Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

Amendment No. 316 seeks to ensure that people who drive mechanically propelled vehicles that are specially adapted to their disability may continue to drive that vehicle on rights of way over which public motor vehicular rights have been extinguished. Amendment No. 328, which was just spoken to by the noble Duke, seeks to ensure that a vehicle designed to be used solely by a person who is registered disabled falls outside the definition of a mechanically propelled vehicle and can therefore be used on rights of way over which public rights for    mechanically propelled vehicles have been extinguished. We recognise that many disabled people use specially adapted vehicles to access the countryside. However, drivers of invalid carriages are already protected from prosecution under Section 34 by a specific provision in the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, which excludes such vehicles from the definition of a motor vehicle in certain legislation provisions. Therefore, the use of vehicles designed to be used solely by persons who are registered disabled is already provided for. Those vehicles must comply with certain prescribed requirements set out in legislation in order to be exempt from prosecution. Providing for the use of mechanically propelled vehicles that are specially adapted would be beyond the scope of this amendment and extremely difficult to administer and enforce: how is one to determine what is a special adaptation and therefore who is entitled to make such use? This would risk opening a significant loophole and create uncertainty in the interpretation and application of the law leading to confusion and possible conflict. In any event, such vehicles would include four-by-four vehicles weighing up to two tonnes or more, which are potentially just as damaging to fragile, unsealed surfaces as other mechanically propelled vehicles and would therefore disadvantage other users with mobility problems. Moreover, the Bill’s provisions will not reduce the existing network of byways open to all traffic, which extend to around 4,500 kilometres in England and Wales—roughly 2 per cent of the rights-of-way network. They will still be open to all drivers of mechanically propelled vehicles, including those with mobility problems. Amendment No. 317 would ensure that people would be exempt from prosecution under Section 34 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 where they were driving on a restricted byway to access an organised event such as a point-to-point or motocross. Organisers and spectators who currently use motor vehicles on such routes will in future require the permission or ““lawful authority”” of the relevant landowner. However, that will be no different from the way in which they currently have to obtain permission to drive on a route where no public vehicular rights exist. This lawful authority will mean that they will not be open to prosecution under the Road Traffic Act 1988. Amendment No. 325A seeks to provide that use of a route by bicycle will count as evidence that the route in question is a restricted byway. The Government believe that a bicycle qualifies as a non-mechanically propelled vehicle and that a qualifying period of use by    pedal cycle may count as evidence towards establishing a restricted byway. We are happy to see something to that effect in the Bill. I recognise that cycling interests have concerns about how local authorities and rights-of-way inspectors treat evidence of pedal cycle use when determining applications to have rights of way added to the definitive map and statement. But we believe that our Amendment No. 322 provides what cyclists seek and addresses their concerns about whether a qualifying period of past or future cycle use may give rise to a restricted byway. Moreover, we believe that the government amendment, as an amendment to the Highways Act, rather than a freestanding provision, sits better in the existing legislative framework than my noble friend’s Amendment No. 325A. It also places a limitation on the maintenance liability of local authorities, which may encourage them to look more favourably on establishing a restricted byway on the basis of pedal cycle use. I understand that cycling interests are looking for an assurance that evidence of pedal cycle use, which would count towards establishing a restricted byway, can be adduced from a time before commencement of the restricted byway provisions, as well as afterwards, or from a period that extends across the commencement date. I can give that assurance now. Restricted byway rights are simply a collection of other types of rights which have existed for a long time; that is, a right on foot or on horseback or leading a horse and a right for vehicles other than mechanically propelled vehicles. That last right is not new. It always existed in the past alongside rights for mechanically propelled vehicles. Therefore, there would no reason why evidence of use should not be adduced from a period before commencement. Amendment No. 322A seeks to amend our Amendment No. 322 to various existing statutory provisions that have relevance to restricted byways. Those amendments fall into broadly two categories. Amendments in the first category attempt to change existing rights-of-way legislation simply to accommodate the new category of right of way; namely, a restricted byway. However, such amendments are unnecessary, since the draft restricted byways regulations, which I have mentioned in a previous debate, were laid before Parliament on 16 February. They include all the amendments that we believe are necessary to ensure that this new category of right of way works effectively within the existing legislative framework. Amendments in the second category attempt to redefine and change the essential nature of restricted byways, so that they are more like footpaths and bridleways than the old RUPPs and byways open to all traffic, and would not have the physical characteristics required to accommodate horse-drawn vehicles. I can see why that would be advantageous to cyclists, but what about drivers of horse-drawn vehicles, who have been patiently waiting since the CROW Act for the new category of right of way—restricted byways—to be implemented? Have they waited all this time for a category of right of way that would accommodate their needs, without the disadvantages that mechanically propelled vehicular rights bring with them, to have—at the eleventh hour—the essential nature of restricted byways changed in a way which would deny them access? We are keen to encourage access for cyclists, but unless the Committee is happy to deny access to horse-drawn vehicles as well as mechanically propelled vehicles, we do not think it can be done in this way. Moreover, because of Clause 62, all the routes that would have been recorded as byways open to all traffic will now become restricted byways. The proposed provisions would change these in ways that would alter all the characteristics that make these lanes attractive to all classes of user. I want to repeat that the Government are keen to help promote off-road access for bicycles, and should a need be identified for further regulations under the CROW Act in order to resolve a difficulty that emerges with regard to use of pedal cycles and restricted byways, there is nothing to prevent us making such regulations. I was asked a number of questions. What can we do to improve surfaces of rights of way for wheelchair use? We know that local authorities are seeking to upgrade rights of way, but it is a question of balance of resources. I want to take that point away and consider it. Could restricted byways be used to join up existing rights of way? Yes, local authorities can create restricted byways. Will we be issuing guidance to local authorities that cycle use can give rise to restricted byways? The answer is yes, we will be. I have not, I think, answered the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy. If I have not, I will write to her.