Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

My Lords, I thoroughly approve of the Government’s intentions in Clauses 66 and 67. I apologise to the House that I was not here to speak on Report. It all seemed to me absurd that the precedent of the passage of a horse and cart should be used to allow motorised traffic to tear up our green lanes. I still cannot understand why we cannot apply the principles involved now. It seems to me to be rather like the Chancellor of the Exchequer introducing capital gains tax and saying that it will not apply to anyone who has notified that they are going to transfer an asset; in other words, it was not going to bite for several years. Perhaps I may give a local example of the effect of the legislation. In my home county of Somerset, since December 2003 we have gone from an applications backlog of 24 to over 200 in respect of byways open to all traffic. The new cut-off date—and I realise that a deal has been done—of 20 January 2005 means that there will still be a backlog of nearly 100 claims. In other words, the speed of progress is about 16 or 17 claims a year, because of the judicial processes and such, and the new rules will not apply for five or six years in Somerset. I do not think that that is right. So I still believe that 9 December would have been the best cut-off date. That way we could have ensured we had the maximum number of paths, where the pleasures of walking on them remained as they are. So I am rather disappointed and would have preferred the original amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford.