Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

My Lords, I ask for your Lordships’ indulgence, particularly that of the Minister. I have a longstanding engagement that will make it impossible for me to attend his winding-up. This is a particular disappointment, in view of his intervention earlier on the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, but I hope he will not regard this as a discourtesy. It is my lot to speak after my noble friend Lord Goschen solely on Part 6 of the Bill. Here I congratulate the Government on a refreshing and radical concept, which is to be warmly welcomed in the interests of protecting the environment. However, there are some lacunae in this part of the Bill, as my noble friend and others have noted, in particular my noble friend Lady Byford. I compliment the noble Lord, Lord Haworth, on his explicit exposition of the problems lying behind the issue of exemptions. I contend that the tidiest way to give effect to the new Bill is to give no exemptions at all—the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, has made this abundantly and unequivocally clear—and for the Minister to confirm that all new claims will be dealt with under the new legislation. I find the words at Third Reading of the Minister in another place, Mr Jim Knight, encouraging. He said that,"““if there is the flood that we fear as a result of my announcement about commencement, I will seek to take as aggressive a stance as I possibly can from that legal advice on how outstanding claims are to be dealt with””.—[Official Report, Commons, 11/10/05; col. 228.]" I was encouraged by the Minister’s opening remarks, and I hope your Lordships will be further encouraged by his closing speech as a result of his intervention. Evidence from the Green Lanes Protection Group suggests that BOAT claims made in the three weeks following Third Reading in another place totalled 183. That compared with 284 for the whole of 2005 up to that date, but with only 100 for the whole of 2003. These figures must be treated with caution for a number of reasons, not least that different authorities have differing procedures for dealing with incompletely submitted claims. Some are returned to claimants; others accepted conditionally. These figures, however, indicate an increasing trend, and there is evidence that a large number—in the Minister’s words, ““a flood””—of claims are being held pending clarification by the Government. This is borne out by the number of applications for claim forms that have been received by several authorities. I am sure it is recognised by all parts of your Lordships’ House that there are conflicts between users of MPVs on the one hand and conservators and landowners on the other. It will be the wish of the House that at least this part of the Bill is as consensual as it can be. I have made my views clear: there should be no exemptions. If the Minister finds it necessary to have a cut-off date, however, this does not amount to retrospection. I have had advice from counsel to the effect that terminating the procedure for recording a right under Part 3 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 does not of itself offend the presumption against retrospection. I hope the Minister will bear this in mind should he find it appropriate to fix a cut-off date. To that end, I suggest two possible options. The first is that claims should be exempted where a DMMO has already been made by the highway authority but the process has for some reason not been completed. This has the clear attraction of exempting older cases where evidence has been considered and reliance placed, at least in procedural terms, on the existing law. But it would mean that exemption would not be granted in recent cases made after the notice of change in the law has been given, most of which claims will have been made to beat the clock. The other, simpler option is that exemption should be granted for all claims made before 9 December 2003, the date of publication of the Minister’s proposals. This would contain an element of fairness, and would be in line with the frequent practice of dating commencement from a ministerial note of intention. This part of the Bill is sensible and equitable. As it stands at present, its intentions are capable of being neutered. I am sure many of your Lordships will have seen a photograph, reputedly taken in the Yorkshire Dales, of a Land Rover buried almost up to its bonnet in slurry, with a queue of others behind it waiting to ““enjoy the fun””. This is the massacre of the ancient byways of England and Wales that this Bill is designed to protect, and I urge the Government in this respect not to fall at the last hurdle.