Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

The intention of Amendment No. 315A is to simplify the Bill and to remove negative and unintended side effects while still achieving the primary objectives as set out in the Framework for Action document. Letters from Defra have been somewhat confusing. In one, there is the statement that,"““there will be no reduction in byways””." However, Defra’s own definition of byways includes RUPPs as well as BOATS and, therefore, the general understanding of this is that there has been no reduction in RUPPs or BOATS. But the Bill, as drafted, will remove vehicle rights from RUPPs, which constitute some 60 per cent of byways. I hope that when replying to this group of amendments my noble friend will be able to clarify just what is intended. Another statement from Defra is that,"““existing BOATS will not be affected in any way””." I am advised that evidence exists that there are hundreds of existing BOATS that are, in fact, accessed via RUPPs or other under recorded ways and will be rendered unusable by vehicles under the current wording. Also, if 60 per cent of byways are lost then, logically, recreational traffic on the remaining byways will increase. Once more, I hope my noble friend will be able to clarify what is intended. The Bill, as amended in the other place, has gone way beyond the intentions set out in Framework for Action which was published following consultation. This was a balanced outcome following a very difficult consultation period and we should not move away from that without very good reason. We have been made aware that there is a problem with the damaging effect of vehicles on green lanes but it is not nearly as significant as some people make out. While keeping the problem in perspective we have to do something that will be effective with regard to the totality of rural activity and usage by all legitimate users of rights of way. A few weeks ago Defra published Regulating the use of motor vehicles on public rights of way and off road, which stated that,"““whilst most people who drive motor vehicles away from a public highway do so in a responsible manner, a minority disregard the negative impacts that their activity has not only on the environment but also on local communities and visitors””." The Ramblers’ Association claims that about 200 lanes are at risk but, given that there are more than 20,000 green lanes in England and Wales, we might be concerned with about 1 per cent of the total at most. It should also be remembered that most of these lanes are less than 1 kilometre in length, which means that the effect on the countryside as a whole is far less than has been suggested. Recreational users are always blamed but agriculture causes much of the damage and the Bill, in its current form, will do nothing about that. Defra’s research states that,"““there is no evidence of widespread damage to the byway network from motor vehicles, whether they are recreational vehicles or using byways for land management or access to dwellings””." Does my noble friend think that removing a negligible level of traffic from some of the byways will actually have any effect other than to criminalise responsible and, in some cases, essential users? Several groups have sought to portray recreational vehicles in the countryside as an issue, as a means of establishing exclusivity for themselves but they seem to be trying to eliminate the recreation of one very minor group of users while enjoying their recently acquired access to large tracts of open countryside. The Bill does not deal with the abuse of green lanes by a mindless minority and, even worse, the current wording will have secondary effects such as causing access problems for thousands of rural properties and making them potentially unsellable; limiting and restricting access for disabled users; reducing access for many users such as canoeists, fishermen and many others; creating arbitrary restrictions on well established and recognised vehicle rights of way that have been used for many years without any difficulties and limitations. These secondary effects have generated numerous amendments when, in fact, the problem is the basic wording of Clause 62, which will remove vehicle rights at a stroke from RUPPs. We have a well used principle at work here. When a small percentage of participants in a pastime cause a problem, then we put in a ban. Perhaps some sports should be banned due to the behaviour of the participants and spectators. Sections 59 and 60 of the Police Reform Act 2002 give police the power to seize vehicles that are being used in a way that causes, or is likely to cause, alarm, distress or annoyance. As this existing legislation is sufficient to stop abuse, why are we proposing to remove vehicle rights anyway? Most of the RUPPs are hard stone roads used as property access and they need to be separated from the muddy tracks that are unsuitable for vehicles. There has to be a distinction. The other house rejected the concept of voluntary sustainability assessment. But sustainability could still be the distinction we need. It is an objective way of differentiating between ways that should be closed to all—and I repeat all—vehicles and those that can and should remain open to vehicles under a range of regulatory mechanisms. This amendment would stop the removal of those vehicle rights from existing roads provided they are sustainable following the use of compulsory sustainability assessment. Amendment No. 325B deals with two problems. First, it is still possible to add BOATS to the definitive maps as a result of claims made before commencement. There are said to be about 2,000 outstanding claims on the books of the Highways Authority. This figure may be incorrect but, nonetheless, many of these could become BOATS without any check on sustainability in any way. Secondly, the property access issue remains, even if it is no longer an offence to drive on a restricted byway for property access. In order to sell a property you need access to a public road or a private easement. A Member in another place said:"““However, those people will have to prove that a public vehicular right existed before they can establish a private right””.—[Official Report, Commons, 11/10/05; col. 231.]" I predict that statement will come to haunt that Member unless vehicle rights for property access are fully retained as public highways. Totally innocent property owners should not be expected to overcome this problem—at great cost to them—imposed by an Act of Parliament. I hope that my noble friend will recognise the lifeline offered to him by the amendment. It stops the addition of unsuitable byways to the definite map while retaining property and disabled access. It will ensure that no vehicular right of way could be added to the definitive map unless it was first proved to be sustainable for vehicular use. Such routes unsustainable for motor vehicles would be either subject to traffic regulation orders or added as restricted byways.