---

Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

moved Amendment No. 310ZA:"Page 25, line 13, at end insert—" ““(   )   If the use of a road by mechanically propelled vehicles is prevented by a traffic order and there no longer exists a carriageway appropriate for those vehicles, the permitted use by those vehicles shall not be revived by the making of a traffic order.”” The noble Lord said: I expect that it will come as some relief to those Members who have sat through our debate this afternoon that we return to something that is immediately practical and of interest to a large   number of people. In introducing this group of      amendments, I have probably had more correspondence about this than any other subject since I have been in the House of Lords. I have had literally hundreds of letters and petitions signed by thousands of people who are concerned about how rights of way are being treated in this country, the general state of those rights of way, the abuse they receive and the state into which they have sunk. I have also seen a great deal of misinformation; for example, the way some people have sought to exploit the plight of the disabled to try to advance the cause of people who drive four-wheeled vehicles on rights of way, causing great damage. We must take this opportunity to ensure we have got the legislation right when dealing with this problem. There are many amendments in this group. I will try to go through them carefully, but not at great length. I know many other Members of the Committee have matters they wish to raise, but which are included in this very large grouping. The first amendment, No. 310ZA, deals with the fact that—as I understand it—a right of way, once it has been closed off to use by means of a traffic order, shall not then be reopened by another traffic order. Where people have extinguished the right of way and laid down a square or garden in its place, they are concerned to ensure that it is not re-established at some future date, and that there is no means by which it can be. The second group of amendments I wish to speak to concerns what is called the ““user test””. This is where we think the words the Government have used in the Bill are not the very best that could be used, and it is one of the cases where we are asking the Minister whether he is prepared to enter into discussion with us outside the Chamber to ensure, when an amendment is finally put into this Bill, that we really have got the best and tightest wording we can, one that is not likely to be exploited by people who have other intentions. We do not want to leave any loopholes that could be exploited by off-roaders. Those are the people who drive four-wheeled vehicles and use motorcycles to the detriment of the people who want to use rights of way for the purposes for which they are now used. What the Government have set down is right in principle, but we think the wording in our amendment is tighter, and will make it possible to provide for people who drive mechanically propelled vehicles along ordinary roads not recorded as byways on the definitive map, but will not leave any loophole through which other people will be able to escape. Amendments Nos. 318 and 318A are extremely important. They decide when this new law actually comes into effect. This goes back to the question of claims for rights of way on roads used as public paths. The Minister will recall that since the consultation paper was published in December 2003 large numbers of claims have been made by people trying to establish rights of way. These claims are often not very good and not completed, but they have at their base the fact that the use of a right of way by a mechanically propelled vehicle now should be based on the previous rights to use a horse and cart. We think that is a totally wrong way to go about it. The historic use by a horse and cart, often 200 years ago, should not be the basis on which people indulge in various off-road ““sporting””-type events—and I use the word ““sporting”” in inverted commas. The claims we refer to are heard by local authorities, who hear the claims very slowly. It is not a duty of a local authority that comes very high in the pecking order, and the claims are often subject to a lot of objection. It is a very bureaucratic process, and it often takes tens of years to clear the claims out of the system. Since 2003 about 1,000 more claims have been submitted to local authorities, and, if the date that is set down in Amendment No. 318 is adhered to, those authorities—if they continue to exist in their present form—will have an enormous job trying to bring them through to the point where rights of way are decided upon and recorded upon the definite map. Amendment No. 318A would create a cut-off date at 2003. Claims lodged after that date would be judged on the new criteria set down in the Bill; that is, not on whether a horse and cart had previously used the road but on a much tighter basis, and the right of way might not be granted. No doubt the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, will speak to that. Amendment No. 319 is the first one to deal with private rights. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about this. We agree with the Government’s intention, but we believe the wording we have worked out—I say ““we”” because this is a combined effort from many better qualified legal people than me within the movements associated with the countryside, and lawyers who advise them—deals with the human rights problems that would arise if the rights attached to people. We have tried to make the rights attach to the property, so that if someone has a right of access, either to his property or to his land for the purposes of enjoying his land, that right can then be passed on. He may sell it or it may be passed on to whoever succeeds him. In doing so, we can avoid the human rights problems which we think are likely to be involved in the words used by the Government. We again suggest discussion to achieve the best wording possible to prevent further legal disputes in the future. Amendments Nos. 326 and 327 also deal with access to property. We accept that that has to be provided for but we are not convinced that the Government have used the best wording. Amendments Nos. 324 and 325 seek to ensure that any claim to a right of way must be fully compliant. In claiming a right of way, it is no good putting in a note about what you want; you have to make a fully compliant claim dealing with all the issues raised. We shall not accept a few notes roughly filled in on a form. Those are the main issues. I know that other noble Lords want to speak. The Minister may have things to say. The points raised in these amendments, and in others to be moved by other noble Lords, merit careful discussion rather than necessarily deciding today the best course of action. I beg to move.