---

Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

I shall speak to the two amendments that relate to cyclists. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, did not want to support cyclists. He did, however, ask what vehicles were allowed on various routes. I do not know whether he took part in our debates on the Road Safety Bill last year, but he may recall the human transporter. It does not sound very nice, but it is otherwise called a Segway, and some of us tried it in the car park outside your Lordships’ House. My noble friend Lord Davies of Oldham confirmed that this thing was illegal on a footpath, a cycleway, a road or any highway at all, which we all thought was a bit of a shame, because some noble Lords who might be classified as disabled would find it very useful. Whether they could use it on a bridleway or anything else, heaven only knows, but that is the next stage down the line. My noble friend talked about opening and closing gates. I shall talk about gates, too, but in a slightly different context. I warmly welcome government Amendment No. 322 and Amendment No. 325. The Minister has not moved government Amendment No. 322 yet, although I am sure he will do soon. From what I have read about it, it is excellent. I seek clarification of both amendments in respect of cyclists’ use of various rights of way. I start with Amendment No. 325A, which seeks to clarify cyclists’ ability to claim rights of way on presentation of the evidence of sufficient usage. I believe it is settled in both common and statute law that where users can show that they have used a way regularly throughout a qualifying period, which I think is 20 years, that way is recorded as being a public right of way, with a status dependent on the type of use. Walkers can claim footpaths, and horse riders may claim bridleways, but I think the law is slightly unclear about what cyclists may claim. The amendment seeks to make a clear link between cycle use and evidence that the way in question is a restricted byway. I understand that the Government may have been concerned about making such an explicit link, but I believe that their amendment is sufficient to enable cyclists and users of other non-mechanically propelled vehicles—horses and carriages are an interesting one; one does not see too many of those, but they are quite exciting—to claim restricted byways. My concern with government Amendment No. 322 relates to the description of restricted byways as a newly created type of highway, because I am worried that the right associated with restricted byways, which a cyclist exercises when he or she uses a way that leads to it being designated a restricted byway, would also be thought of as being newly created. Therefore, we would need to wait 20 years before being able to make a claim as a cyclist. I think that is slightly unfair. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that evidence of use by cyclists is sufficient to indicate that the way in question is a restricted byway, that the rights associated with restricted byways are, in effect, a collection of pre-existing rights, and that the legislation that brings restricted byways into effect is procedural. I hope that he is prepared to confirm that, so that we do not have to wait 20 years from commencement of either the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 or the National Environment and Rural Communities Bill when it is enacted. Amendment No. 322A would amend the Government’s amendment, and deals with a couple of small issues relating to the regulations that will govern restricted byways. I am concerned that there are several omissions in the regulations, such as provisions to deal with the legality of gates and stiles across the way or the required width of any restricted byways. The amendment goes into pretty good detail, but it is a concern of cyclists. Those issues could be dealt with later if the Government have the power to introduce additional regulations as and when they require them. There would also be provision for regulations to deal with any subsequent problems when cyclists attempt to claim restricted byways. My question to the Minister is: can the Government introduce additional regulations to cover the points that I have made, and are they prepared to deal with problems that arise from restricted byways claims? We would advise that the amendment be withdrawn if we received such a statement. I would be very grateful if the Minister could also comment on any guidance that the Government might issue to public inquiry inspectors. It would be good if that guidance could show that restricted byways could be claimed by cyclists, as I just said, or perhaps by non-walkers, and that cycle use is likely to be the predominant use on such ways. In other words, such a claim could be made if there are enough cyclists to justify it. Could guidance also indicate that restricted byways could be seen as a useful link—I would say an ideal one—between missing links of rights of way, which I know are the concern of several transport planners in rural areas? They would like these to join bridleways, but there is no means of doing that at the moment. If the Minister responds positively to my questions, I would also like him to tell me when we might see these regulations.