Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

I follow the many good contributions that have been made to the debate, which reflected the difficulty and complexity of the situation that the Government are faced with. In bringing forward their amendment, they have tried to respond to much of the debate and discussions that were held in the Commons over a long time. Like other noble Lords, I have been inundated with contributions from those who really want to end the opportunity to continue to register new rights of way. I have equally had quite a lot of letters from those who care violently about their sports and very clearly feel that their sport is going to be jeopardised. Like other noble Lords, I had correspondence from those who are able to access the countryside but are technically disabled and—following on from the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley—could not get there if they did not have vehicle access. I hope that these amendments address all those issues; I turn directly to them. The effect of our amendment to the Government’s amendment will be clear to all noble Lords. Clause 62 has already been amended by government Amendment No. 318. The effect of this is to ensure that any claims covering RUPPs into BOATs, not processed by 19 May 2005, will not be considered. The effect of this is that the applications to convert byways not considered by then will fall. Those byways will retain their original status; nothing will change in law. Our amendment goes further then the Government’s amendment. It will move the 19 May 2005 cut-off date back to 9 December 2003. Perhaps I should not say ““cut-off date,”” because this will not cut anything off. At that time there was no existing right. As the opinion of John Hobson QC showed, the making of a claim is nothing more than a trigger for inquiry into whether a right exists. On that point I think the Minister and I are in agreement. The difference between our two positions is that we believe 19 May 2005 is not adequate. There is huge contention surrounding this part of the Bill, and understandably so. There is conflict in the countryside between those who use byways and green lanes legally and those who do not, and those who use them in a sensible manner and those who, clearly, do not. My mailbox has been full of correspondence from both sides, and I am sure other noble Lords will have found likewise. I am very grateful to have received people from the Trail Riders’ Fellowship, the Land Access and Recreation Association, GLEAM and the Green Lanes Protection Group, so I think I have listened very carefully to all sides. In weighing up the cases put to me, I see a very clear distinction between acceptable and unacceptable treatment of the countryside. Disabled people wishing to gain access to the countryside should be able to do so. Amendment No. 328 achieves that. Those who need to access private dwellings should still be able to do so. Amendment No. 328B achieves that. The conservation and protection of our landscape and countryside has been at the forefront of our minds during the debate so    far. We propose to put the date back to 9 December 2003 because that is when the consultation on this particular section of the Bill began. It was afterwards that the claims came flooding in. It is no great coincidence that when Defra announced that the NERC Bill would seek to correct the definitive map people decided to submit these claims. All users of public byways knew from the CROW Act, taken through very contentiously in this House in 2000, that the definitive map was to be republished. If they had been conscientious about use of countryside green lanes and byways, they could certainly put claims in before then; indeed, some did. This Bill will extinguish all claims to convert byways to BOAT status at the commencement, unless exempted by Amendment No. 318 or Amendment No. 318A. The extinguishment will not affect those rights retrospectively, because they will not have existed. After the point of consultation, the whole process was undermined by, as some noble Lords have said, people dealing dishonestly, although that is perhaps a little strong. Alun Michael, the former Minister in the other place, had asked them to consider discovering lost byways. I think this has been part of the problem, so I want to acknowledge that there are problems. GLEAM, on the other hand, have given the total number of applications at 9 December 2003 as 657. Their estimate then runs to 1,064 applications by March 2005 and to a total of 1,500 by May 2005. We may then turn to some of the more modest statistics offered by Defra, which states—in answer to a question from my honourable friend Jim Paice—that there were, at 17 January, 992 applications pending. I understand that Wales was not included in this overview. Nor am I clear whether those were from people making single or multiple claims. Perhaps the Minister can tell us; I think that should be clarified. There are also local authorities whose response to that particular consultation remains outstanding. Some applications were mooted under the provisions of the CROW Act before 9 December 2003. To allow exemptions after that point would be to give privileged status to those who had simply filled in a form, even though no existing rights were extinguished at that stage. BOATs are a new category of right of way, which will confirm and improve the existing complex highway law. Indeed, they will be in existence only after the passing of this Bill. Amendment No. 325C adds to the spirit of fairness in considering these applications. It will allow a review of the modification orders made under these sections. I turn, finally, to Amendment No. 328B. This deals with traffic regulation orders on the national park authorities. The safeguards that exist to protect private access are inadequate when a body with the power to make traffic regulation orders has to conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the areas, and promote opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of such areas. Given this remit, it seems inevitable that those national park authorities will seek to make traffic regulation orders that could affect private access. The only existing protection for access to private premises with vehicles is that it cannot be prevented for more than eight hours in every 24. In reality, for a business premises, eight hours during the day could be crippling. Even this safeguard can be ignored where there is a need to preserve or improve an amenity of the area by prohibiting or restricting access by heavy commercial vehicles. This seems to leave the door open to national park authorities, who effectively have the remit to preserve and enhance the amenity of an area by stopping the access of all vehicles, even those such as tractors. This would obviously have very serious consequences for farmers who live and work in national parks, as well as having a potential impact on other rural businesses. I hope that, in the few moments I have taken to explain my amendments to the House, noble Lords will realise that we have looked at this very seriously and tried to weigh the balance. I believe that these amendments are needed.