who so persuasively introduced the Bill on behalf of the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Janet Anderson). He said that, were the Bill to make progress, the hon. Lady would be present on some future occasion to promote its interests. That is very encouraging, if I may say so. I am really rather pleased that a Member would be prepared to turn up to support 1276 his or her Bill at some stage. The hon. Gentleman did a magnificent job of promoting his colleague's Bill, and, who knows, we may yet find that he has persuaded the House—that remains to be seen.
Just to clear the decks before I get anywhere near my introductory remarks, never mind the substance of my speech—I am keen to follow others in making my little contribution to the debate—it emerged from the Minister's remarks that our aim today is to repair a cock-up by the Government. Apparently, the Countryside and Rights of Way Act—