Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

moved Amendment No. 136:"Page 26, line 40, leave out ““commencement”” and insert ““Royal Assent””" The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in speaking to the amendment I shall speak also to the other amendments grouped with it, including Amendments Nos. 140 to 142 and 144. I will deal first with Amendment No. 136. As we rehearsed in Committee, the figures for some applications for the rights of way open to vehicles vary according to source, possibly because they cover different aspects of the same problem. GLEAM calculates that by May 2005, some 1,500 applications to change byways into byways open to all traffic had been received by councils in England. The bulk of those were lodged after December 2003. I have studied Hansard for 28 February and read the letter from the Minister to my honourable friend Jim Paice. These, together with GLEAM’s figures, give me cause for concern that if the system is not put in place quickly, some local authorities will find themselves faced with quantities of applications that will require a great deal of expenditure. I understand that the Minister may have some technical difficulties with substituting the date for Royal Assent, but can he give us some guidance on the likely date of commencement or the factors that will determine it? I turn now to the big debate on Amendment No. 140, and apologise to your Lordships that my papers are not quite in the order that they should be. As we said in Committee, across England and Wales local authorities are struggling to produce their rights of way improvement plans. They are dealing mainly with public paths, but access—for those on horseback, cycle, or two or four-wheeled vehicles, and for the disabled—is an important part of the workload. I understand that six to eight authorities have completed their plans, but many others have not even started; when they do they will use outside agencies. One factor that contributes to delay is the sheer number of applications that have been received for routes to be designated under the CROW Act. Many of those applications will have been carefully and thoroughly researched; they will have been relatively easy to validate and prepare for inclusion on the definitive map. Others, however, will be the subject of contention and will require many hours of skilled administration work to be completed. Still others will have been lodged on flimsy evidence, but will none the less have to go through the process. In Committee, the main discussion was about the rights of way used by mechanically propelled vehicles, and many figures were quoted. According to the Minister on 9 December 2003, the number of claims outstanding for routes to be registered as byways open to all traffic stood at some 992. Again, in Committee I asked the Minister whether they were single or multiple claims; I have still not received an answer and I would be grateful for one tonight. By 19 May 2005, that number was 207. In other words, 785 claims, plus an unknown number that arrived after 9 December, had been processed and either accepted or rejected. The Government propose that, in the main, applications received after 9 May 2005 will be null and void. Again, I wish to put on record that I am grateful to the Minister for accepting that there is a problem; the current difference between us is the date on which we wish this to be considered. From that date, their proposal would have left some 207 to be processed. Our amendment would remove that 207 from the arena and would, I hope, allow certain local authorities to use their available labour to deal with the backlog on public paths. Apart from that, it would reduce the number of appeals against the rejection of applications lodged between December 2003 and May 2005. That would save time, resources and money in a situation where many local authorities are financially stretched. This reclassification of rights of way is not a brand new concept that this Bill thrusts on the unsuspecting public—far from it. Reclassification has been on the cards since 1968 when the Countryside Act was passed. The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 brought in the requirement to reclassify either as bridleway or BOAT. The definition of a RUPP goes back further to 1949, when it was described as,"““a highway other than a public path, bridleway or footpath used by the public mainly for the purposes for which footpaths and bridleways are so used””." RUPPs were never intended for vehicle use. Indeed, in the absence of other evidence since 1981, RUPPs have been considered as bridleways with no vehicle rights at all. The CROW Act 2000 introduced the concept of a cut-off date, which would clear up the issue once and for all. This NERC Bill proposes, rightly in our view, to bring that cut-off date forward for applications, not existing rights. I was, therefore, slightly surprised at the Minister’s response in Committee to my Amendment No. 318A, now Amendment No. 140. It seemed odd that the context of this debate and the chain of events leading up to it had not led him to use a chance to clear up this issue once and for all. At that stage I was grateful for the support of other noble Lords. Our Amendment No. 140 aims to limit the exemption of claims from the extinguishment provisions to strike a fair balance between the change in the law and knowledge of that change. Claims are no more than an attempt to test the procedure. Interception of claims by extinguishing rights at the commencement date, and not before, is not retrospection. The basic point is that the more applications to which this law applies, the clearer the state of affairs regarding rights of way will become. The more applications that are left exempt from the extinguishments, the more rights of way will be open to abuse, as their users will know that they are in little or no danger of prosecution. The noble Lord may correct me, but as far as I am aware no prosecution has ever been made under Section 34A of the Crow Act, which amends the Road Traffic Act to clarify use of rights of way. Policing those rights of way is notoriously difficult. We now have the opportunity to draw a clear date, which will send out a message to all of those who use any kind of right of way to be aware of the limits of their legal entitlements. In Committee, the Minister also stated that the use of the cut-off date was intended to,"““act as a deterrent to claims submitted simply to thwart the aims of the legislation””.—[Official Report, 28/ 2/06; col. 197.]" The Minister suggested that it was only when the Bill was published that the aims of legislation were clear. Surely that is na&-uml;ve in the face of the facts. I think we should look at the facts. Since consultation first suggested controls of recreation off-road vehicles, many applications for byways have been made in order to avoid the legislation and we have assessed the figures, which jump from 657 pre-9 December to 992 on 17 January, a figure told to me by Jim Knight. Again, I would be grateful if the Minister would update us from 17 January. In Committee, we were left unsure as to the exact number of claims that flooded in after December 2003. We can be sure that there was a flood of applications and that it is no coincidence that they came in after consultation on the Bill. If we are generous, however, and take the Minister’s figures for the claims outstanding on 19 May 2005, there will be 207 left to deal with. Our amendment would extinguish those claims and reduce the appeals against the rejection of applications lodged between December 2003 and May 2005. It would, I believe, save precious resources and money from local authorities, to which I shall refer at the end of my contribution. I do not think I can paint a chain of events more clearly. But I can turn to new evidence that has come to our attention. The following letter shows what has happened in just one parish. If the December date were adopted, it would solve these problems and about 1,000 similar cases around the country. The Minister will be interested to hear that I received a letter, written on 14 March, from Dr Karen Hinckley from the Ashover Parish Council, up in Derbyshire, not far from where he and I reside. It brings to our attention the problem that we are now debating and states:"““The motorcyclists have inundated the County Council within the last two years with a huge barrage of applications for Modification Orders to upgrade all bridleways and some footpaths into Byways Open to all Traffic (BOATs). There are twenty such applications in this Parish alone. The applications cover all bridleways, and continuous paths, within the parish; if granted, there would not be one single path that horse-riders or cyclists could use without meeting motorised vehicles. County and Parish Councils are being overwhelmed by the applications which we believe were submitted because of proposed changes in legislation. Apparently, neighbouring Parishes are in a similar situation with a massive increase in applications. Nobody has the money to challenge them legally””." It goes on to state:"““Trials bikes damage all types of wildlife and destroy the peace and tranquillity of the area. The paths used are totally unsuitable in every way for motorised traffic. Often motorbikes pass pedestrians at great speed, showering them with mud and stones and legitimate users and local residents are frightened by them””." It is sad to record that,"““Trials bikers are abusive and threatening towards residents who attempt to stop them. Every weekend trials bikers are reported to the Police who are at a loss as to what to do . . . The trials bikers contribute nothing but their damage is huge—the estimate for surface repair for just one local bridle path is £40,000 and no-one can afford it””." There are many other examples that I could give. We are very concerned about this issue and I bring it to the attention of the House. I beg to move.