Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

That is certainly my understanding. If the situation is any different, I will write to the hon. Gentleman and copy the letter to Opposition Front Benchers and place a copy in the Library. The transitional arrangements have been drafted in such a way as to ensure that only those definitive map modification order applications for BOATs made before 20 January 2005, or 19 May 2005 in Wales, that are made correctly and in accordance with the statutory requirements, will be preserved by the transitional arrangements in clause 62(3). Amendment No. 23 also amends the provisions that provide for private rights of access for property owners. That is necessary to ensure that there are no human rights issues created by commencement of the rights of way provisions shortly after Royal Assent without a period of statutory notice. Amendment No. 24 is a procedural amendment that refers to certain transitional provisions set out in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. The provisions provide that, where a local authority has made a definitive map modification order under section 53 or 54 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 reclassifying a road used as a public path, or RUPP, as a footpath, bridleway or byway open to all traffic, that order must be processed to its conclusion. However, the amendment will ensure that those transitional arrangements are subject to part 6 of this Bill in the normal way, so that unless they fulfil the criteria for any of the exemptions set out in the Bill’s transitional arrangements, any vehicular rights in such claims will be extinguished. Amendment No. 25 addresses cyclists’ concerns about whether a qualifying period of past, or future, cycle use may give rise to a restricted byway. The view of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is that a normal pedal-powered cycle is a non-mechanically propelled vehicle and therefore may give rise to restricted byway rights. This amendment introduces a clause that will make that clear on the face of the Bill. Amendment No. 26 clarifies that a definitive map modification order or DMMO application is, of itself, capable of bringing a route into question for the purposes of section 31 of the 1980 Act. Amendment No. 27 is in two parts. The first amends an existing provision, which provides that a restricted byway may be created through an application for a definitive map modification order. This amendment clarifies that a restricted byway can be created on the basis of both user and historic evidence. The second part will ensure that anyone driving on a restricted byway, which was a road used as a public path prior to reclassification, to access their property would not be committing a criminal offence under section 34 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. Amendments (a) and (b), tabled by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), would amend Lords amendment No. 27. They concern subsection (7) of what is now clause 70. This subsection closes a possible loophole, which may have enabled those driving illegally over former RUPPs, to visit land that is designated for public access, to claim immunity from prosecution under section 34 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. Subsection (7) specifically excludes such people from the exemption from prosecution, so that it is only available to those accessing their own property over former RUPPs, and their lawful visitors. The amendments seek to further close the possible loophole, by extending the categories of land specified in subsection (7) to include"““any land which is treated as being accessible to the public””" so that it would include any rights of way and town or village greens. We considered similar amendments very carefully when they were tabled in the other place. We have concluded that the exemption from prosecution works properly without the amendments. We are satisfied that the Government amendment that has been incorporated into clause 70 closed any potential loophole and that no further amendments to the clause are necessary. Amendments (a) and (b) as drafted cannot be accepted because they would introduce uncertainties into the definition of visitor. For example, if they were accepted, they would not mention section 15(1) of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. We recognise that there is some concern that people using a right of way could be regarded as a ““visitor to the land””. However, we do not share that concern. We have considered this issue very carefully and have concluded that those using a right of way could not be regarded as a visitor to one of the parts of land which the right of way may cross. The right of way may cross several fields in the ownership of several different landowners. The user of the right of way is not visiting those fields, he is using the right of way. I appreciate that this is a complex area of the law. We intend to issue guidance to the police, local authorities and others about the rights of way provisions in this Bill. That will include guidance to assist with the understanding and enforcement of this new legislation on rights of way. I hope that in light of that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendments and that the House will accept the Lords amendments.