Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

My Lords, I do not think we are saying that it will be fairer to local authorities to stick with our view of the date in 2005; we are saying that it would be properly fairer to applicants—particularly genuine applicants. We know local authorities are under a great deal of pressure and that they would be under less pressure if the amendment was successful, but, as far as the actual issue of getting figures of applications made since 19 May 2005 is concerned, we have not bothered to do that on the basis that it would be an unnecessary task because all applications made since 19 May will be extinguished by provisions under the Government’s present proposals. We have, for good reasons, already departed from an earlier commitment to allow a period for claims to be made prior to commencement. We have now provided for claims made up until the date the Bill was published on 19 May 2005 to be seen through to their conclusion under the terms of the existing legislation. I would argue that that date is a logical date to use because it is the date on which the Government made public the terms of the proposed legislation. Using the cut-off date of May 2005 has a clear and reasonable purpose in that it will act as a deterrent to claims submitted simply to thwart the aims of the legislation and will protect local authorities from being inundated with such claims. Of course I understand the reason for seeking to change the cut-off date to December 2003. The argument, frankly, is that users of mechanically propelled vehicles may—I emphasise ““may””—have at this time started to lodge applications to have routes recorded on the definitive map and statement as byways open to all traffic in anticipation of possible legislation to restrict such applications, but, as a justification for applying the new legislation to all outstanding BOAT claims made since December 2003, it appears to us to be rather thin as at that time all the Government had done was to publish a consultation paper; they had not yet formed a view as to whether or not to legislate. Many of these claims were made in good faith. Many claimants would not have been aware of the Government’s consultation at that time and it was long before we made clear our intention to change the way in which claims would be determined in future. Many of these claims are outstanding now only because local authorities have not dealt with them as promptly as they are required to do by statute. We believe that by going to the September 2003 date we will be adding unfairness to unfairness. We remain clear in our minds that the best date would be May 2005. I am asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, whether local authorities are not keen to have a cut-off date of 2003. Some of course may be, but often these are local authorities that have failed in their statutory duty—for understandable reasons—to re-classify their RUPPs and therefore have a lot of strong BOAT claims outstanding. No wonder they would be happy if the date of December 2003 was the decision of Parliament. That is all I want to say on Amendment No. 140. I have tried to explain why it is that the Government are not able to accept it.