Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

My Lords, I thank the Minister for attempting to go through the many arguments put forward. I thank, too, all noble Lords who contributed to this debate, including the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, although his was the only voice not supporting my amendment. The Minister has not actually answered my question, which I posed in Committee and again this time, about how many of the claims that are outstanding are multiples and how many are singles. I should have thought that by this stage the Government should really know the answer to that, because it has a huge bearing on the amount of claims involved. Although the exchanges across and around the Chamber today have been fairly congenial, it is clear that there is an awful lot that the Government do not know about this part of the Bill, which is very regrettable, because it is a very important part, and something that has caused great anxiety to us all. The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, is right to raise the human rights issue, and I do not really think that the Minister answered that very satisfactorily. We shall have to go away and read his response. As the noble Lord, Lord Haworth, and others acknowledged, the Government have actually conceded on the whole question of retrospection by going to a date of their choosing—that is, 9 May—and not just having a date when the Bill passes out of the House. I find it slightly strange that the Minister can say, ““It needs to be fair, reasonable and proportionate””; we are almost at the stage of asking who it is being fair, reasonable and proportionate to. We have highlighted another council tonight, but I could have highlighted others. From the point of view of the councils, carrying excess claims is not fair, proportionate or reasonable, and in the Bill we have the chance to address the very issues that so concern them. 9.30 pm Perhaps the Minister did not reflect on our discussions in Committee when I suggested that the Government were slightly to blame for the number of claims. Through the Countryside Agency, the Minister’s right honourable friend, Alun Michael, who is no longer Minister, brought forward the document about discovering lost rights. Originally they were supposed to be walking rights, but this opened up another entire environment, which I think is the cause of many people’s applications. I hope that between now and Third Reading, the Minister will be able to answer some of the questions that are still outstanding. It is not a satisfactory position. I would like to give the Government a chance; to do that, we need answers to our questions. One noble Lord suggested that there seemed to be an enormous variation in the number of claims supposedly outstanding. It is very confusing, but somebody must know. Whatever the final number, it is putting a huge burden on councils in certain parts of the country. The Minister suggested, not exactly offhandedly, that it was the councils’ fault that they had not dealt with the claims. If, in the normal course of events, you have only one or two claims a year, it is easy enough to deal with them, but a sudden flood is another matter. Aspects of the debate on this very important issue have not been answered. I shall go back and consult, giving the Minister a chance to answer some of the outstanding questions, and shall come back to this at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.