Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

I suspect that this group of new clauses and amendments, which deals with the Government’s proposals to change legislation on rights of way for mechanically propelled vehicles, will engage hon. Members on both sides of the House more than any other tonight. I want to start by re-emphasising the Opposition’s support for clauses 61 and 62. We need to ensure that there is peaceful and quiet use of our byways wherever possible, especially given the ample evidence of the damage that is being done to a number of them by motorised vehicles. There is increasing public concern about four-wheel drive vehicles and motor bikes making many byways impassable for pedestrians and horse riders. Ample photographic evidence of the damage caused by their use has been circulated to members of the Committee, and much of it has been sent to other hon. Members. The Minister has seen it all and, indeed, witnessed the damage for himself, as have I and my right hon. and hon. Friends. I do not intend to rehearse the arguments that the Government have already made for clauses 61 and 62, but I want to say a few words about what may well be perceived as unusual: Opposition support for regulation instead of the voluntary approach. We have concluded that, in this instance, regulation is necessary. Such regulation is necessary because, first, the damage that is being done to the natural environment—the terrain and the surface of byways—should be linked, if possible, to the responsibility for that and, in turn, for its repair. Even if agreement could be reached with the membership of the bodies who represent some of the people who use these routes—the Trail Riders Fellowship or the Green Lane Association—there is no guarantee that all users will be members of those bodies. The agreement would not apply to everyone who drives vehicles of different sorts along BOATs. Secondly, there is ample evidence—again, it has been provided to the Minister—that many members of the TRF see the present attempt at a voluntary approach as simply a means of heading off the legislation without serious intent of complying with it. We made it clear in Committee that an alternative approach would be for people to use private land for off-roading and to pay a fee for doing so. That fee could cover the cost of repair. That would be akin to the existing arrangement in different parts of the country for horse riding, where long routes have been devised by adjoining land owners. The riders pay a fee to the landowners and wear some sort of insignia, badge or armband that allows them to ride for many miles. There is no reason why that cannot be done for motorised vehicles.