Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

moved Amendment No. 8:"Page 27, line 22, after ““main”” insert ““lawful””" The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 8 is tabled after consideration of Amendment No. 138A which was moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, on Report. It strengthens new subsection (2)(a) of Clause 67, which will exempt from extinguishment any route where it can be shown that, for five years before commencement, public use had been mainly by motor vehicles. It does that by ensuring that, in determining the balance of use prior to commencement, only lawful use by mechanically propelled vehicles is taken into account. On Report, I undertook to consider four other amendments. We have looked at them carefully, but have concluded that we cannot table amendments such as these. I will briefly explain why. Amendments Nos. 146 and 150 sought to amend what is now Clause 67(5) and new subsection (7B) of the Highways Act 1980—inserted by Clause 69(1)—so that, to be made ““correctly””, applications for definitive map modification orders must comply with paragraphs 1 and 2 of Schedule 14 to the 1981 Act. On a practical level, that sort of amendment would open up uncertainty because it could easily be a matter of dispute whether paragraph 2 had been complied with. More significantly, it would not work because paragraph 2 is not about making an application; it is about whether an application has been made. Nevertheless, as these two provisions stand, for an application to be valid it has to be submitted in the prescribed form with the correct supporting documentary evidence. We are grateful to the noble Baroness for her assistance in tabling Amendments Nos. 154ZA and 154ZB on Report, but having now had an opportunity to consider those amendments further, we have concluded that the exemption works properly without the amendments. We are satisfied that the government amendment which is now incorporated into Clause 70 closed any potential loophole and that no further amendments to this clause are necessary. I understand that there are residual concerns about whether it will be possible for people to argue that they are lawful visitors to a RUPP. Under new subsection (2A) of the Road Traffic Act 1988, introduced by Clause 70, the exemption covers only those who have an interest in the land, or, after commencement, are visitors to any land. People using former RUPPs for recreational purposes will not be lawful visitors to land after commencement. RUPPs will be reclassified as restricted byways immediately before commencement, and restricted byways do not carry rights for mechanically propelled vehicles. I beg to move.