Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

This may be an opportune moment for me to speak to my Amendment No. 310ZB in this group and to Amendment No. 369 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, who unhappily is unable to be here. That is unhappy for me but happy for him as I understand that he is lecturing on a cruise ship in the Pacific. I discussed with the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, how I should approach his amendment, with which I have great sympathy. I have been approached by many noble Lords in the Lobbies today and yesterday who said that they were looking forward to opposing what they thought would be my spirited defence of off-road motor cycling. I am afraid that they will be disappointed. In principle I have great sympathy with the measure, as does the noble Lord, Lord Jopling. After all, the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, represented with distinction over many years a rural constituency with countryside of great natural beauty. He and I have both been connected with motor cycle activities that take place within Parliament and elsewhere. The noble Lord, Lord Jopling, has been concerned more specifically with sporting events, which gives him a greater interest in off-road motor cycle competitions. However, it may come as no surprise to the Committee that neither of us is a recreational off-road motor cyclist. Those who ride off-road motor cycles are generally young—you have to be. When we learnt to ride motor cycles—in my case that was over 50 years ago, and I think that is probably the case with the noble Lord, Lord Jopling—there were no such things as off-road motor cycles. I have just been reminded that there were machines called farm bikes, which are now called cannabilised motor cycles, which were converted to go, at some risk to the rider, across rough countryside. Nowadays, the motor cycle industry caters for a large customer base of young people who want to ride off road and provides them with technologically very sophisticated machines with which to do so. With the spending power that is available to them they will buy those machines and use them. There is a growing problem in that regard. The perception is that a great number of young people ride irresponsibly and dangerously over our beautiful countryside. In fact, it is a small minority. As always, a small group of people destroy the rights and pleasures of others. There is no denying that some ride in a way that shows little consideration for other users of byways and green lanes and areas used by walkers, horse riders and others. These amendments seek only to mitigate the rather drastic measure of cutting the time during which correct and proper applications can be made for the right to use these byways. It was considered in 2000 that it would take 20 years to create a proper map and arrive at a responsible and proper sharing out of our countryside among users. The public and other user groups such as walkers, ramblers and so on can be forgiven for having perceptions that are not entirely realistic. Their perception is that the main culprits in this regard are motor cyclists and other vehicle users. They certainly have a high profile. We accept that public opinion will hold sway, that the Government represent public opinion and that therefore they are introducing legislation which effectively curtails the activities not only of the small minority who ride irresponsibly, noisily and dangerously and cause great damage but also of responsible, law-abiding people. We are asking for a 12-month delay after Royal Assent to get some of the outstanding claims settled. My amendment asks the Government to suspend rather than extinguish rights. The relevant powers already exist, certainly as regards motor cyclists, to take action where damage and nuisance are caused. But nothing has happened. It is extremely difficult to enforce the law in this area. I see nothing in the new regime which will change that situation. In fact, it may make it even worse because the responsible user groups and clubs which usually comprise mainly young but sometimes older people who ride these machines will obey the law. However, those who are not minded to obey the law will continue to behave as they always have done, and the activity will grow. How will these activities in the countryside be policed? To do that effectively a great deal of money will have to be spent creating a police force somewhat like the police support system that we have in your Lordships’ House, with police officers equipped with motor cycles to chase people. It would be rather like the Wild West with police officers forming posses to chase those causing damage in the countryside, thereby compounding the whole problem. However, that is the situation in which we shall find ourselves. For that reason my amendment asks the Government to consider suspension rather than the extinguishing of rights. Other byway and green lane users will be affected by the legislation. Some people use vehicles, whether two-wheel or four-wheel, to do many other things than jump over hillocks or perform acrobatics in the countryside. There are those who go fishing, hang-gliding, or bird-watching—all these people use vehicles to arrive at a place where they can start to pursue their leisure activity. Effectively, it will be easier to police those people than it will be to police those on two wheels who are on the Ridgeway or in peak areas of Britain. But it would be easy for an over-zealous policeman—heaven forbid that one may exist—to stop somebody going up a green lane with his car and fishing tackle, or to go up a lane bird-watching than it will be to catch those who the public, and the Government presumably, now see as the main offenders. That is the situation that I would like to put before your Lordships at this stage. I spoke to the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, and there is no intention to divide the House at any stage on our amendments. We just seek to bring a sense of reality into the situation and to point out that the countryside is becoming more and more a place for recreation and relaxation. My noble friend Lord Bradshaw referred to the historical origins of these rights of way and byways. He is quite right; they go back hundreds of years. They were mostly for the transporting of agricultural workers and their tools and produce, who used them to go from villages to areas where they had to work. They were useful and were encouraged by landowners because that was the way the countryside then worked. We now live in a different world, a world where everyone feels so empowered, which they have every right to be in a democracy. After all, that is what we aim for in a democracy—that everybody should have more rights, more ability and more freedoms. But unfortunately there are too many people who abuse their freedoms and think only of their own activity at the expense of the enjoyment of others. That is the sense that I get from the remarks that I have heard from other noble Lords and I agree with their concerns. What I do not agree with is the assumption that this legislation will end the problem. I suggest that it will only aggravate it.