My Lords, I declare my interest as the president of the Friends of the Ridgeway and as a member of GLEAM, the group which protects green lanes, or tries to. In proposing this amendment, I submit that the opportunity should be seized to resolve the problem of motor vehicle use of unsurfaced highways, with a clear focus and timeframe for the way forward, and to give a clear signal that the Government intend to take action. The Government’s current plan is to set up another stakeholder working group in the hope that it will achieve consensus on motor vehicle use of unsealed highways. I submit that it will not reach consensus because the parties involved have diametrically opposed views. There is no prospect of compromise between those who ride noisy motorbikes and drive specially equipped four-wheel drive motor vehicles and those who value on the other hand the peace and quiet of the countryside, such as walkers, horse riders, cyclists and birdwatchers. There is also a real safety issue involved.
7.15 pm
I believe that the Government’s intention is to set up a new stakeholder working group, but I am afraid that it is out of the remit of the present stakeholder group. It was deliberately excluded from the remit because nobody could see any prospect of agreement and they did not want to stop the group agreeing other things. When it touched on the issue in relation to simplifying the processes involved in getting rights of way on the definitive map, the current stakeholder group consciously set the problem aside. It did so
because it was clear that there was not a consensus. It is for this reason that the current group is not a credible model for the way forward.
The remit for the current stakeholder working group was to,
“work together with the aim of reaching consensus on a balanced package of strategic reforms in law and procedure that in the Group’s view would bring real benefit to the various interests potentially affected by the claimed existence of”,
historic public rights of way.
At its meeting in February 2009, the question arose of tackling rights on unsealed highways on the list of streets, referred to in the following extract from the working group’s minutes as “other routes with public access”. The minutes record that:
“A suggestion was made that a process be instigated to review”,
these routes,
“with a view to identifying those that are clearly not vehicular and for these to be considered for inclusion on the definitive map [of rights of way]. Another suggestion made was for a default status to be afforded to”,
the bridleways,
“subject to higher rights being confirmed. This suggestion was criticised on the grounds that it would be reinventing”,
roads used as public paths which were classified by the CROW Act as restricted byways.
In September 2009, it is recorded that,
“several Group members felt strongly that to allow negotiation over status would be against the public interest”.
These reservations were, we believe, those of the members of the stakeholder working group representing the interests of motor vehicle owners. In the light of conflicting views and no likelihood of agreement, no further work was done on this problem. No work was done, or could have been done, on the question of byways open to all traffic—the other class of unsealed highway used by motor vehicles—as these were well outside the terms of reference of the group. The current stakeholder working group was deliberately setting aside the highly contentious issue of use of motor vehicles on unsealed roads. This amendment seeks to bring this about.
It took the current stakeholder working group five years to come forward with proposals on much less contentious issues than motor vehicles using green lanes. We need action, not years more of delay. All the stakeholders with an interest in the use of unsealed ways by motor vehicles clearly must be consulted and the Government are already committed anyway to full public consultation. But leaving the initiative for developing proposals for consultation in the hands of a stakeholder group that will not be able to agree, we suspect, even on terms of reference will delay rather than assist moving forward towards meaningful consultation and a solution.
It is essential that the Government set the agenda, lead on the issue and are seen to be leading, as they did when they secured protection from motor vehicle use on footpaths and bridleways under the NERC Act 2006. The Deregulation Bill seeks to reduce burdens resulting from legislation for business or other organisations, or for individuals. The amendment identifies an area of legislation not currently covered by the Bill but where there are heavy burdens on individuals,
communities, local government and other public agencies. Missing is legislation that permits and seeks to regulate the use of unsealed highways by motor vehicles.
The amendment that we are proposing would place a requirement on the Secretary State to examine the costs and burdens that flow from the current legislation, to propose remedies and to lay a report and recommendations before Parliament within one year of the passing of the Bill. There is nothing in the amendment that would oppose the Government or interfere with any of the clauses already in the Bill, including those that result from the work by the present stakeholder working group, or those on the rights that Defra seeks to protect. The only thing the amendment would do is require the Government to consider the regulatory burdens of the existing legislation in this area, and to bring forward proposals on a definite timescale.
The amendment has all-party support, as the Committee will no doubt hear. The burdens and costs that the amendment seeks the Secretary of State to identify and review flow from Section 67 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, Parts 1 and 2 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and Section 41 of the Highways Act 1980. The legislation needs review, not just because of the heavy burdens that it places on individuals and the various agencies involved in administering it, but because it permits the use and destruction of unsealed highways by 4x4 motor vehicles and motorbikes.
These unsealed highways are the country’s green lanes. There are burdens and costs for individuals and communities affected by the use of unsealed highways and byways by motor vehicles. We are seeking to use the current highway and rights of way legislation as a means of redress. The public organisations bearing the burden of the legislation on motor vehicle use of unsealed highways are the highways authorities, the national parks, Natural England, which is responsible for the areas of outstanding natural beauty and national trails, the Planning Inspectorate and the courts.
The highways authorities are obliged by law to repair all unsealed highways damaged by motor vehicles. They cannot avoid this cost, as it is a statutory duty under Section 54 of the Highways Act 1980. The cost of repairing a badly damaged green lane can be up to £75,000 per mile. If the lane is repaired without a permanent traffic regulation order being applied to it, it is again vulnerable to repeated challenge. The highways authorities have a process to determine all applications claiming unsealed highways as byways open to all traffic. This is a legal duty under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. There are objections to over 40% of these applications, which lead to public inquiries and burdens for the Planning Inspectorate, the highways authorities, individuals and community organisations.
Where the decisions of the highway authorities or the Planning Inspectorate on applications are challenged, these are burdens for the courts, reaching as high as the Supreme Court. The highway authorities bear the costs and burdens involved in trying to use traffic regulation orders to restrict or exclude motor vehicles from using unsealed highways. The costs and procedures
involved in making these orders are significant. Where they are used to restrict motor vehicle use on unsurfaced highways, the orders are invariably challenged in the courts by motor vehicle organisations. If a legal challenge succeeds, the cost to the highway authority can be up to £50,000 or more. Highway authorities are naturally very reluctant to take that risk. That is why we see few traffic regulation orders being made to control motor vehicle use of any part of the unsealed highway network.
There is also no legal redress other than judicial review against a highway authority which refuses to consider implementing a traffic regulation order. This is unfair on the individual users to whom I have referred and the small communities bearing the brunt of motor vehicle use on unsealed highways. The national parks are also bearing heavy burdens. The current legislation is handicapping all the national parks authorities in their effort to protect their unsealed highways. It is also impeding them in carrying out their statutory duty to protect the environment of the national parks.
In the Peak District National Park alone, there are 225 green lanes open to use by motor vehicles. The Peak District National Park Authority spent £100,000 on managing motor vehicle use on its green lanes in the two years from 2012 to 2014. During that period, it was able to secure traffic regulation orders on just two unsealed highways out of a list of nearly 40, giving serious cause for concern.
The only reason public authorities and individuals are carrying all these burdens is that the law continues to permit many thousands of miles of unsealed highways to be used by motor vehicles. The amendment requires the Secretary of State to report on whether legislation should continue to permit such use. The Government have recognised the need for a review and consultation, but their proposals for taking the matter forward do not go far or fast enough. There is currently no timescale for action and no clear focus for a review. The Government are also unrealistic in hoping that a stakeholder working group made up of the parties involved—the mechanism for action which has been suggested—will reach agreement. This is not remotely possible, and setting up such a group at this point will therefore serve only to waste further time. That is why the amendment sets a timetable and a clear focus for action.
At this stage, I should point out that I am not concerned with traditional motor vehicle trials in the countryside. They are not a problem; it is the unsealed roads that are a problem. There is also a tendency to paint those who are campaigning on this issue as the rich. I want to refute that, as many walkers who are in the group we are seeking to protect most are relatively poor compared with those who often drive very expensive four-wheel drive vehicles. It has been suggested that barriers may be an effective way of closing off some lanes, but experience has shown that these barriers are often winched out by the 4x4 vehicles, many of which are equipped with winches. I am told that there is no problem in Scotland, where off-roading is not allowed, but Wales has similar problems to those in England.
I know that I am not allowed to show photographs but I draw noble Lords’ attention to the fact I have many photographs from a very wide area, including the Lake District, the Peak District National Park and the North York Moors National Park. The damage is so significant that I believe we must take action. I beg to move.
7.30 pm