§ John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)In rising to raise the issue with the Minister, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Janet Anderson) who has proposed a Bill on this subject. I back it wholeheartedly and wish it all speed and success. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) for her brief but courteous contribution, in spirit at least, to the debate.
I do not intend to go through the detail of the consultation, but I am aware of that detail, as is the Minister. To repeat what has already been put on public record would be a waste of the debate. Therefore, I intend to raise issues and dilemmas faced by the Minister and to counter myths that exist in some organisations; I will cite certain correspondence that I have received to demonstrate those myths.
There is a straightforward dilemma: many people wish to walk or ride in the countryside to escape the noise and traffic of everyday life. Clearly that would not be possible if they came across someone riding a motorised vehicle—legitimately or illegitimately—on a right of way. We should start by recognising that there is a conflict of interest that will be difficult to resolve. The Minister and I subscribe to the Fabian ethos of gradual change and compromise. In this context, such a compromise can be found. Other hon. Members and I have raised the issue before, and I cite early-day motions supported by a significant number of Members of Parliament on both sides of the House to show the strength of feeling.
Now, I turn to the myths. The key myth is that supporters of change—the Minister, the Government and I—are hellbent on taking away people's rights. Letters to me from constituents refer to the Minister being misled by misinformation. One constituent asks:
Can you … speak please to the minister to tell him that he has been misled and get his reassurance that the interests of ordinary people … will not be unjustifiably prejudiced, and that he will insist on being better informed by fact-based evidence before taking further action?I intend to give him fact-based evidence. Has he spoken to all the parties concerned? The theme of misinformation comes up time and again.A second letter from a constituent suggests that the Minister
seems intent on preventing me from following my legitimate hobby by banning the use of motorcycles on the 3 per cent. of country lanes, which I am allowed to ride at present.I am sure that the Minister will want to respond directly on whether he intends to remove the rights of people throughout the country who are riding legitimately on existing, defined rights of way.Some myths have been whipped up by hysteria. In an article from the Trail Riders Fellowship, under the heading, "Honesty—the best policy?", the organisation sets out its response to the "draconian proposals". I will not repeat it, because that is where information in my constituents' letters comes from. Having met members of the organisation, I must say that the Trail Riders Fellowship is a legitimate, lawful and well organised group. However, through its website and publicity, it is passing on misinformation about what the Government 322WH and Members of Parliament are trying to do. I cast no aspersions on trail riders. In my experience, they are honest and upstanding members of society who wish to pursue a hobby and a sport. I have no reason to stop people trail riding. Others, however, are more extreme.
The editor of the magazine, Land Rover Owner, pleads for more green-lane enthusiasts to "wipe the smiles" from ramblers' faces. He wrote:
You can't beat a wheel-deep wade for generating some big smiles".The British Motorcyclists Federation says that there is no suggestion of an automatic upgrade, but a loophole in the law allows it—and my constituents cannot object. The only way to stop an upgrade that allowed motorised vehicles on bridleways in my area was if it could be proved that horse-drawn vehicles had no historic rights. In my area, that would include Roman chariots, of which there were quite a number. For example, Blue Stocking lane in Clarborough has been highlighted by the Trail Riders Fellowship and the Ramblers Association as being one of the most contentious of proposals. That historic right of way was initially determined by the Romans.It is to stop such an automaticity of upgrade that I and others are pressing the Minister; we want a full public debate on the subject. The BMF suggests that the Minister is attempting to make it illegal to drive along country lanes unless they have been used for 100 years by motorised vehicles. He may wish to comment on that assertion. He may wish to comment also on the claim that the intention is to eradicate trail riding and that he cannot differentiate between trail riders and hooligans. It has been suggested that one consequence of his proposal is that motorcyclists would lose access to minor tarmacked roads across the country. He could counter some of those myths.
The fact is that three groups are involved. There are the trail riders, peaceably going along existing routes; there are those who are using bikes, off-road vehicles and quad bikes all over the place and causing havoc; and there are those who are using them through authorised centres. Authorised centres for quad bikes, such as that in Nottinghamshire, are good legitimate businesses. They often use Forestry Commission land and are well organised, but they have been tarred with the same brush as those in Langold, in and around Clarborough, and in Warsop in my constituency who use off-road vehicles, motorbikes and quad bikes ad nauseam—a use that would be illegal.
The question is whether it will be harder to police such vehicles if the rights of way that they use are legitimised. Traffic regulation orders can be made, but I would like to see additional powers—for instance, allowing parish councils to intervene in dealing with the rights of way in their areas. The police have a range of options for dealing with the irresponsible use of motorcycles, not least under section 59 of the Police Reform Act 2002. If it served a purpose, I would like to see zonal orders in Warsop that banned all motorised vehicles—and with them the wanton disruption of people's lives. Such disruption is not legitimate, and it is quite wrong to try to legitimise it by hiding behind the Trail Riders 323WH Fellowship, organised sports organisations and other appropriate bodies. This issue motivates most Members of Parliament.
§ Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire) (LD)We all agree that few rights of way are contentious and that most riders are not irresponsible, and we accept the common concern that the small number of irresponsible riders must be stopped. However, does the hon. Gentleman not agree that the kind of measures that he describes could harm the great majority of responsible and careful motorcyclists in order to try to restrict the few irresponsible ones, and that it would be better to explore a dialogue about regulation with organisations that represent motorcyclists before taking stronger measures?
§ John MannI thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, but I disagree with him.
There are applications to upgrade all the bridleways around Clarborough, potentially causing some of my constituents to be surrounded by a race track. Their rights of appeal against that are nil, because the issue will be determined solely on the basis of whether there is a historic right of way, some of which date back 2,000 years. Clearly, that is nonsense. I would be more satisfied if my constituents, and I, as their representative, were able to put the case before a proper public inquiry, because all the issues could then be taken into account, rather than simply that of whether there was an ancient right of way in a time in which there were no motorised vehicles.
Automaticity is the issue. In the hope that that loophole in the law will be tightened, I ask the Minister what would then happen in areas such as Clarborough, in which proposals have already gone through the normal process with the county council, and therefore cannot be dealt with retrospectively. That would create an anomaly. Traffic regulation orders will have to be the answer, but I am interested to know specifically how. The Minister wrote to me on this matter on 20 February. What powers would he recommend to my constituents to ensure that their lives are not made a misery by off-roaders who carry out their sport in such places?
I also want to ask the Minister about long-distance footpaths. This summer, I shall walk the Pennine way for charity. [Interruption.] From the comments of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik), I take it that the sponsorship form will be completed. I will do that walk with my son and nephew—two young boys who will rightly be raising money for an orphanage in Malawi.
The Pennine way is 250 miles in length, and two sections of it have been particularly blighted by off-road vehicles. The blighting of long-distance footpaths by competing and contradictory leisure pursuits must be tackled. Long-established, long-distance footpaths should have an exclusion zone across them, whereas trail riders and others ought to have new rights in appropriate areas, such as on Forestry Commission land, which are agreed by consent, rather than restricted. There need not be a reduction in rights; there could be an apportionment of rights that allows everyone to follow their pursuits without cutting across one another, except on odd occasions.
324WH The final issue that I want to discuss is that of quad bikes. I do not think that the issue has been highlighted in the House before. For every complaint that I receive about motorbikes, I get two about quad bikes, so I decided to investigate that phenomenon. According to the first website that I looked at, quad bikes bomb down at 30-plus mph. They are the slow and small ones. Driving the Suzuki 160 cc is described as akin to driving a rally car on ice. That would be rather unpleasant for the horse rider, the rambler with their family or the dog walker who meets it. Another website from the quad bike fraternity says that many walkers will be surprised to encounter a large vehicle or four in the middle of nowhere—precisely. At present, 260 cc quad bikes are available for purchase in Britain, and 49 cc quad bikes are specifically aimed at the under-eights.
This new phenomenon is blighting my local communities. There is lunacy as quad bikes go through estates, woods and fields, go down roads and go through car parks—they go everywhere. There are kids and teenagers, sometimes with their fathers, on quad bikes. As we saw with Mr. Ozzie Osbourne, who was riding his quad bike legitimately on his private estate, these bikes can be very dangerous. They can be dangerous not only to the individuals riding them, but to those who come across them. The "quadfathers" are the equivalent to the TRF in the quad biking industry—that gives us a picture of how some people regard this pastime.
Again, there is nothing wrong with organised centres and people making a good and healthy living from organised extreme sports, such as quad biking. Doubtless the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire is the first to want to participate in each new extreme sport. Quad biking is a perfectly legitimate pastime if organised, but having these people everywhere is clearly nonsense. That is the concern of my constituents and those of many other hon. Members. I implore my right hon. Friend the Minister to close the loophole. Indeed, let us go further and ensure that legitimate pastimes are carried on at appropriate venues in order to allow the rest of us to get on with our lives peacefully.
§ The Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality (Alun Michael)I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) on the way in which he has raised this issue. I am happy to confirm that my approach is to seek consensus and mutual consideration of interests by users of motorised vehicles and all other users of rights of way. The examples that he cites of the language that has been used and the way in which some users refer to their activities demonstrates why we have something of a problem in getting the right communication and exchange. However, given that I have experience of dealing with a series of issues on which it has been necessary to bring together people with widely differing views, I shall seek to put it to good use on this issue. I agree with my hon. Friend about the need to consider the possibility of providing positive opportunities in appropriate places, so that it is not a question of saying no, but a question of seeing where we can say yes.
My hon. Friend has raised an emotive issue on which there are strong and divided views. The Government have received more than 15,000 letters and e-mails as a result of our consultation paper on the use of 325WH mechanically propelled vehicles on rights of way. To a considerable extent, that response appears to have been whipped up by a sustained campaign that has, as he suggests, misrepresented what the consultation proposes. That has not helped matters. Many respondents who appeared to be against the proposals were expressing opposition to a total ban on the vehicles, which was suggested nowhere in the document. Apart from factual errors, many letters were phrased in identical style and alleged that I had been misled about the impact of the vehicles on rights of way. In running such a campaign, these enthusiasts let themselves down. They failed to address the serious issues raised during the consultation. That so many respondents described themselves in identical terms, as "careful and considerate" drivers, does not exorcise the problem.
It is a fact that Members of Parliament, the public and various conservation and recreation organisations have expressed deep concerns about the problems caused by the use of mechanically propelled vehicles on some rights of way. The real issues that have been raised in the debate today serve further to demonstrate the problems. There is clear evidence of damage to fragile tracks and other aspects of our natural and cultural heritage, and there is anger about an activity that causes distress to others seeking to enjoy the countryside.
I understand my hon. Friend's point about long-distance trails. I have taken a particular and personal interest in the Ridgeway, in order to understand why it seemed to be so difficult to deal with the problems there. I believe that we have made great progress in trying to find a way of resolving the problems, with the help of Members of Parliament of all three main parties and the local councils. That sort of applied co-operation is essential in protecting our long-distance ways.
One only has to look at some of the motorised user websites and discussion forums to see pictures posted that unashamedly promote activities that are bound to cause damage through irresponsible use of recreational 4x4s. The quotations that my hon. Friend provided similarly underline the need to put the debate on a responsible footing and to discourage that type of incitement to people to undertake the sort of activities that should not be tolerated.
One of the lies to which my hon. Friend referred was the one circulated in recent weeks that I had refused to meet representatives of motor vehicular user groups. In fact, I had made it clear that I would meet them once the consultation period was over, and I confirm today that I have done so. At the meeting, I asked them whether they wanted to be part of the solution or part of the problem. I challenged them because there is no "please all" solution—my hon. Friend is right about that. Tough decisions will have to be taken in order for us to move forward in a sustainable way. It would be best if people on all sides were willing to listen to each other and understand others' concerns. The response of those at the meeting was positive and responsible, and I hope that we will now see a change in their stance in the public debate and in their communications with their members and supporters.
§ Lembit ÖpikWere motor cyclists' representatives present at the meetings with the Minister and, if not, would he be willing, in the context of seeking a consensual approach, to meet motor cyclists?
§ Alun MichaelI would be happy to meet such representatives, although I believe that they were included in the meeting—it was a broad group. If there are specific issues related to motor cycling, I am happy to meet a group if the hon. Gentleman would like to suggest one.
The judgment that we must make is how we want our countryside and rights of way to be used—both now, and in the future. Is it right that use by four-wheel drive vehicles and quad bikes and motor bikes for leisure purposes in the 21st century should be determined by the use made by horses or horse-drawn vehicles long before the invention of the internal combustion engine? Is it time for a change in a way that rights are established?
Our consultation paper "Use of Mechanically Propelled Vehicles on Rights of Way"—we specialise in catchy titles—responded directly to those primary issues of concern. As the law stands, the only consideration that can be taken into account is whether that right of way can be shown to have existed in the past. No other consideration, such as the environmental impact, the effect on local people, or the effect on other users can be considered. My hon. Friend is right to pose that challenge. It seems perverse that that is the only consideration, in cases in which the nature of the use has changed fundamentally over the years.
Production of evidence of use by horse-drawn vehicles many years ago—or a dedication for such use—currently gives rise to a public right of way for all vehicles, which is recorded on the definitive map as a byway open to all traffic. That is how most of the road network developed through history, because the use, on those roads, has been continuous and necessary and has kept pace with change. In some cases a six-lane highway follows the route of an historic drovers' road or a bridlepath, but it is difficult to see what that has to do with the principles on which rights for recreational or leisure use are based in the 21st century. It is hard to see the logical relationship between such historic use and a so-called right to use mechanically propelled vehicles on a way that has not been used by any sort of vehicle for many years and may never previously have been used by mechanically propelled vehicles.
The new proposals would limit vehicular rights arising from historic evidence to restricted byway rights—that is. rights on foot, on horse-back or on non-mechanically propelled vehicles—so that the rights claimed over a route reflect the historic usage of the route.
Similarly, we would make it absolutely clear that evidence of use by non-mechanically propelled vehicles in the future—after commencement of any relevant new provisions—would not be sufficient to establish a public right of way for mechanically propelled vehicles. It is important to ensure that property owners or occupiers who rely on unrecorded public vehicular rights in order to gain access to their premises are protected against becoming landlocked, and the proposals would require primary legislation.
However, the solution does not lie solely in new legislation; further proposals recognise the need for better enforcement of existing road traffic and other 327WH offences on rights of way. Powers are already available under the Road Traffic Act 1988, the Police Reform Act 2002 and other legislation to regulate the use of mechanically propelled vehicles on rights of way. Those powers and offences need to be better publicised and more rigorously applied; that is happening in some parts of the country such as the Yorkshire moors, which I visited recently. I will meet key representatives of enforcement agencies shortly to see how we can move the matter forward.
Better management of vehicular traffic is also needed on rights of way. In the Lake district, an experiment on the hierarchy of trail routes has proved useful, and I am happy to acknowledge that it has been developed with the positive engagement of motorised vehicle users. However, stronger legislative backing is needed to make the approach fully effective, but that co-operation shows the way forward.
We have made a commitment to revise the document "Making the Best of Byways", published in 1997, which provides advice on managing the different sorts of traffic on byways and advocates management measures based on co-operation and agreement. My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw suggested that the Government were not going far enough; as he said, some groups are very active in researching these rights, and he mentioned evidence of an increase in claims, mainly by the Trail Riders Fellowship, for vehicular rights of way across several local authority areas, including his constituency.
It was suggested that the Government should act to reclassify existing unsurfaced byways as restricted byways, but the use of mechanically propelled vehicles on unsurfaced road byways is not always damaging, nor is it always a nuisance to others. Use needs to be 328WH regulated according to the sustainability or suitability of particular routes. Where there are problems, traffic regulation orders can be used, or the management techniques that are outlined in Government guidance. I undertake to consider further measures that might be needed in the light of the consultation we have just completed, and any recommendations that arise from the findings later this year of a Government research project into vehicular use of existing byways open to all traffic.
Let us take the opportunity to consider all the comments that have been made on the consultation paper, including those from the users of motorised vehicles. I will seek to build consensus on the way forward, but I cannot do so alone. The representatives of motorised vehicle users need to join us in addressing the problems, rather than denying that problems exist. They also need to inform and engage their members. I hope that those who are interested in legitimate use will help us to counter activities of the type of publicity and website that irresponsibly encourage inappropriate use, to which my hon. Friend referred. Similarly, riders' and walkers' representatives must show a reciprocal willingness to engage.
Given the strength of divided opinion shown by the consultation, it is clear that leadership and action are required from Government, but I hope that that can be achieved through common sense, co-operation and constructive debate, which I am happy to lead. I hope that all users will be engaged in finding the best way forward. My hon. Friend's contribution was helpful—
§ It being sixteen minutes to Five o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the sitting lapsed, without Question put.