Orders of the Day — Countryside and Rights of Way Bill

House of Commons, 14 June 2000.

REDESIGNATION OF ROADS USED AS PUBLIC PATHS

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I beg to move amendment No. 33, in page 24, line 41, after "path", insert— 'and every way which was shown in any definitive map and statement as a road used as a public path under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 and which was subsequently reclassified under Schedule 3 to the Countryside Act 1968 or section 54 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 as a bridleway, and every way which is shown on any definitive map and statement as a carriage road footpath or CRF, or as a carriage road bridleway or CRB,'.

Betty Boothroyd (Speaker, West Bromwich West)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 34, in page 24, line 42, leave out— 'expression "road used as a public path"' and insert— 'expressions "road used as a public path", "carriage road footpath", "CRF", "carriage road bridleway" and "CRB"'. Government amendments Nos. 291 to 296. Government new clause 25—Extinguishment of unrecorded rights of way. Government new clause 26—Excepted highways or rights of way. Government new clause 27—Bridleway rights over ways shown as bridleways. Government new clause 28—Cut-off date for extinguishment etc. New clause 13—Definition of legally relevant objection— '.—In paragraph 13(2) of Schedule 15 to the 1981 Act, after the definition of "council offices" there is inserted— duly made' means an objection or a representation which— (a) is made within the time and in the manner prescribed in the notice that was published by the authority on making the order in accordance with paragraph 3 to Schedule 15; and (b) states the grounds on which it is made, being a matter which is capable of affecting the decision whether or not to confirm the order".'.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

One of the great disappointments of the Bill for a particular group of people who wish to have access to the countryside is its inability to meet the demands of recreational riders. There was considerable expectation, before the Bill's publication, that it would contain moves substantially to extend the number of routes that are available for recreational and carriage riding. However, that has not been the case. The new status of restricted byway is a welcome change, but it does not extend the amount of path available for riding or carriage riding. Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 re-examine the position of the roads used as public paths—RUPPS—which have been reclassified as a result of the Countryside Act 1968 to become bridleways or footpaths. The reason for that reclassification was the inability or lack of desire to prove that there was vehicular use of those roads. When there was no variation between the rights of a horse-driven carriage or cart and of a motorised vehicle, there was every reason not to pursue that course of action. As the restricted byway is now an available road category, there is every reason to consider whether there have been cases of incorrect classification or whether roads currently classified as bridleways or footpaths could easily take horse-drawn carriages. That would mean a substantial increase in the number of roadways that could be used for such a purpose. That form of recreation is growing; it is one that the House should support. The proposal would also help to correct the anomalies in the categorisation of CRFs—carriage road footpaths—and CRBs—carriage road bridlepaths. I am informed, in a helpful letter front the Minister for the Environment, that such phrases should not be used because they have no legal significance. That may be so, but they appear on many definitive maps; they are in common usage. One effect of my proposals would be to remove anomalies and to ensure that we have a proper classification. That seems sensible. If the Government are minded to take action on that matter, they would receive the thanks of the many people who want an extension of the bridleway system to take account of carriage driving—the disabled, for example, for whom carriage driving is often an effective means of access to the countryside and who are making increased use of it. Furthermore, such action would resolve many anomalies and difficulties in respect of a definitive map. A bizarre feature of the measure is that those authorities that have not reclassified or which are tardy in doing so will still have RUPPs on their books that have not been downgraded, and those RUPPs will become restricted byways. Only authorities that have addressed these matters expeditiously will experience difficulty. That too seems anomalous. The people who have been most active will pay a penalty in respect of the road network in their area. I therefore commend the amendments to the House. New clause 13 deals with the definition of legally relevant objections. The Minister will remember our discussions of that matter in Committee. The more I consider the arguments on that matter, the more I become convinced that our proposal offers a win-win solution to many of the problems of the current objection process. It would get rid of objections, which, even though they are well meant and sincerely made, are based on grounds that cannot be considered by the authority or by the Secretary of State. It is in no one's interest to pursue objections—clogging up an already congested system—that have no chance of success because of the way in which the legislation is framed. Since I tabled an amendment on the matter in Committee, I have received communications from the Local Government Association—of which I suspect I am a vice-president, so I should declare an interest—

Dafydd Wigley (Plaid Cymru, Caernarfon)

The hon. Gentleman should be able to remember.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

The right hon. Gentleman is correct: I should be able to remember. However, the role is only an honorary one. I am pleased that the LGA supports the aims of the new clause. It states: The legal burdens on local authorities in relation to rights of way orders and maps are considerable and complex. Proposals, such as this, to reduce unnecessary burdens are to he welcomed. That is obviously true. I have also received support from associations representing rights of way officers, who have told me that the provision offers a clear and simple mechanism through which many of the burdens could be removed—resulting in a much more satisfactory position. I commend new clause 13 to the House. I hope that the Minister will respond positively and accept that we need to take action to speed up the process to everyone's satisfaction.

Andrew Bennett (Labour, Denton and Reddish)

I oppose Government new clauses 25 and 26. This is a very disappointing bit of the Bill. It is a very poor piece of legislation that provides that the historic records should be closed off after 25 years. I can understand its attractions for Ministers, down there on the Front Bench, in that it is most unlikely that they will have to answer for it to the House in 25 years' time.

Terry Rooney (Labour, Bradford North)

Do not bet on it.

Andrew Bennett (Labour, Denton and Reddish)

I was just about to say that the Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes), who likes his job so much, may hope that he will still be there as a Government Whip; but I believe that for the other Ministers there will be no accountability to the House on this matter. It is a fudge, and a very unsatisfactory fudge. Landowners have brought pressure to bear to close off the historic records much sooner, and the ramblers have objected that until this situation has been sorted out, the closing off of records should not even be considered. The clause should contain a way forward. perhaps Ministers will explain the way forward. We should complete this task, which has been under way for more than 51 years—since the 1949 legislation—and has not been satisfactorily completed. We should not be setting a deadline 25 years away; we should be getting to grips with the problem now. According to information that I have, at the present rate of progress Suffolk might complete the process in about another 200 years. The picture seems to be very similar for other counties—such as Lancashire or Lincolnshire, which expect to take nearly as long. It is totally unsatisfactory. It would be far better for the Government to make a clear commitment to ensuring that the resources will be there to allow the matter to be dealt with. If the Government were proposing in the legislation that the resources would be there, we would not need this very unsatisfactory fudge. The fudge is unsatisfactory in that it gives voluntary groups no incentive to get a move on and ensure that all their claims are in, and gives county council surveyors no incentive to ensure that footpath measures are given real priority. We need the resources to complete the task and to get a move on. I have a question for the Minister. As I understand it, at the end of 25 years, public rights of way would not be claimed in this way. However, a very large number of rights are conferred on specific groups of people by private Bills that pass through this House. As I understand it, Government new clauses 25 and 26 do not deal with individual rights conferred by private legislation—mainly enclosure Acts—which did not confer a public right of access but conferred a right on the commoners or the people who lived within a particular village at the time. Instead of solving the problem, we shall simply deny the public the right to make claims, but the right of particular groups of individuals specified by some of this historic legislation will run on, so landowners will not have the certainty that they desire. I hope that, at this stage, the Government will consider whether it would be better to drop new clauses 25 and 26, and that if they cannot do so now, they will come up with a better solution in the House of Lords. A better solution would be to ensure that the resources are available to make it possible for the claims to be sorted out quickly.

Dafydd Wigley (Plaid Cymru, Caernarfon)

I shall come to the comments of the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) shortly, but first, I wish to express my support for the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath). The issues that have been raised would ring a bell in most rural areas where there has been an immense tangle and problem with regard to footpaths, bridleways and roads. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish touched on an important point when he referred to resources. Many local authorities, including my own, have immense burdens placed on them when they try to deal with these issues, but they do not have adequate resources to do that. Fundamental reviews will be necessary in some areas, so I hope that the resources will be available to carry them out. The pattern of footpaths that we have inherited does not follow any rhyme or reason. Many of the footpaths that developed in the last century followed the route that the postman took from farm to farm. There is no great logic in keeping footpaths that have no merit, but there is every logic in protecting and developing those that play a significant role in allowing people access to the countryside. We should do that in a way that is consistent with the interests of agriculture. Equally, some bridleways exist only because the horse was the mode of transport used. By now, many of those bridleways are less relevant, but we should consider how we organise the bridleways that are used by people who ride horses for recreational reasons. Organising them may not follow the same logic as was used for the bridleways that have existed historically. A root-and-branch review is necessary and I shall be interested to hear how the Minister presents the Government new clauses and describes the relevance that they will have to such developments. The one thing that the Government must take on board—I am assured that they will—is the wish of local communities as regards footpaths, bridleways and roads with a lower classification. The views of community councils in Wales and of parish councils in England should be central. They understand the real needs of their areas and understand which historical provisions may no longer be required. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us what help will be given to local authorities so that they can deal with the issue in a consistent and thorough manner—and can do so without taking too long.

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

Before I turn to this important set of Government amendments, I shall deal with the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath). I have much sympathy for his aim of extending the ways used by horse-drawn carriages. I appreciate their social value to the disabled and to the other groups that he mentioned. I must resist amendments No. 33 and 34 not because we have a different purpose, but because there is a difference between us on how to reach our aim. The amendments do not accord with the policy objectives that we have set out in clauses 43 and 44. It is not our intention to overturn the outcome of individual reclassifications that have been completed. Rights of way that have been reclassified as a result of reviews carried out under section 54 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, or before that, under schedule 3 to the Countryside Act 1968, have already been considered on a case-by-case basis. As part of those reviews, evidence as to the status of each way would have been taken into account. That may have involved the detailed examination of evidence at a public inquiry. Moreover, the amendments would require that any right of way shown on a definitive map which happened to be marked with the annotation CRF or CRB—for hon. Members who are unfamiliar with the terms, I must explain that they stand for carriage road footpath and carriage road bridleway—would be treated as a restricted byway irrespective of whether it had previously been a RUPP, which stands for a road used as a public path. As the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome realises, the terms CRF and CRB have no legal significance. We do not intend, through the Bill, to revisit past decisions. The objective is to provide greater clarity over the rights that exist over those remaining RUPPs and to remove the burden of individual reclassification of all RUPPs from local highway authorities. On that basis, I hope that the hon Gentleman will withdraw the amendment. The hon. Gentleman also tabled new clause 13, which, as he said, gives a definition of the term "duly made" in relation to objections or representations about definitive map modification orders. Certainly, there have been a great many problems associated with those in the past. The new clause's primary purpose is to ensure that when there are irrelevant objections to an order, a surveying authority can go ahead and confirm the order—in other words, treat it as an unopposed order. 4 pm As I said in Committee, I have a lot of sympathy with that objective. However, since Committee stage we have found that the matter is not as straightforward as it may appear. I am afraid that we need a little more time before deciding whether to introduce proposals. However, I remain sympathetic to the new clause. If, having taken account of all the detailed considerations, we can overcome the difficulties, we shall introduce proposals. The hon. Gentleman may not find that satisfactory, but it is all that I can offer now. I hope that he will trust my bona fides and be prepared not to press the new clause. I shall move on to Government amendment No. 291, a technical amendment that is necessary to ensure that commencement orders can be made under clause 71 to safeguard the effect of orders reclassifying RUPPS. Government amendment No. 294 arises from an amendment tabled in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), and places an obligation on surveying authorities to keep an up-to-date record of applications for orders modifying the legal record of rights of way that local authorities are required to maintain—in other words, the definitive map and statement. We have accepted that idea from my hon. Friend. Government amendment No. 296 arises from another amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle, and will make existing footpaths, bridleways and BOATs publicly maintainable. The term BOATs does not mean what one might think, and for hon. Members who are not familiar with it, I shall explain that it stands for byways open to all traffic. BOATs were reclassified from RUPPs, which are roads used as public paths; that is the last acronym that I need to explain before proceeding in this complicated area. BOATs did not become publicly maintainable under the Countryside Act 1968 because the special review under which they were reclassified was abandoned. The amendment is line with the intentions of the 1968 Act and the Bill's provisions for restricted byways. Government new clauses 25 to 28, amendment No. 295 and consequential amendments Nos. 292 and 293 fulfil the commitment that I gave on Second Reading to introduce proposals to encourage completion of the historic record of rights of way within 25 years, at which my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) expressed displeasure. Together with the requirements in clauses 51 and 52 for local authorities to prepare rights of way improvement plans, the new clauses are a key part of our drive to secure a more complete and up-to-date network of rights of way throughout England and Wales. Despite progress over the last few years, few definitive maps on which local authorities are required to record rights of way are genuinely definitive. It is important to set a target date for recording historic rights of way, the provenance of which may go back hundreds of years and the existence of which may not always be known to the owner of the land that they cross, or to the public who could want to use them. The current system absorbs significant resources, and after 50 years, as my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish said, it has still not provided—indeed, it is still some way from providing—a comprehensive network for all. My hon. Friend argued that at the current rate of progress, it might take some 200 years to complete the process, but the whole point is that the reason why there has been so little progress until now is that there has been no concentration of minds on this objective and—I agree that this is a very important point—little or no resources have been put behind it. We intend to address both those points. In our consultation paper we proposed a 10-year period for recording historic rights of way. Many respondents argued that that was not long enough, and on further reflection I agree. We have therefore extended the period to 25 years, with provision for conditional extensions beyond that. There are also further safeguards to ensure that important rights of way are not lost. I shall briefly explain, because this is important and the House needs to have a clear statement about what is intended. The new clauses apply to rights of way created before 1 January 1949, the date of the legislation that first introduced definitive maps. That is broadly in line with the proposal in our consultation paper. The main elements of the provisions are as follows. Local authorities' duties to record all pre-1949 footpaths, bridleways, restricted byways and byways open to all traffic will continue until 1 January 2026. After the deadline has been reached, any footpath or bridleway created before 1949 which is not recorded on a definitive map and for which no claim has been submitted will, with certain exceptions, be extinguished. The exceptions are set out in new clause 26. They include savings for the effect of a diversion order or other legal event that occurred after 1 January 1949 and as much of the original footpath or bridleway as necessary to connect it with another highway. There are also savings for any pre-1949 footpath or bridleway which passes over a bridge or through a tunnel and for footpaths and bridleways at the side of carriageways. There are regulation-making powers to exempt other footpaths and bridleways—for example, those that provide access to premises. After the deadline, any unclaimed higher rights created before 1949 over footpaths, bridleways and restricted byways already shown on the map will also be extinguished. We do not see a need for as many exemptions in those cases, but we cannot rule out the possibility that, for example, evidence of likely hardship might arise as the deadline gets nearer. We believe it prudent, therefore, to have a regulation-making power to exempt rights of way of particular descriptions from extinguishment.

Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)

Before the Minister moves on to completely new footpaths, does he have any idea of the likely number of footpaths or bridleways that would be covered by the exceptions in new clause 26? Are we talking about a very rare phenomenon, or might many hundreds of footpaths need to be exempted from the extinguishment?

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

That is a fair question, but I cannot answer it. I will ensure that those who can, give me the information, and as soon as I have it I will repeat it to the hon. Gentleman. I do not think that the number is large, but I will confirm that. Completely new footpaths and bridleways created after 1 January 1949, either by use or by a legal event such as a creation order, would continue to be eligible for recording. There is no deadline for submitting claims for those. A footpath that is wrongly shown on a definitive map as a bridleway at the beginning of the 25 years and is still shown as a bridleway on the cut-off date will have bridleway rights created over it. There are savings for applications to have the way shown as a footpath so long as they are made before the cut-off date. The Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales will have power to make regulations extending the deadline for a maximum of five years for any local authority area in which definitive maps have been made since the 1949 Act. Some areas were excluded from the requirements of the 1949 Act and therefore have had less time to record historic rights of way. In many cases, the duty to prepare maps for those areas was first imposed by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. The areas concerned include the Isles of Scilly and the former county borough areas. In addition, county councils were able to exclude built-up areas from their maps. The five-year upper limit on extending the deadline does not apply in any of those areas. Where a highway crosses the boundary between two areas with different cut-off dates, the later date will apply. The provisions do not apply in the 12 inner-London boroughs, which have never been required to prepare definitive maps. The cut-off date will not apply to any highway that crosses the boundary into inner London. I apologise for the complication and detail, but I thought that the House needed a clear statement of intention. Vehicular rights of way are treated differently from footpaths and bridleways. Restricted byways will not be caught by the deadline because initially all restricted byways will be created from ways already shown on a definitive map. Byways open to all traffic are a little more problematic. Subject to any statutory exceptions, any pre-1949 vehicular rights over a footpath or bridleway shown on the map will be extinguished if not claimed by the deadline. However, extinguishing any hitherto undiscovered BOAT that is not shown on a definitive map in any form is, obviously, more difficult. A BOAT is a full carriageway. Solely for the purposes of being recorded on definitive maps, a BOAT is expressly defined by reference to the degree to which it is used by walkers or horse riders, as well as the rights over it. Without such a condition, all unclassified roads would have to be researched and recorded on definitive maps, whereas only highways that meet the definition of a BOAT are recordable. There are more than 160,000 miles of such highways in England alone—many more than the 10,000 or so miles of unclassified roads or "green lanes" that people normally think of in terms of vehicular rights of way. We have thought long and hard about the matter but cannot find a satisfactory way of clearly distinguishing BOATs from the many thousands of miles of minor routes that are important to local traffic but were never intended to be recorded on definitive maps. The most pragmatic solution is simply to stop recording previously undiscovered BOATs that have not been claimed before the deadline. As a category of right of way, BOATs were developed from roads used as public paths—an invention of the 1949 Act primarily aimed at recording ways that were useful to walkers and horse riders. Remaining RUPPs will have restricted byway rights under clauses 43 and 44. We see no case for continuing to record BOATs after the deadline, except for any arising from the creation of vehicular rights after 1949 over any footpath, bridleway or restricted byway that is shown on a definitive map on the cut-off date. I hope that that is totally clear to every hon. Member. I am sure that you did not mean to shake your head, Madam Speaker. The main objective is to secure completion of as much of the historic record of rights of way as is reasonably possible. We shall use the regulation-making power in clause 59 to require regular progress reports from local authorities, and we envisage a monitoring role for the Countryside Agency and the Countryside Council for Wales. 4.15 pm I now come to the key point—resources—which was mentioned with such conviction by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish. We are committed to providing local authorities with the additional resources which the regulatory impact assessment estimated would arise from the proposals. Although I cannot anticipate the outcome of the current spending review, I can say that we are also examining the possibility of providing additional funding for research by non-governmental organisations into the existence of rights of way. It is our intention to concentrate on that because it is sensible to bring definitively to a close the exercise of determining the rights of way network. However, we do not intend to do that without ensuring that there are adequate resources to make it possible for all existing paths that can reasonably be found to be found.

Andrew Bennett (Labour, Denton and Reddish)

My right hon. Friend spoke of adequate resources. Will he put a figure on that?

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

I cannot disclose the bid that we made in the spending review that is currently proceeding. The Chancellor will make a statement next month. However, I assure my hon. Friend that it is quite sufficient to achieve the purpose that I outlined. We believe that those provisions will lead to a more accurate and more complete record of rights of way, and, together with the new rights of way improvement plans, to a network that is more in tune with modern recreational demands and the needs of land managers. I apologise for the length of my remarks and hope that the Government proposals are acceptable to hon. Members in all parts of the House, especially to my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish, who I know has such a strong interest in the subject.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

With the leave of the House, Madam Speaker, may I say that we have just had an illustration of the morass of acronyms and technicalities into which we stray as soon as we start to contemplate rights of way legislation? It may be an eye-opener to hon. Members who did not serve on the Standing Committee. I am grateful to the Minister for the care with which he replied. It is only because of the enthusiasm with which I embrace his new concept of a restricted byway that I want it to be applied to paths that have been reclassified in other forms before. That is the essence of amendments Nos. 33 and 34. Once vehicular traffic of a motorised variety is differentiated from horse-drawn traffic, roads that are suitable for bridleways will almost all be suitable for horse-drawn traffic, and those which are not will be self-evidently unsuitable because of the size restrictions on them. People can take their own decisions about whether a path is a suitable one down which to drive a cart. There is a risk that there have been wrong classifications, not because of any intended sleight of hand, but because of the classification system. My amendments would have helped in that respect, but I understand the Minister's argument. New clause 13 contains a sensible suggestion, and the right hon. Gentleman was kind enough to say that he was sympathetic to the objectives and has undertaken to consider it further. I know from experience in Committee that he is as good as his word: several suggestions that I made in Committee have come back as amendments to the Bill. New clause 13 would assist a wide variety of people—those who objected, as well as those who took the opposite view—and would save local authorities a huge sum. I therefore believe that even before the idea behind the new clause reaches another place, it would be right to reinforce the right hon. Gentleman's intention to reconsider it by dividing on it later this evening. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

RESTRICTED BYWAY RIGHTS

PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY: DEFINITIVE MAPS AND STATEMENTS AND RESTRICTED BYWAYS

Andrew Hunter (Conservative, Basingstoke)

I beg to move amendment No. 304, in page 47, line 15, at end insert— '(1A) In paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1), the words from "so however" to the end of the paragraph are omitted in each case.'.

Betty Boothroyd (Speaker, West Bromwich West)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 305, in page 47, line 18, leave out from '(b)' to "'together' and insert— 'for the words from "so however" to the end of the paragraph there is substituted'.

Andrew Hunter (Conservative, Basingstoke)

I want to speak to amendments Nos. 304, 305, 302 and 303, which were tabled by the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes). I added my name to two of them, but it was an act of incompetence on my part that I did not sign all four; I overlooked two. The hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire is understandably absent, and I send my best wishes to Mrs. Barnes for a full and speedy recovery. Amendments Nos. 304 and 305 relate to schedule 5(4). The schedule amends the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Amendments Nos. 302 and 303 relate to schedule 7(5) and would amend the Road Traffic Act 1988, albeit in a slightly different form from the substitution that the Bill proposes. The amendments arise from the long-standing, increasing and much-publicised problem of the abuse of rights of way by motorised vehicles. I have raised the subject twice in Adjournment debates, as well as on Second Reading. The heart of the problem is the reclassification of RUPPs under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. It is generally agreed that that Act has, sadly, failed to provide the necessary protection for our green lanes. It is also a legal minefield. Vast tracts of our green lanes are extensively damaged by abuse by motorised vehicles. Agricultural vehicles cause some damage, but the root cause of much of the abuse by motorised vehicles is the limitation of the reclassification process under the 1981 Act. I share the opinion of the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire that the Bill does not fully and adequately tackle the problem, hence the amendments. If the hon. Gentleman were here, he might have chosen to illustrate his general argument by referring to a specific episode, which happened in his constituency. Eight defendants appeared at Chesterfield magistrates court in November 1999, charged with driving on a bridleway—Grimsell lane, Holmesfield in Derbyshire. The case lasted for three days, and the defendants were acquitted. Sergeant Harwood, who was involved in bringing the case to court, shared his thoughts on the subject with the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire. He also wrote to me at some length; I greatly appreciated hearing from him. He argued that the Grimsell lane case clearly illustrates the problems of prosecuting illegal vehicular use of bridleways. The words "but no other" in the definition of bridleway in section 66(1) of the 1981 Act and section 192(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 constituted the sticking point. The three words "but no other" put the onus on the prosecution to establish beyond reasonable doubt that no vehicular rights exist. That applies to every route on a case-by-case basis. Consequently, the prosecution of a relatively minor offence requires a disproportionate amount of time and effort, and detailed research into every route. It is not surprising that the stipendiary magistrate at Chesterfield magistrates court lamented in his judgment on the Grimsell lane case: If the Definitive Map were indeed definitive, that would be an end to the matter. The same legal obstacle does not appear in the definition of footpath in the Road Traffic Act 1988. The Grimsell lane case, and others, have shown that it takes considerably less evidence to introduce doubt into a criminal trial, and so win an acquittal, than it does to prove that vehicular rights exist. I am told that Derbyshire county council was aware of no evidence to prove vehicular rights on Grimsell lane even after extensive research in preparing for the case, which nevertheless went against them. The Chesterfield judgment is likely to prevent further prosecutions under existing legislation. It is that scenario, and others like it, that the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire wants to address under the amendments. As hon. Members know, schedule 5 will make procedural changes to the provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 on the circumstances in which the definitive map and statement can be modified when an illegal event has occurred. Reduced to simplicity, amendment No. 304 would add a new section that would further amend section 56 of the 1981 Act. Whereas the definition of bridleway under the Road Traffic Act 1988 assumes that there are "no other rights"—a tag that appears in section 192 without qualification—the same tag is qualified in the 1981 Act by the words without prejudice to other rights. Therefore, a prosecution that relies on reference to the definitive map, as distinct from section 34 of the 1988 Act alone, runs the risk of an even more uncertain platform. I was prompted to make that point by Mr. Graham Plumbe, who briefs me in detail on such issues. Amendment No. 304 would provide an alternative and firmer foundation. It would tighten the inherited definition and remove the element of ambiguity. Amendment No. 304 is wholly consistent with the intentions stated in the Bill. Much the same argument can be applied to amendment No. 305, the purpose and effect of which would be to define further when a right of way is not open to mechanically propelled vehicles. It follows naturally from the previous amendment and is also consistent with the Bill. Amendments Nos. 302 and 303 relate to schedule 7, which deals with the driving of mechanically propelled vehicles elsewhere than on roads. Their purpose and effect would be to promote the status of a definitive map and statement. That would be done by removing the let out without prejudice to section 51(1) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and its fellow traveller unless prima facie evidence is adduced to the contrary, both of which are further enshrined in section 34 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The intention is simple: to make the definitive map definitive, and I have already referred to the uncertain platform for prosecution provided by section 34 of the 1988 Act. In other words, these amendments would make the definitive map and statement the deciding factors. It should be an offence to drive a mechanically propelled vehicle on a way shown on the definitive map as a bridleway, unless public rights for that purpose were shown to exist at the time of such use. In short, all four amendments would provide essential protection for rights of way, facilitate enforcement against unwanted and illegal use by motorised vehicles and promote the intentions stated in the Bill. I commend the amendments to the Minister, and I hope that he will respond positively. On amendments Nos. 135 and 136, which were tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), I have no intention whatever of stealing his thunder. If he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he will no doubt fully present the arguments for them. All that I wish to do in advance of his contribution is to declare my support for them. They deal with a problem to which I referred on Second Reading, when I drew the Minister's attention to the practice of common owners charging residents for access to their homes if their driveways pass over common ground. I encountered that practice in the village of Newnham in my constituency, where it causes some concern. The owners of common land demanded a charge of several thousand pounds, which the vendor of a house felt obliged to pay so that the purchaser could be assured of rights of access and egress. On Second Reading in March, I was aware of only three or four similar instances in other parts of the country, but more have come to light since then. I warmly endorse the arguments that I anticipate my right hon. Friend will make in due course.

George Young (Conservative, North West Hampshire)

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) for his remarks. Perhaps he was the lightning before the thunder. I should like to speak to amendments Nos. 135 and 136 in my name and in the names of some of my hon Friends and my parliamentary neighbour the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel). The background to these two amendments is an Adjournment debate on 3 November last year. In a nutshell, a group of my constituents who have been living peacefully on or around Newtown common—one for 60 years and several others for more than 40 years—awoke up to find that a company called Bakewell Management had acquired ownership of Newtown common. One resident received a letter dated 6 October 1999 from chartered surveyors acting for Bakewell. It said: As it appears that you and your visitors are driving over our client's land to reach your house, we are offering you an amnesty whereby you can come to a settlement with our clients at a favourable rate. That rate turned out to be 6 per cent. of the open market value of their home, provided agreement was reached before 15 November 1999. The letter helpfully added that, without agreement, it would be impossible to sell the property, and mentioned a figure in excess of 10 per cent. as being achievable. In many cases, 6 per cent. could be £30,000. In a few, it would be a lot more. Many of my constituents are retired and cannot easily find such sums. They cannot sell their houses because they are, in effect, blighted until this problem is solved. These constituents have had uninterrupted access from the main road to their houses for time immemorial. They bought their houses through solicitors to whom they paid professional fees, and the solicitors had done the searches with the local authority. None had revealed any problem, and nor was there a problem until two things happened. First, a court decision in 1993 and, secondly, the subsequent acquisition of the common by Bakewell, with a view to exploiting that decision. I shall distil a complex problem into a sentence or two. A Court of Appeal decision in 1993—Hanning v. Top Deck Travel Group—gave a fresh interpretation of the law on vehicular access over common land. The court decided to deny access over a common to business premises by double-decker busses. Private cars and private houses were not considered, but are assumed to be similarly precluded from access by those who have studied the case. The court decided that, because it had been illegal since 1925 to drive over urban and certain other common land, householders who had enjoyed free access could not acquire a prescriptive right through an illegal activity. Driving over the remaining common land was banned in 1930. The only way that a right to drive from a public road to one's property over common land can be secured is by getting an easement from the owner of the common. Bakewell bought Newtown common, and is now seeking to exploit the court decision by charging my constituents for something no one dreamed of charging them for before. The Law of Property Act 1925 was never meant to stop people driving over a common to their home. It was intended to restrict members of the public from driving on commons while others were on the common for "air and exercise". Indeed, no one was prevented from driving to their houses across a common from 1925 until 1993, but this is the interpretation that we are now stuck with. Initially, I pursued this matter with the president of the Law Society to see whether there was a way through, short of changing the law. In a letter dated 24 November 1999, he said: If the solicitors carried out all the normal searches and no problems with access were revealed, then the solicitors would not have been negligent. If there is not clear negligence and they are simply the victims of one of the more arcane aspects of our legal history, ie laws concerning common land, they may be left without redress. If that is the situation, then they have to look to Parliament to amend the appropriate law. That is what hundreds of people are doing. Since that debate, it has become clear that Newtown common does not represent an isolated incident. I have had many letters from colleagues and members of the public. My hon. Friends the Members for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) and for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) have been active in Surrey, and the Runton and district residents association, from the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Prior), has written. My hon. Friend supports the amendments. Constituents in Pirbright, represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins), have also written. My hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) has a constituency issue, as has my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) in Chorleywood common. My right hon. Friends the Members for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot) and my hon. Friends the Members for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) and for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) are all concerned.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

As you cannot do so, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should say that I recollect that the same problem arises in an area in your constituency, which I represented in local government in Suffolk.

George Young (Conservative, North West Hampshire)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that information. No doubt the debate will take place in an even more respectful atmosphere. I raised the matter in a debate last year, in response to which the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), could not have been more helpful. He said: The situation that the right hon. Gentleman has described seems, on the face of it, to be outrageous. He was kind enough to add: Were our roles reversed, I might well have made a similar speech. He went on to say that although Bakewell may well have the letter of the law on its side, I wonder whether it is able to defend its position morally, as well as legally. He agreed that in some ways, common land law is ripe for review and went on to suggest that there may well be a case for placing some reasonable limit on the charge that the owner is entitled to make. In connection with that, he said: I shall watch with interest the level of charges that Bakewell imposes and compare them with the reasonable charges for similar access made by county councils and the National Trust.—[Official Report, 3 November 1999; Vol. 337, c. 271–74.] In fairness to the Minister, although he said that the law was ripe for review, he made no commitment to legislation, but offered to meet me to discuss the matter further. I met him on 14 December, with members of the Newtown residents association, and again he could not have been more sympathetic. He made the valid point that any solution must deal with the problem not just at Newtown common, but elsewhere. He advised my constituents not to waste money on barristers at that stage because there was sufficient expertise in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions for free. The Minister offered a further meeting with officials, which took place in my room at the House on 20 January. A number of possible amendments were discussed. We were told that he remained keen and sympathetic, but we got a clear message that options that involved no payment at all risked running foul of the European convention on human rights. That strikes me as a pessimistic interpretation of the ECHR, and one of my hon. Friends who knows more about the law than I do may develop the point. Rights can of course be acquired by long usage. Generally, if a person uses a route to get to his house without the permission of the landowner for 20 years, he has an easement. The Court of Appeal case that stops that on commons was concerned not with protecting landowners' rights, but with enforcing the public law on commons. The partial reversal of the Hanning principle, which I propose, would allow normal land law principles to apply. It is not apparent that human rights problems will occur. The discussion with officials was helpful and, without commitment, they identified a number of possible solutions, on which I and my constituents have done further work. As recently as 14 April, a senior official in the Minister's countryside division wrote to one of my constituents, Mrs. Ponting, saying: In the meantime, you may like to be aware that, following discussions between Chris Mullin and Sir George Young, the department is investigating how we might curb the ability of landowners to make excessive charges for the grant of easements to allow vehicular access over common land. We have identified a range of options which may achieve this objective, but have not reached any firm conclusions yet on the best way forward. Against that background, the House might hope that the Minister will smile on the amendments. However, more recently, the Department's tone has changed from, "How can we help?" to, "I am sorry, it is all too difficult." Less than a month after the letter from which I have quoted was written, the deal was off. The Minister wrote to me on 10 May saying: Given that the issues will be explored, in due course, in the context of the consultation paper on common land I do not propose to ask my officials to do any more work on the options at present, although they remain "on the table. He went on to say that, although it was open to me to table an amendment to the Bill, it would be misleading of me to suggest it is likely to receive Government support. That is disappointing against the background of the supportive remarks that were made earlier. While the proposals remain on the table, my constituents remain on the rack. The consultation paper that the Minister refers to, in the words of a letter that he wrote to me on 17 February, does not deal with the problems of vehicular access. The negative message in the Minister's letter obscured some helpful passages, which indicated the sorts of solution that would be acceptable to him: A reasonable capital charge would be no more than 5 per cent. of the value of the property. Discounts for those who could show long use. The option of payment now or at a time of sale. Provision for those who could show financial hardship. No question of vehicular access being denied whilst negotiations take place. That forms the foundation of an acceptable solution to the problem, but we should tackle the problem here and now. The Bill already makes substantial changes to the law on commons: it provides a right of public access to rural commons; it amends provisions on vehicles on commons. The Minister wants me to wait, but Bills on commons are a rare species—rarer even than nature conservation Bills. There were only three in the past century. No way should my constituents have to wait for a legislative bird in the bush when there is one in the hand. Therefore, I want to build on the principles in his letter and to come to a legislative solution to the problem in the context of the Bill. Amendment No. 135 simply restores the position to what it was thought to be before Hanning v. Top Deck Travel Group—in other words, nothing is payable and people have the right that they all thought they had. Amendment No. 136 adopts the conventional 20-year rule for establishing rights of access. From the date of my Adjournment debate, anyone who had been driving backwards and forwards would continue to have that right. The present position is wholly indefensible, as the Minister has conceded. A third party, using a loophole in the law, can claim part of the equity of someone else's house. That is feudal, with overtones of the sheriff of Nottingham. A Government who have abolished most of the hereditary peers should be able to take removal of that relic from the middle ages in their stride. They should certainly be able to back the many against the few. My amendments are in order; they have been selected; they are urgent. We know that they have the Minister's sympathy. I am prepared to accept that they may not be the last word in technical perfection—they are from the do-it-yourself school of drafting, rather than the traditional parliamentary draftsman. I am prepared to consider withdrawing them and to share the credit for putting the anomaly right with the Minster in return for undertakings that the Government will come up with their own solution in another place. If the Government were able to do that, it would represent an acceptable outcome of today's debate, but, if no undertaking were given, I regret that I would feel obliged, out of commitment to my constituents, to divide the House.

David Clark (Labour, South Shields)

I shall speak to amendments Nos. 304 and 305, which were so eloquently introduced by the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter), but, first, I compliment the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young). He has raised an issue that has much wider ramifications than Ministers or even other Members realise. It is not confined to the leafy south. A major problem of that nature is emerging in the north of England, where, traditionally, village greens are surrounded by artisans' houses. Often, there is a strip of green between the road that goes around the village green and the egress from the properties. The problem is that, although that has not been challenged for perhaps two or three centuries and although there is not the threat from commercial ventures, as there is in the right hon. Gentleman's constituency, there is now a legal problem. Lawyers are coming to people who are selling their houses and saying, "There is a problem. Do you realise that you have no vehicular right of access to your house? The two-yard stretch of green over which you and your predecessors have crossed for two or three centuries is not actually a right of way." That causes a great deal of difficulty. I assume that amendment No.135, which relates to common land, includes village greens, but that is a technical point that we need to consider. 4.45 pm Anyway, the only way of getting round the problem is for the vendor to take out a large insurance bond to cover a future buyer in the light of the potential threat. The position is clearly not satisfactory. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that returning to the position that obtained before an earlier judicial decision would solve the problem. That is a simple solution, although I do not know whether the Bill is the right vehicle for it. Certainly, the right hon. Gentleman has drawn attention to a difficulty that is much more widespread than people realise, and is causing anguish throughout the country. Let me return to amendments Nos. 304 and 305, which, as I have said, were presented elegantly by the hon. Member for Basingstoke. I join him in sending good wishes to my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), whom I know would have liked to be here to move his amendment. The amendments raise issues that have wide ramifications. The hon. Gentleman mentioned an incident that took place largely in his constituency, involving vehicular rights over various types of path covered in the Bill. As chair of the all-party national parks group, I plead with the Minister to see if there is any way of tackling the problem affecting national parks. By definition, they are special places where people go for quiet enjoyment. The Bill recognises that but it is far from perfect, as has been pointed out by the Association of National Park Authorities, which represents all the statutory national parks. There is a particular difficulty in some of the busiest parks, which have already tried to address the problem of vehicular access to various country byways. The park authorities believe that the powers in the Bill are not sufficient to enable them to tackle the problem and to fulfil their remit. I know that they have met Ministers, and that Ministers have been concerned and conciliatory. They are trying to find a way to help, and we all appreciate that. Amendments Nos. 304 and 305 raise the question whether further traffic regulation orders could be available to national park authorities, enabling them, for instance, to create zones within which such orders would apply to specific routes, and to erect barriers across routes subject to the orders or, perhaps, voluntary restraint agreements to facilitate effective management. There might be a facility for the revising and designing of materials used for the erection of signs, acknowledging the existence of special landscape requirements on some of the routes involved. It could, perhaps, be recognised that bona fide users of those routes—mainly local people—may want vehicular access in order to go about their daily business. There might be a licence system giving specified users defined routes to use, subject to the traffic regulation orders and within defined traffic regulation zones. Finally—I think the amendments try to lead us towards this—the Association of National Park Authorities could be empowered to make enforced traffic regulation orders in regard to unsealed, unclassified county roads and byways open to all traffic, roads for public paths, bridleways and footpaths. The Minister may not be able to give us a definitive answer today, but there are real problems with which the Bill does not quite come to grips. I believe that the Minister and his officials are working on them, and that we are nearly there. If the Minister does not feel able to accept the amendments, perhaps he will seek ways in another place to meet the legitimate concerns of the national park authorities. Those authorities are trying to perform the difficult task of balancing people's wish to go to rural areas, especially national parks, for quiet recreation with the legitimate right of local people to go about their daily business.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

Before I speak to amendment No. 45, I wish to say that the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) made an extremely persuasive case for his amendments. I had a similar case in the village of Long Sutton in my constituency, where a redundant school bordered a village green. There was no vehicular right of access, even though people had gained access across the green for very many years. That proved to be a substantial difficulty when the county council tried to dispose of the property for residential use. I therefore have sympathy with the amendments, and look forward to the Minister's reply. Amendment No. 45 also deals with the vexed question of the Grimsell lane case, which was referred to by the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter). I shall not rehearse those arguments, save to say that there is clearly a problem in enforcing section 34 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The prosecution in the Grimsell lane case was required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that no higher vehicular rights existed than those that were marked in the categorisation of the road. The Minister has moved to address that matter, which we discussed in Committee. He tabled amendments in Committee, providing that a court would consider categorisation as a bridleway or footpath as substantial unless prima facie evidence were adduced to the contrary. In Committee, I pointed out that prima facie evidence is the lowest level of evidential burden. As a result, any prima facie evidence given to the court by the defendant when a prosecution is brought immediately reverses the burden of proof. The prosecution then must prove beyond reasonable doubt that no higher rights exist. That seems to me to be wrong. Deleting the words "prima facie" would mean that a more substantial burden of proof would be required. That would assist the court and the prosecuting authorities, but it would not deny anyone the right to prove substantively—if they can—that a vehicular right exists. The amendment would simply make the process more transparent, and that seems a worthwhile objective. I commend the amendment to the House.

John Maples (Conservative, Stratford-on-Avon)

I support amendments Nos. 135 and 136, which are in my name as well as that of my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young). The legal situation in Claverdon, a village in my constituency, is very much the same as the one described by my right hon. Friend, except for the fundamental difference that the common is now owned by the parish council. About 20 houses were built on the common in the latter years of the 19th century. The manor and the common were sold in 1876, at which time the landowner gave the people who lived in those houses the option to buy. By 1880, all had done so. Some of the houses have been added to since they were bought 120 ago years, with planning permission in many cases. By the time the Law of Property Act 1925 became law, the owners had probably established an easement or right of way across the common land to the houses. However, that is impossible to prove, as the houses have had many owners since. As my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire said, the section of the 1925 Act that creates the problem was intended to keep vehicles off commons when those commons had been dedicated to public use. The aim was to allow people to use and enjoy the commons without others driving vehicles across them. It was never intended to deprive people who had a right of way to their homes of that right of way, but that was the effect. The 1925 Act creates a criminal offence that is also included in the various Road Traffic Acts. After section 193 of the 1925 Act came into operation, it was impossible to acquire a right of way by claiming prescriptive use over 20 years. Therefore, the technicality means that one can prove 20 years of continuous use only before 1925. That problem did not bother anyone for years, certainly not in Claverdon. In 1950, the then lord of the manor gave the common to the parish council. People continued to use the common to drive to their houses and back, and indeed the parish council, when asked its opinion on various planning applications to build garages alongside the houses, raised no objections. Therefore, no problems had arisen since the parish council acquired title in 1950. Two years ago, a firm of solicitors from Swansea, Edward Harris and Son, entered on the scene. I know that lawyers have to make a living and I made one myself as a lawyer for a while, and benefited from many of the restrictive practices with which that profession is endowed. However, ambulances must be in short supply in Swansea, because in 1998 the firm advertised its expertise on this issue and invited the owners of commons to contact them, which Claverdon parish council did. The solicitors pointed out the anomaly in the law and the fact that the home owners did not have rights of way and, therefore, the parish council could charge them for rectifying the situation. The parish council, instead of approaching all the home owners and offering to accept £1,000 or £2,000 to cover the documentation and provide some benefit to the community, waited until the first house came up for sale. It used an estate agent in Stratford-on-Avon to watch the market until one of the houses came up for sale. The house in question was being auctioned, and the owner was desperate to sell it, for various reasons. The parish council managed to extract—should I say, extort—£30,000 from him, on the basis that that was one third of the development value of the land or roughly 10 per cent. of the value of the house and the land. Another constituent, a Mr. Baker, came to see me with a similar problem. His house was up for sale and the parish council had waited to contact him until he had advertised it. His negotiating position must have been slightly stronger, because he managed to negotiate the sum down from £30,000 to £2,000. Therefore, a wide range of prices has already been accepted and, indeed, the parish council settled with someone else for £1,000. However, now it has written to all those involved and suggested that the right value is a third of the development value of the land, which in many cases is probably around £20,000 to £25,000. The parish council is in a difficult position because it is under an obligation, under the Local Government Acts, to extract best value for property that it sells. The parish council would probably prefer to be more reasonable, but it cannot, given the aggressive legal advice that it has received. Most owners would probably pay a small sum of money to sort out the position. I suggest to the Minister that the situation constitutes a manifest injustice. As a result of an anomaly in the law, people are being asked to pay 10 per cent. of the value of their properties, at a vulnerable time—perhaps they have already bought another house and need to complete a chain—and many of them simply cannot afford to do so. They cannot prove that they acquired prescriptive rights by the time the Law of Property Act 1925 came into operation and they know that the parish council never previously challenged their rights to pass over the land. An outrageous injustice is being perpetrated on people in my constituency and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire. I suspect that many other hon. Members will find a similar situation in their constituency. The problem can be resolved only by the Government. The amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend would resolve it, as he explained, and there may be other ways to solve it that might be more acceptable to the Government. For example, the House could fix the price or provide that the price should be fixed by the Lands Tribunal. We could also provide that if any of the properties came up for sale, some percentage of the value would apply, according to the length of time that the owners could prove that they had exercised the right of way. That has happened with some National Trust properties, which have a sliding scale from nothing to 5 per cent. If there is a problem with the European convention on human rights and some compensation for the loss of rights has to be paid, those options may be more acceptable. Whatever happens, we must resolve the issue quickly because it is causing great difficulties for many people. As the common in my constituency is owned by the parish council, there is another way out of the problem and I hope that the Minister will address the possibility of dealing with the issue under the Local Government Acts. Section 127 of the Local Government Act 1972 requires a parish council to obtain best value for any property that it sells, unless it receives the consent of the Secretary of State to sell for less. In 1998, the Secretary of State published regulations entitled "The Local Government Act 1972 General Disposal Consents 1998". Regulation 6 states that consent is given to a disposal of land by way of the grant of a right of way where the difference between the market value of the property and the price charged is less than £10,000. In this case, I do not know whether the difference is more or less than £10,000. If the proper value is £25,000 or £30,000, clearly it is more; if the value is 2 or 3 per cent, it would be less. 5 pm Would the Minister consider, in the case of commons owned by parish, district or county councils, amending regulation 6 of the general disposal consents regulations to raise the value in the case of rights of way over commons being sold by parish councils that own those commons when clearly they have been in use as a right of way for more than 20 years? I hope that the Minister will be able to accept amendments Nos. 135 and 136. If not, I hope that he will be able to say that he might accept other, similar amendments in another place and during our further consideration of the Bill. I should be grateful also if he would deal with the specific matter of whether, in the case of commons owned by parish or district councils, the general disposal consent regulations could be amended in such a way as to allow the grant of those rights of way for a relatively modest sum.

David Prior (Conservative, North Norfolk)

It is a great privilege to support amendments Nos. 135 and 136, which were tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), other colleagues and me. This debate provides us as Members with an opportunity to right a wrong that anyone with common sense would think was an injustice. We would not be having the debate were it not for the fact that there was a loophole in the Law of Property Act 1925 which has come to light because of a 1993 Court of Appeal case, Hanning v. Top Deck Travel Group. I suspect that, initially, like many other hon. Members, I thought that that case dealt only with an arcane legal point that would have no specific or important ramifications. However, the case's implications for householders and owners of common land have been profound. At a stroke, householders have discovered that they no longer have vehicular access to their homes which many of them have enjoyed for many years or, in some cases, for generations. Landlords have suddenly discovered that they now have an economic interest that they had not known about before. It was a windfall for landlords, but a financial disaster for a great many householders—I imagine many of them still do not know about the financial disaster. I heard about the issue only at the end of last year, when my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire initiated an excellent Adjournment debate on it. However, the full seriousness of the issue did not come home to me until I came across a case in my own constituency, in East Runton and in West Runton, where a landlord owns the common land and has written to all the householders around it, of whom there are a great many. The common land is held within a trust. I should quote to the Minister exactly what the landlord said in his letter—which is instructive—to the householders. He said: The trustees have recently been made aware, by their solicitors, that there are new legal guidelines about vehicular access over common land following … (Hanning v. Top Deck Travel Group.) In simple terms the court decided that because it has been illegal since 1925 to drive over common land then householders could not acquire a prescriptive right through an illegal activity … Recently mortgage lenders have become reluctant to provide finance for purchasers of this type of property unless an express right of way has been granted. This has meant that some people were experiencing difficulties in selling their properties. So the Gresham Estate— which is the owner of the common land— now has to find a way for homeowners selling their properties to obtain a formal easement … The District Valuer has indicated that he considers, that a reasonable charge for this type of right of access is 10 per cent. of the property value. Other owners of common land charge much more than this figure (up to 30 per cent.) … As trustees we have a legal duty to obtain "best value" for any assets that we sell so it would not be possible to charge less than the 10 per cent. mentioned above. I accept that there are various types of landlords—be they like Bakewell Management, in North-West Hampshire, the Gresham estate, in Norfolk, the National Trust, parish councils or county councils. Some of these people will have fiduciary responsibilities, but I hope that none will seek to hide behind a legal structure to avoid what is clearly a moral responsibility. I have spoken with Runton parish council, the Runton residents association and the Runton commons management group. They all believe that an injustice is being perpetrated in North Norfolk. Very few households can face a potential liability, coming out of the blue, of up to 10 per cent. of the value of their house. The chairman of the residents association made this comment: Others including ourselves who have retired here will have to use our savings that was for our old age but some of our residents may not even be in a position to do this. In addition, this has cast a blight over many properties that would otherwise have been sold in the area, and it will continue to do so until the position is satisfactorily resolved. No one is saying that there should be free car access or vehicular access over the commons, nor that the commons should not be properly managed. We are talking about an established access to a dwelling house. The amendments are about fairness, common sense and justice.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I agree with an awful lot of what my hon. Friend has said, but I have been asking myself this question: why is the amendment confined to access to or egress from a dwellinghouse? Should it not apply to land generally? I can imagine, for example, agricultural holdings that are in the same position as a dwelling house. I am not sure why we should confine the proposal to a dwelling house and not extend it more generally.

David Prior (Conservative, North Norfolk)

I am glad that my right hon. and learned Friend made that point. The proposal could apply to a market garden or an agricultural holding. Whether or not the Minister decides to accept the amendment today, my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire made it clear that this was from the DIY school of drafting amendments. We hope that we might clarify the proposals in further discussions with the Minister. The point made by my right hon. Friend is valid, and we will want to take it further. I am sure that the Minister would like to accept the amendment—I noticed that he smiled during my right hon. Friend's speech. I hope that the Minister will be moved by the plight of many ordinary householders who are extremely worried about the situation.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

I, too, support amendments Nos. 135 and 136. I, too, have constituents who have a similar problem. In Gerrard's Cross in my constituency, there is a common. Its ownership, in terms of the lordship of the manor, passed by purchase in the 1940s to a solicitor, for the sum of £100. His son is also a solicitor, and appears to enjoy his title of lord of the manor. When he realised and appreciated the benefits conferred on him by the 1993 case, he started to demand from householders with homes around the common extortionate sums to grant them easements and rights of way over the common land. I am quite satisfied, from looking at the properties, that most of them date from the 19th century and earlier, and that the occupants therefore almost certainly had rights of way over that land prior to the implementation of the Law of Property Act 1925, with its unintended consequences. I have only one disagreement with my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), who made a slight complaint at the end of his speech about a feudal system. In fact, the irony of the situation is that the old law, being the common law tempered by equity, worked perfectly well to give rights of access. A piece of unintended statutory interference has deprived these people of rights which they would normally have had. It beggars belief that the lord of the manor said in a recent comment in the local press about demanding this money: It is a fact of life. I think people should pay. I don't think people should have something for nothing. It appears that the person who is getting something for nothing is the lord of the manor, who is making these extortionate demands. It is on that simple point that I base my contribution. I understand that the Minister has been advised—or that he is concerned—that the European convention on human rights and the Human Rights Act 1998 might prevent an amendment of the law unless compensation was paid in such cases. I appreciate that the point is important and that he will want to take advice, but it seems that, if anyone were to be entitled to compensation—if the passage of the Law of Property Act had taken place yesterday—it would have been the householders involved, who would not have acquired a 20-year period in which to obtain their easement. In those circumstances, I am by no means convinced of the necessity to make payments to the property owners or to the lords of the manor just because they have benefited from a wholly unintended windfall. It is surprising that they should be paid for the removal of that windfall, which was not apparent when the legislation came into being.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

My hon. Friend makes a serious point about compensation. Another approach might be that, as the windfall is the unintended creation of statute, if compensation has to be paid by reason of the convention, it should be paid by the taxpayer to the person who is trying to obtain payments from the householders.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

My right hon. and learned Friend makes a good point. However, it is one that I skated over, because the mere suggestion of that idea to the Minister—and certainly to his advisers—might create even greater difficulties. The matter is urgent. Every day, householders on Gerrard's Cross common face a severe financial problem. Some of them might be wealthy, but although many of them occupy properties that have a substantial value, their liquid assets do not—that is often true of elderly people. They face real problems. We cannot merely say that we will leave the matter for three or four years. The situation existed for only 12 months before lords of the manor began to cotton on to the financial possibilities. Considerable chaos will be created by delay. I hope that the Minister can reassure us that the problem will be addressed—in some form—in the Bill.

David Rendel (Liberal Democrat, Newbury)

I start by declaring an interest; I am a member of GLEAM—the Green Lanes Environmental Action Movement—an organisation that campaigns in favour of green lanes. I support the attempts of the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) to ensure that green lanes are not constantly destroyed by motorised vehicles, as has happened all too often in the past. Like many other Members, the main thrust of my remarks is to support amendments Nos. 135 and 136. The first instance of this problem may have occurred in my constituency—at Bucklebury common. The common has been in the ownership of a well-known local landowner for a long time. However, back in 1929, his predecessors set up a special commons scheme, under which the management of the common and all the worry of looking after it were transferred to the local council. Since then, the owner and his family have had no involvement with the common except ownership. Unfortunately, as the local council discovered, although the worry and problems of upkeep of the common were transferred to the council, the right to grant easements and access over it was not. Over the years, easements were granted by the current landowner's predecessors to those who own dwellings on or around the common. During the early years, the sums were in the tens or the low hundreds—only occasionally rising to about £1,000. The current landowner inherited the property in 1993 and immediately changed the policy. Instead of charging comparatively small sums for the access required by those who own dwellings on the common, he asked for tens of thousands of pounds. The highest sum paid over so far is more than anything that has been mentioned in the debate: one owner was forced to pay as much as £50,000 for access to his property. 5.15 pm As was mentioned in the Stratford-on-Avon case, these demands are usually made at the very last moment, when the dwelling owner is on the point of selling a property—perhaps under difficult circumstances, in which they simply cannot afford not to go ahead with the sale. That puts them in an extremely difficult position; in effect, they are being blackmailed by the landowner. It will come as no surprise to some of those who know the case, and may be a disappointment to some hon. Members, that the landowner concerned was at the time a Conservative district councillor. However, to be fair to the Conservatives—I do not like being fair to the Conservatives, but on this occasion I will be—all the other Conservative district councillors involved were horrified at the actions of that gentleman. They very strongly supported the view of the whole council that what he was doing was thoroughly immoral and totally unexpected, and that if any action could be taken to stop what he was doing, it certainly should be taken—to the extent that the council unanimously, except for the one gentleman concerned, decided to take out a case against him and see whether, as a result of their management of the common, they could find a way of ensuring that these payments should no longer go ahead. Unfortunately, the district council lost the court case, in 1995. As a result, the payments are still being demanded. As other hon. Members have said, this situation arises only because the land is common land. If we were looking for access over any other type of land, access would by now be permanent owing to the length of time for which it had been allowed. However, the value of the ransomed strips to the landowner is now enormous. I believe that that is unfair—indeed, immoral. In some cases, as we have heard, there may be some legal difficulty with charging less than the maximum possible. In the case that I have described, there is certainly no legal difficulty; the landowner could, if he wished, choose to charge a much smaller sum for access, but he chooses to go for the maximum amount that is available to him. I hope that the Government will use this opportunity to bring this situation to an end. They have a chance in the Bill to do so, and I hope that they use their opportunity.

Nick St Aubyn (Conservative, Guildford)

I have listened to the debate with great interest because some of my constituents have a slightly different problem, more similar to that described by my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples), in that the landlord of the common across which they seek access to their properties is Surrey county council. In correspondence, the Minister has referred to the good practice of Surrey county council, which has drawn up a table of charges for owners of houses, depending on how long they have lived in the house and on the assurances that they have received from the council in previous years. The difficulty in that situation arises from the Local Government Act 1972. I wrote to the Minister on this point as recently as 23 May, and no doubt it is in his mind, as we speak this afternoon, that while endorsing in his letter to my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) the practice of Surrey county council, he did not deal with the problem that it faces—as do parish councils and other councils—that when it is operating a reasonable system of discounts, charging a maximum of, say, only 5 per cent., it does so in the knowledge that it might have been able, if it had been a more rapacious landlord, to extract 10 per cent. or more; and under the current regime put in place by the Minister's predecessor in the present Government, the right hon. Member for North-West Durham (Ms Armstrong), the limit of its discretion to be reasonable is £10,000. If a property is worth more than £200,000, and the council's discretionary cut from 10 to 5 per cent. is therefore more than £10,000, the discretion comes to an end. The table that Surrey county council sent my right hon. Friend the Member for North—West Hampshire contains the following footnote: Subject to a maximum discount of £10,000 on the Council's valuation of the right of access. That limit to the reasonableness, or sense of fairness, of Surrey county council—a Conservative council, which does not wish to impinge on the rights of the people whom it represents—is being placed on it by the Minister and his Department. I support the amendment, but I accept that the Minister may have problems with the European Court of Human Rights and with the human rights legislation if a wider discretion is entrenched in law. Clause 123 is relevant in this context, and there is no constraint on the Minister's saying that, with regard to the Local Government Act 1972 and the county council, reasonable charges are the proper way to proceed; and that the discretion of the council should be unlimited, provided it is reasonable and does not charge extortionately and unreasonably. If he were to do that, he would deal with the problem raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon about his parish council and with the problem of Surrey county council to which I alerted him again. I would be grateful if the Minister made some progress on this issue. If he did, he would relieve some of the problems that many hon. Members have described.

Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)

There are two equally important sets of amendments in this group. The first is amendment No. 304, which was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter), and the consequential amendments to it. He will be aware that these issues were discussed in long and complex debates in Committee that covered the Grimsell lane case and in which Mr. Plumbe was quoted extensively. Many of us on both sides of the Committee said that the Government needed to take action to clarify the position with regard to byways. However—to reduce their case to a short phrase—they said that that was unnecessary and that the Bill as it stood, along with existing legislation on transport, was sufficient to deal with the issue. I did not find the Government's explanation in Committee particularly convincing, so I look forward to hearing whether the Minister will take this opportunity to come up with a more convincing explanation. If he does not, the other place will wish to return to this issue. My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) spoke to amendments Nos. 135 and 136, and several important issues have been raised. The House will recognise the catalogue of manifest injustices that we have heard from hon. Members from across the country. I am surprised that I have not yet had similar cases in my constituency, but I like to think that that is because of the essential and universal reasonableness of landowners in Kent. I shall cling to that faith until it is proved misplaced. One side issue of this urgent and important problem is compensation. Today's debate and the advice that the Minister gave my right hon. Friend have suggested that it would be improper, under the terms of the European convention on human rights, for landowners to receive no compensation if their right to charge people who cross their land were taken away. So why is the Minister so sure that it is against the convention to take away the rights without compensation in this case when he is equally sure that it is correct to do that for general access land? It appears on the surface that the Government are facing in diametrically opposite directions in the advice that they gave my right hon. Friend and in their advice that the Bill is consonant with the European convention on human rights. I hope that the Minister will deal with that point when he replies. Several key issues need to be set in the wider context of the Bill, the Government's other environmental policies and, in particular, their consultation on the law relating to commons. Because the problem is so urgent—for the individuals involved, a delay of even a few months, let alone many years, will be a matter of difficulty—the essential message to the Minister is that it is entirely appropriate to use the Bill as a vehicle to resolve it. There are several arguments to support that contention, the first of which is that the Bill already makes substantial changes to commons. It provides a right of access to rural commons and amends provisions on vehicles on commons. Its rights of way and nature conservation provisions will have a significant effect on commons management, which is clearly central to the areas that it covers. Many new issues on commons management and access have arisen which, presumably, is why the Government have issued a consultation paper. Most importantly, however, those of us who have been involved with the Bill's progress know that wildlife protection and nature conservation Bills come along once every 20 years or so. Bills affecting commons are even less frequent. I think that I am right in saying that there were three Acts relating to commons throughout the twentieth century. So if the Minister says that the Government are holding a consultation and must delay, I suspect that there will be delay of many years and perhaps even decades before this urgent issue is resolved. The Government have given no indication that there is a legislative slot for a commons Bill. They find slots for new, unnecessary Bills, but it would be cloud cuckoo land to think that there will be a commons Bill before the next election—and who knows what the priorities of the next Government will be? In short, the Minister is faced with an urgent problem and must find a legislative slot to solve that problem. I therefore join my right hon. and hon. Friends in urging him to take the opportunity to use the legislative powers available to him in the Bill to solve a deep, urgent problem for many people throughout the country.

Chris Mullin (Labour, Sunderland South)

The amendments deal with two separate issues, and I shall start with the issue of driving motorised vehicles on bridleways. Amendments Nos. 304, 305 and 302 would affect schedule 7, especially the amendment to section 34 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, which would make it an offence to drive on land which does not form part of a road. In Committee, I explained that new subsection (2) of section 34, which was added by Government amendment in Committee, is designed to improve the enforcement of section 34 and address in particular the problem of large numbers of motor bike riders who believe that they may ride with impunity on bridleways and footpaths, regardless of whether there is any evidence of vehicular rights over them. Amendments Nos. 304 and 305 would make the definitive map conclusive evidence of the rights shown on it alone. However, they could have the effect of making it no longer possible to record higher rights which may subsequently be discovered over a footpath, bridleway or, as the definition is amended by the Bill, a restricted byway. So, for example, if bridleway rights were shown to exist over a way shown on a definitive map as a footpath, it might not be possible to upgrade the footpath to a bridleway, and the outcome would be inaccurate maps. The effect of amendments Nos. 303 and 45 would be that a person prosecuted for driving on a way shown on a definitive map as a bridleway, for example, would have to produce evidence of full vehicular rights on the basis of the balance of probabilities. That is a higher test than that which may be required to put a new right of way on a definitive map. Amendment No. 302 would make the definitive map conclusive for the purposes of a prosecution. However, the level of evidence required to put a new right or way on a definitive map is much lower than that required for a criminal prosecution. In view of the concern expressed by a number of hon. Members that the Government amendment made in Committee did not go far enough, I agreed to consider this matter further. We are still considering it. A key question is whether a person should be deprived of exercising rights over a highway merely because those rights have not been recorded on a definitive map. It is not a constraint, for example, which applies to walkers or horse riders. 5.30 pm I accept that Parliament has provided the definitive map process as a means of recording public rights of way, and there are arguments that, in general, people should not try to bypass that process. In part, those arguments are reflected in the new subsection (2) in section 34 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, which removes the obligation on the prosecution to prove its case from the very beginning. Instead, the defendant has to produce prima facie evidence as to possible vehicular rights. If he cannot, the prosecution is not obliged to prove that vehicular rights do not exist. We need to think carefully about the implications of going beyond that. It is right that Governments should be cautious before deviating from the general principle of criminal law that the prosecution should prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. I am afraid that I cannot say more than that today. I repeat that we are considering the matter, but I cannot give any commitment that we will introduce amendments at a later date, although I acknowledge the problem. As my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) and my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) have said, we have recently been in discussions with the Lake district national park authority about the difficulties. I am sorry that I cannot go further today. Amendments Nos. 135 and 136 relate to the problems of common land, which were clearly outlined by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young). I do not resile from the statement that I made in an Adjournment debate a while ago. The situation that he described, and the situation elsewhere, as described by other hon. Members, is outrageous. I am afraid to say that they are not the only examples of such spivvery that I have come across. Many of my constituents have started receiving large bills from companies, usually based in the south of England, that have bought the freehold at an auction somewhere. The bills are not for the freehold money, which would be a small sum, but for retrospective consent for putting in a sliding door, making some minor extension to the house or putting up a conservatory. My constituents face exactly the same kind of blackmail. That is another problem that needs to be resolved. I mention it to show that the problem is not confined to the constituencies that Conservative Members represent. Such behaviour is, unhappily, all too common in this day and age. The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire described very fairly the efforts that I made to assist with the problem at Newtown, but he missed out one stage. I went one stage further than he said, and arranged a meeting with Mr. Farrow of Bakewell Management and pressed on him the need to reach a reasonable settlement with the right hon. Gentleman's constituent. We should not get involved in the details of the negotiation here, but from that meeting, rightly or wrongly, I formed the view that some form of compromise acceptable to most of those involved might be achievable. At the time of the debate, the right hon. Gentleman described me as a hero. I never allowed that to go to my head, because I am aware that the line between being a hero and being a traitor to the people is wafer-thin, and one can stray across it at any moment. It may well be that in the light of my response I shall have strayed across it by the end of this debate. The difficulty with introducing legislation that meets all the different circumstances affecting commons is that there are many different sets of circumstances. Other hon. Members have described how in some cases the National Trust was the landlord; in other cases Surrey county council was the landlord. As the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) said, Surrey county council has behaved very responsibly, as does the National Trust. It is therefore quite difficult—desirable though it is—to come up with a solution that meets all possibilities. I turn in detail to amendments Nos. 135 and 136. The unfortunate situation has arisen because driving on common land can be a criminal offence. That has been so on some commons since as long ago as 1926. Rights of vehicular access through long use can be acquired only where no criminal offence is committed. For some reason that I cannot explain—there are a number of such aspects—that often seems to have been overlooked when a house with access over a common was built or sold and the deeds made no mention of access rights. I think that I am right in saying that in no single case in Newtown did lawyers discover such rights when houses were sold. As a result, a number of people whose sole means of vehicular access is over common land owned by someone else have no legal right to use the access. Recent court cases have highlighted that problem, and drawn attention to the value of vehicular access in today's context and the high charges that can be made for acquiring such access. When the issue was raised in the House last year, I undertook to investigate the situation and to see whether Government action would be appropriate. With officials in my Department, I have gone over a number of options for overcoming the problem. Our objective was—and, indeed, remains—to try to find a way to ensure that the charges made by landowners for easements are reasonable. However, we have so far concluded that none of the options is straightforward, and that they are all likely to have serious implications elsewhere. The principal effect of amendments Nos. 135 and 136 would be to make it lawful to drive over common land to access a dwellinghouse—and not only that: amendment No.135 states that it has always been lawful to do so, and amendment No. 136 would make the activity lawful, in certain circumstances, over at least the past 20 years. As it is currently a criminal offence to drive on common land without the owner's permission, I am not clear what the amendments' effect might be on someone who was convicted in the past. What would happen to their conviction? Similarly, could action be taken against a landowner who had, quite lawfully at the time, denied access? [Interruption.] I am sharing with the House the advice that I have been offered. There is one quite serious general point. The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire spent longer in government than I spent in opposition, and he will know that Governments do not lightly engage in retrospective legislation. I do not say that that is the end of the matter, but his amendments do not overcome that problem, whatever he thinks about the points that I raised a moment ago.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I shall make two points to the Minister. First, the legal advice that he is receiving about previous actions or convictions can be met simply by stating in the Bill that any amendment such as amendment No. 135 does not affect the validity of actions taken under the old law. That can be stated in statute. Secondly, when he is reviewing the matter, I hope that he will not confine himself to dwellinghouses. I make the same point to him as I made to my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) with regard to the rights of access to other land: agricultural holdings, commercial property, horticultural holdings and so forth are just the same for such purposes.

Chris Mullin (Labour, Sunderland South)

That final point makes me a little nervous. The more that one broadens the matter, the more complications can be discovered. I am not sure whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman's second point—I note his first—is entirely helpful to the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire and the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples). To judge by the expressions on their faces, they may share my view on that point.

Richard Page (Conservative, South West Hertfordshire)

If a council or a landowner enforces the rights, the person in question is aware of them. The problem for so many of us on the Opposition Benches is that our constituents bought homes in good faith when unaware—as was the council—of such rights, but are to be caught by retrospective action that is untenable. The Government should do something about it.

Chris Mullin (Labour, Sunderland South)

I share the hon. Gentleman's view of the unfairness of it all. It is possible that when the houses were last conveyed, lawyers acting for the individuals concerned should have spotted such rights. I do not make that point too strongly because none of the lawyers in any case spotted it—so the rights may have been buried quite deeply.

Richard Page (Conservative, South West Hertfordshire)

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again. Most lawyers make local authority searches, and the local authority should record the existence of a right of way and draw it to the solicitor's attention. The fault is not the solicitor's, but the local authority's.

Chris Mullin (Labour, Sunderland South)

If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I do not want to get too deeply involved in where the fault lies. We all acknowledge that there is a serious problem, and one way or another, a solution must be found—not necessarily a legislative solution; in some cases, particularly in Newtown, a negotiated solution may be possible. The hon. Members for Stratford-on-Avon and for North Norfolk (Mr. Prior) mentioned the Local Government Act 1972. I cannot give them an answer off the top of my head, but I will take advice. I am told that it is open to councils to apply to the Secretary of State for variation of the disposal consent. That route may be helpful, though not necessarily in all cases.

Nick St Aubyn (Conservative, Guildford)

The Minister may not be aware that his predecessor was approached by Surrey county council, which asked her to give a broader remit so that the council could deal with the problem in a fair and reasonable way. At that time, the Department's policy was not to give any further discretion to the council. However, as the Minister said in his letter to my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire on 10 May, that a reasonable capital charge would be no more than 5 per cent., and as the relevant section of the Local Government Act 1972 states: Except with the consent of the Secretary of State, a council shall not dispose of land … for a consideration less than the best that can reasonably be obtained it seems that his wording is close to giving the remit that reasonable landlords want in order to proceed in a way that is fair to my constituents and those of my right hon. Friend.

Chris Mullin (Labour, Sunderland South)

I do not recall the detail of the 1972 Act, but I undertake to consider whether that provides a possible route. There are various suggestions on the table, and we need to consider them. However, neither of the amendments meet the situation. They seek to rectify the situation retrospectively, which is extremely difficult for any Government.

John Maples (Conservative, Stratford-on-Avon)

Will the Minister give way?

Chris Mullin (Labour, Sunderland South)

Yes, but this must be the final time.

John Maples (Conservative, Stratford-on-Avon)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He has rejected the two amendments, but as he knows, there are other possible solutions that would set out a value in the legislation—,£1,000 or £2,000—or set out a formula or give the valuation to some third party. Will he consider one of those options as an acceptable solution?

Chris Mullin (Labour, Sunderland South)

We have heard a list of such suggestions, and I undertake to consider them. I acknowledge the seriousness of the problem. If I could think of a solution to it now, I would offer it. I know that the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire tabled other amendments—which, regrettably, were found to be outside the scope of the Bill. Perhaps a solution could be found along those lines. All I can tell the House is that the two amendments will not achieve the intended purpose.

Andrew Bennett (Labour, Denton and Reddish)

My hon. Friend does not seem to have convinced anyone in the House, even himself. Will he give us an undertaking that the matter will be sorted out in the other place?

Chris Mullin (Labour, Sunderland South)

I have no difficulty in convincing myself; I cannot speak for anyone else. It should not be difficult to convince my hon. Friend that because the amendments are retrospective, they do not do the job that is required. I have no difficulty with that idea, and if hon. Members think about it, most of them will recognise it. I acknowledge that there is a difficulty. If there is a legislative solution, as opposed to a negotiated one—I still think that in the particular case, there is scope for negotiation—we must try to discover it.

George Young (Conservative, North West Hampshire)

I remind the Under-Secretary of his words about the current position: "outrageous", "spivvery", "blackmail", "unfairness". He used those words a few moments ago. He wants to find a solution; we have proposed a vehicle. Does he genuinely claim that it is beyond the Government's resources between now and the Bill's consideration in another place to find a solution to the problem that so many hon. Members have brought to his attention this afternoon?

Chris Mullin (Labour, Sunderland South)

I did not claim that it was impossible to find a solution before the Bill goes to another place, but I make no commitment to doing that. In the nine months during which we have considered the Bill, no one has proposed a solution that deals with all the problems, give or take one or two suggestions this afternoon. I do not recognise the word "blackmail"; I believe that the right hon. Gentleman used it. However, I own up to the other three words. I am afraid that I must ask hon. Members not to press the amendments.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I shall make three observations. First, I would not want to depend on a negotiated settlement. When there are unequal strengths, such a settlement is not necessarily just. I would not wish my constituents to depend on such a settlement. Secondly, the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) is right. The argument that the Under-Secretary advanced about the legal difficulties does not stand up. It is true that there is a disadvantage associated with the amendment because people will say, "What about decisions that were made in the past—for example, on criminal convictions or actions by a landlord?" The amendment could deal with that difficulty by stating that the provision would not have a prejudicial effect on decisions made under previously existing law. Parliamentary counsel can deal with the legal language. My third point—I am sorry to distress my right hon. and hon. Friends—is about the attempts to distinguish between a dwellinghouse and other landholdings That important problem troubles my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) My hon. Friends made compelling speeches, but there is no distinction in principle between a dwellinghouse and any other form of landholding. I hope that the problem will be tackled. If so, I hope that the Under-Secretary will also consider access to and egress from other holdings of land—agricultural, horticultural and commercial—as well as the dwellinghouses that my hon. Friends have discussed.

Nick St Aubyn (Conservative, Guildford)

My right hon. and learned Friend is missing a point. The other landholdings to which he refers have experienced development, whereas most of the dwellinghouses have existed and remained the same sometimes for more than 100 years. The scale of the problem is different. Development on other landholdings may create other problems and obligations for surrounding residents; they may well be grateful for obstacles in the way of further development.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I do not recognise that distinction. If I were the proprietor of a small butcher's shop that had existed for a long time, and suddenly found that the owner of the common land was seeking to charge for access to my shop, I would be as angry as if I were the owner of a small dwellinghouse. If I were the proprietor of a small horticultural holding of the sort that exists in my constituency, or a small landholding of a few acres, I would not accept a distinction between me as the small landowner and the large householder in another constituency. There is no difference. I hope that the Under-Secretary will consider all the problems. The problems exist, but let us not make false distinctions.

Andrew Hunter (Conservative, Basingstoke)

I speak only to amendments Nos. 304, 305, 302 and 303; other hon. Members can speak to the others in the group. I listened carefully to the Under-Secretary. He did not go as far as I would wish. He said that the Government were considering the matter further, but he made no promises, and gave no commitment to action. That does not amount to much. However, I am in a charitable mood, and, as I acknowledge that the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire would not have pressed his amendment, I am prepared to follow suit.

George Young (Conservative, North West Hampshire)

The Under-Secretary's natural decency clashed with the harshness of the brief; he was visibly uncomfortable with what he had to read out. I am afraid that his response was unsatisfactory. He should assume ownership of the problem and undertake to provide a solution; it is not enough to invite Back Benchers to go away and try again, leaving the Government free simply to shoot down amendments at a later stage because they are incorrect.

Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)

The Under-Secretary said that other amendments were out of order, including those containing solutions suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter). That is not correct. Those amendments appear on the amendment paper, so they are in order; they were simply not selected for debate. Therefore, they could constitute a legislative route that the Government could take in another place.

George Young (Conservative, North West Hampshire)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but my point is that, unless the Under-Secretary gives an undertaking that he will assume ownership of the problem and that he will table amendments in another place, I am afraid that I find his reply disappointing and unsatisfactory and, at the appropriate time, I shall seek leave to divide the House.

Andrew Hunter (Conservative, Basingstoke)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Chris Mullin (Labour, Sunderland South)

I beg to move amendment No. 227, in page 50, line 14, at end insert— 'The Highways Act 1980 (c. 66). . In section 116 of the 1980 Act (power of magistrates' court to authorise stopping up or diversion of highway) in subsection (4), for "or bridleway" there is substituted ", bridleway or restricted byway". . In section 329(1) of the 1980 Act (interpretation) after the definition of "reconstruction" there is inserted— restricted byway" has the same meaning as in Part II of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000;"'.

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments Nos. 190 to 193, 264, 273, 225 and 226. New clause 15—Amendment of sections 116 and 118 of the Highways Act 1980— '.—(1) In subsection (1) of section 116 of the 1980 Act, for the words "or a special road" there shall be substituted ", a special road, a footpath or a bridleway". (2) In section 118 of the 1980 Act there shall be inserted after subsection (3)— (3A) A public path extinguishment order may provide for the stopping up of a bridleway subject to the reservation of a footpath.".'.

Chris Mullin (Labour, Sunderland South)

Government amendment No. 227 arises from amendments tabled in Committee by the hon. Members for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), for Ashford (Mr. Green) and for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) It will enable a magistrates court, when closing or diverting a carriageway under section 116 of the Highways Act 1980, to reserve restricted byway rights over the line of the old highway. That will complement existing powers under that section to reserve footpath or bridleway rights over an extinguished or diverted highway. Government amendment No. 226 is a consequential amendment, which will delete the definition of "restricted byway" in clause 54. That definition is superfluous because it already appears in clause 44, where it is applied to all of part II. Government amendments Nos. 225, 264 and 273 are minor consequential and technical amendments. Government amendments 190, 191, 192 and 193 are essentially technical amendments to the regulation-making power in clause 48, which relates to restricted byways. Government amendment No. 190 will clarify the intention in clause 48, which is that regulations made under it should enable changes to be made not only to legislation directly applying to highways, but to the vast body of legislation that regulates what is done on highways or in connection with them. It will make it clear that clause 48 may be used to amend provisions on the creation, diversion or stopping up of highways. Government amendments Nos. 191 and 192 are drafting amendments. Government amendment No. 193 sets out that clause 48 may be used to amend legislation that is inserted into other Acts under the Bill. For example, schedule 6 contains many consequential amendments to highways legislation as a result of the substantive provisions that it contains. Other substantive amendments may need to be made, which would require further amendments to those consequential amendments.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

Although we are disappointed in the Government's response to several of the major issues that we have raised in Committee and on Report, it would be churlish not to acknowledge our gratitude that Government amendment No. 227 is their response to the persuasive arguments that my hon. Friends and I marshalled in Committee. We are always pleased and happy temporarily to pick up the crumbs from the Under-Secretary's table, and I thank him for listening on that occasion.

Andrew Bennett (Labour, Denton and Reddish)

I had hoped that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary would continue all the good news by telling us that he was prepared to accept new clause 15, which deals with a long-running issue. I argued a similar case during consideration of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Just before that Act was introduced, changes were made under the Highways Act 1980. As a result of that and the 1981 Act, rights of way can be closed in two ways—through a procedure in the magistrates courts and through the planning process. Whatever party has been in power, the Government have never claimed that they encouraged local authorities to use the magistrates procedure. It is clear that the intention was to use the planning process to decide whether a right of way could be closed or diverted. Government guidance on the magistrates court procedure states: the Secretaries of State consider that authorities should make use of the other powers available unless there are good reasons for not doing so. Over the years, most local authorities have accepted that advice and have normally used the planning process, which contains a series of safeguards. There is a need to put notices on footpaths and to notify various bodies that a proposal for a closure or diversion will take place. The process is well understood, and volunteers for groups, such as the Ramblers Association, the Open Spaces Society and the Peak and Northern Footpaths Society, have coped with it very efficiently. They can send someone to an inquiry and make representations. What appears to happen is that, every so often, local authorities decide that they would prefer to go the magistrates courts. In the past, they had to come up with a good reason. The good reason increasingly seems to be that that procedure is cheaper and quicker. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will tell us that that anomaly will be cut out altogether and that the planning process will be used rather than the magistrates courts. If he insists that we need to keep both processes, will he make it clear which of the good reasons to use the magistrates courts procedure listed in Department of the Environment circular 2/93 will be acceptable?

Chris Mullin (Labour, Sunderland South)

New clause 15 is similar to one tabled in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper). I acknowledged at the time that in our consultation paper, which was issued last year, we proposed removing from magistrates courts the power to close rights of way. I said that we decided not to proceed with the proposal because of the mixed response that we received. Many local authorities apparently prefer the existing arrangements because they are flexible. The current provisions contain safeguards. For example, users of the highway involved have a right to be heard by the magistrates court and parish councils have a power of veto. On the second part of new clause 15, an order is made under section 118 of the Highways Act 1980 if a right of way is not needed for public use. For example, another right of way might serve the same purpose. However, if one bridleway performs the same function as another, it will be open to people on foot as well. So if there is a case for closing the first bridleway, it is not immediately clear why the right of way on foot should be saved. I therefore ask my hon. Friend not to press new clause 15 to a Division. Amendment agreed to.

RESTRICTED BYWAYS: POWER TO MAKE CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISION

AMENDMENTS RELATING TO CREATION, STOPPING UP AND DIVERSION OF PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY

Andrew Bennett (Labour, Denton and Reddish)

I beg to move amendment No. 72, in page 50, line 26, at end insert— '.After section 26 of the 1980 Act there is inserted— "Application for a public path creation order 26A.—(1) Any person may apply to a council for the area in which the land is situated for the making of a public path creation order to create a footpath or bridleway over the land. (2) An application under this section shall be in such form as may be prescribed and shall be accompanied by a map, on such scale as may be prescribed, showing the land over which the public right of way would be created, and by such other information as may be prescribed. (3) An application may be made by the owner, lessee or occupier of any land used for agriculture, forestry or the breeding or keeping of horses for a creation order concurrently with an application under section 118ZA or 119ZA for a public path diversion order or extinguishment order, and such an application is referred to in this section as a 'concurrent application'. (4) Regulations may provide— (a) that a prescribed fee is payable on the making of a concurrent application under this section, and (b) that further prescribed charges ale payable by the applicant if the application is granted. (5) An application under this section is not to be taken to be received by the council until the requirements of regulations under section 121A below have been satisfied in relation to it. (6) A council which receives an application under this section shall, after consulting such persons as may be prescribed, determine the application as soon as reasonably practicable. (7) Before determining to make a public path creation order on a concurrent application under this section, the council may require the applicant to enter into an agreement with them to defray, or to make such contribution as may be specified in the agreement towards, any compensation which may become payable under section 28 below. (8) Where— (a) an application under this section has been made to a council, and (b) the council have not determined the application within twelve months of receiving it, the Secretary of State may, at the request of the applicant and after consulting the council, direct the council to determine the application before the end of such period as may be specified in the direction. (9) As soon as practicable after determining an application under this section, the council shall— (a) give to the applicant notice in writing of their decision and the reasons for it, and (b) give a copy of the notice to such other persons as may be prescribed. (10) This section has effect subject to the provisions of sections 121A and 121C below. (11) In this section— 'prescribed' means prescribed by regulations; 'regulations' means regulations made by the Secretary of State.".'.

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 99, in page 50, line 31, after "agriculture", insert ", land management". Amendment No. 86, in page 50, line 31, leave out "and forestry" and insert— ', forestry and the breeding and keeping of horses'. Amendment No. 100, in page 50, line 45, at end insert— (3) In this section "land management" means— (a) any activity associated with agriculture or forestry; (b) any activity to improve or maintain habitat for wildlife and biodiversity; (c) any activity to maintain, improve or use sporting opportunities on the land; (d) pest control; or (e) any other activity undertaken by or on behalf of the owner in furtherance of earning an income from the land.'. Amendment No. 90, in page 51, line 21, leave out from "section" to end of line 24. Amendment No. 88, in page 51, line 21, at end insert— '( ) that where any prescribed fee exceeds the costs actually incurred by the council, the fee payable shall not exceed those costs, and ( ) that prescribed fees may be reduced or waived by the council in recognition of any benefit to the public if the application is granted, and'. Amendment No. 73, in page 51, line 41, leave out "four" and insert "twelve". Amendment No. 91, in page 54, line 35, leave out from "section" to end of line 38. Amendment No. 89, in page 54, line 35, at end insert— '( ) that where any prescribed fee exceeds the costs actually incurred by the council, the fee payable shall not exceed those costs, and ( ) that prescribed fees may be reduced or waived by the council in recognition of any benefit to the public if the application is granted, and'. Amendment No. 74, in page 54, line 48, leave out "four" and insert "twelve". Amendment No. 87, in page 64, line 12, after "forestry", insert— ',the breeding and keeping of horses'. Government amendments Nos. 271 and 214.

Andrew Bennett (Labour, Denton and Reddish)

This is a matter of natural justice. The Government are providing a right for the landowner to propose a procedure to close or divert rights of way. We are simply asking that the general public should be able to press councils to create new footpaths. It is a matter of balance, and I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I shall speak to the amendments that my hon. Friends and I have tabled. Amendments Nos. 99, 86 and 100 go hand in hand. Amendment No. 99 would introduce the concept of land management, so that councils would have to have due regard not only to agriculture and forestry but to land management. Amendment No. 100 would add the definition of land management that we discussed last night in a different context. Amendment No. 86 would add the need to have due regard to the interests of the breeding and keeping of horses. The reasons for the amendments are self-explanatory. In principle, we appreciate the fact that councils will have to have regard to agriculture and forestry, but in today's world it is important to think about wider aspects of land management, including other activities that landowners, occupiers or tenant farmers may wish to carry out on their land that may not necessarily be classified under the headings of agriculture and forestry. On the issue of horses, I again draw the House's attention—as I did last night in a different context—to the document "An action plan for farming", which the Government published on 30 March. It refers to the fact that a significant rural-based industry centres upon horses … The Government has assigned the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food responsibility for working with the horse industry to help develop its potential for rural-based employment. It goes on to refer to changing the planning guidance and to the possibility of rate relief. In addition to that policy, there seems to be a contradiction in schedule 6. Line 31 on page 50 refers to the needs of agriculture and forestry, but line 11 on page 51 refers to agriculture, forestry or the breeding or keeping of horses. If it is right in that sense, and it certainly is, it should also be included in the earlier paragraph about the duty of councils to have due regard to the needs of agriculture and forestry. This groups of amendments includes our amendments to curtail charges made by councils. Much discussion was held in Committee about how much people will be charged under the schedule for the making of applications and what is described in the Bill as "further prescribed charges". We are concerned that the term "further prescribed charges" is too open and wide. It would allow a council to make a charge that was beyond the special nature of the particular application, and included an element of margin or profit, call it what you will. The purpose of our amendments is to curtail those charges to no more than those incurred by the council, and to give councils the power to waive charges if there is a public benefit in the extinguishment order that the council is considering. We think that it is right and proper for the council to have that level of discretion. The other two amendments make the same points for diversion orders as opposed to extinguishment orders. Our amendments are small but important. I commend them to the Minister, and I trust that he will respond constructively.

Chris Mullin (Labour, Sunderland South)

I shall do my best. Amendment No. 72, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), would give a right for anyone to apply to a council for an order under section 26 of the Highways Act 1980 to create a footpath or bridleway. As I said in Committee, I agree with my hon. Friend that local authorities should be more willing to consider making use of their powers to create footpaths and bridleways by agreement with landowners or by order. We are keen to promote the joining up of missing links in the rights of way network, and we want to encourage a more proactive approach by local highway authorities to meeting modern day recreational needs. However, we are not convinced that giving a person a right to apply for creation orders over someone else's land is an appropriate way of achieving that. In the consultation paper issued last year, we explained that it would not be appropriate for people to have an express statutory right to apply for creation orders. Highways exist for the wider public benefit, and we believe that the responsible public authorities should determine whether, and if so where and when, to initiate specific proposals for creating new highways. It is for them to decide whether a new footpath or bridleway is needed. The public will be able to influence local authorities' strategies towards the creation of new rights of way during consultations on the improvement plans that authorities are required to prepare under clauses 53 and 54. Landowners who are willing for a path to be created over their land have no need to apply for an order. For example, the Highways Act 1980 already enables them to enter into an agreement with their local authority for the creation of public paths. Therefore, I am afraid that, once again, I have to ask my hon. Friend not to press his amendment. Amendments Nos. 88 to 91 would modify new sections 118ZA and 119ZA of the Highways Act 1980, which are contained in schedule 6, and would require that, if any prescribed fees exceeded the costs actually incurred by the council, the fee payable should not exceed those costs, and would allow prescribed fees to be reduced or waived by the council in recognition of any benefit to the public if the application were granted. Those amendments would also remove new section 118ZA(3)(b), which provides the power to make regulations relating to further charges on top of an application fee and in relation to public path extinguishment orders. The regulations will provide that fees and charges do not exceed the costs that they are intended to cover. It is common practice for authorities to charge administration fees for the work done in considering applications for consent to do something—for instance, planning applications. They have some limited discretion as to whether to waive fees, but there appears no good reason to make an exception for applicants for public path orders, even if public benefit may result. In many instances, applicants will be seeking orders because it is in their interests to do so. Amendments Nos. 86 and 87, tabled by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), would require councils to have regard to the keeping and breeding of horses. We believe that that would be consistent with new sections 118ZA and 119ZA. These would introduce a right for owners and occupiers of land used for, among other things, the keeping and breeding of horses to apply for footpaths and bridleways to be diverted or closed. We are therefore willing to consider them. However, I am afraid that I cannot accept amendments Nos. 99 and 100. Their collective effect would be to extend the duty under section 29 well beyond its current scope. The definition of land management in amendment No. 100 is extremely wide. For example, it includes any activity undertaken in furtherance of earning an income from the land. That could mean almost anything. Arguably, it could cover development—for example, if a farmer were diversifying—and only a short step would be needed to take account of the potential for building housing estates or out-of-town shopping centres.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

The Minister may be technically right, but clearly that is not part of the impact that we would expect. I take him back to the welcome news that he is prepared to consider amendments Nos. 86 and 87. For the purposes of how we proceed, did he say that he will accept them?

Chris Mullin (Labour, Sunderland South)

No. I said that we will consider them, without commitment, at this stage. However, the hon. Gentleman knows that we have a good track record of taking on board points made by Conservative Members. I hope that he will bear that in mind when he comes to consider how he should proceed. It is our view that the amendments would be consistent with the new sections on the breeding of horses. In so far as the amendments relate to nature conservation, section 29 will be amended by the Bill so as to require authorities to have regard to the conservation of nature and landscape. That complements section 11 of the Countryside Act 1968, which requires public bodies to have regard to the desirability of conserving the natural beauty and amenity of the countryside in the exercise of their functions. Natural beauty is defined as including nature conservation. There has to be a limit on the number of matters that councils are required to consider when making public paths. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree with that when he reflects on it. We are almost at that limit and, although I am willing to consider amendments Nos. 86 and 87, I hope that he will not press amendments Nos. 99 and 100. Amendment No. 214 is essentially a technical amendment that forms part of the mechanism for determining appeals arising from the new right of landowners and occupiers to apply for orders to divert footpaths and bridleways that pass over their land and for school proprietors to apply for diversions of rights of way that cross school grounds to protect staff and pupils. Amendment No. 271, which arises from an amendment moved in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), would ensure that charges cannot be imposed under current legislation for members of the public to inspect registers of applications for certain stopping-up and diversion orders, which councils will be required to keep under new section 121B(5) of the Highways Act 1980.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I want to comment briefly on amendment No. 72 as nothing has been said about it from the Conservative Benches. I am as much a walker as the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), but I am wholeheartedly against the amendment for three reasons. First, it would not prevent frivolous and vexatious applications. Secondly, landowners would have to respond to such applications. That would cost them money and I am thoroughly against imposing new charges on farmers and landowners. Thirdly, I find it incompatible with my concept of private property, which we sometimes seem to be in danger of losing sight of in these debates. I say to the Under-Secretary that, although I do not always agree with him—indeed, I usually do not agree with him—I robustly endorse his rejection of the amendment.

Andrew Bennett (Labour, Denton and Reddish)

I am not particularly happy with the Minister's reply, but perhaps we can pursue the matter further when we discuss new clause 2. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

I beg to move amendment No. 228, in page 51, line 2, leave out from "(f)" to first "a" in line 4.

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendment No. 229. Amendment No. 59, in page 52, line 17, leave out from beginning to end of line 30 on page 53. Government amendment No. 230. Amendment No. 113, in page 52, line 19, leave out "footpath or bridleway", and insert "relevant highway". Amendment No. 39, in page 52, line 19, leave out from "is" to second "area" in line 20 and insert "in their". Amendment No. 114, in page 52, line 19, leave out "both". Amendment No. 115, in page 52, line 20, leave out— 'and in a designated urban area' Government amendments Nos. 231 and 232. Amendment No. 116, in page 52, line 24, leave out "footpath or bridleway" and insert "relevant highway". Government amendments Nos. 233 to 235. Amendment No. 117, in page 52, line 35, leave out "footpath or bridleway" and insert "relevant highway". Amendment No. 118, in page 52, line 36, leave out "footpath or bridleway" and insert "relevant highway". Government amendments Nos. 236 to 238. Amendment No. 119, in page 53, line 27, at end insert— '(8A) In this section "relevant highway" has the meaning given in section 119D(2).'. Government amendment No. 239. Amendment No. 77, in page 53, line 29, leave out from "State" to end of line 30 and insert "under section 121F below". Amendment No. 60, in page 53, line 31, leave out "118C" and insert "118B". Government amendment No. 240. Amendment No. 120, in page 53, line 34, leave out "footpath or bridleway" and insert "relevant highway". Government amendment No. 241. Amendment No. 121, in page 55, line 28, leave out "footpath or bridleway" and insert "relevant highway". Amendment No. 92, in page 55, line 28, leave out from "footpath" to "that" in line 32 and insert— ', bridleway or restricted byway which is in their area, it is expedient, in the interests of preventing or reducing crime,'. Amendment No. 41, in page 55, line 28, leave out from "is" to second "area" in line 29 and insert "in their". Amendment No. 122, in page 55, line 28, leave out "both". Amendment No. 123, in page 55, line 29, leave out— 'and in a designated urban area'. Government amendments Nos. 242 and 243. Amendment No. 124, in page 55, line 35, leave out "footpath or bridleway" and insert "relevant highway". Government amendments Nos. 244 to 246. Amendment No. 125, in page 55, line 49, leave out "footpath or bridleway" and insert "relevant highway". Government amendment No. 247. Amendment No. 126, in page 56, line 3, leave out "footpath or bridleway" and insert "relevant highway". Government amendments Nos. 248 to 250. Amendment No. 75, in page 56, line 20, at end insert— ', and which is substantially as convenient to the public'. Government amendments Nos. 251 and 252. Amendment No. 76, in page 56, line 54, at end insert— '(e) the relative convenience to the public of the existing path or way and the proposed new right of way, and (f) the effect which the diversion would have on public enjoyment of the path or way as a whole.'. Government amendments Nos. 253 to 255. Amendment No. 127, in page 57, line 17, leave out "footpath or bridleway" and insert "relevant highway". Amendment No. 128, in page 57, line 21, at end insert— '(12A) In this section "relevant highway" has the meaning given in section 119D(2)'. Amendment No. 42, in page 57, leave out lines 22 and 23. Amendment No. 78, in page 57, line 23, leave out "118B(9) above" and insert "121F below". Government amendment No. 256. Amendment No. 129, in page 57, line 27, leave out "footpath or bridleway" and insert "relevant highway". Government amendment No. 257. Amendment No. 130, in page 57, line 30, leave out "footpath or bridleway" and insert "relevant highway". Government amendments Nos. 258 to 262, 265 to 270 and 272. Amendment No. 79, in page 69, line 17, at end insert—

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

I shall try to make the length of my speech inversely proportionate to that of the list of amendments. Government amendments Nos. 228 to 262, 265 to 270 and 272 arise from commitments that we gave in Committee to consider amendments tabled by the hon. Members for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), for Ashford (Mr. Green), for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) and for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown)—in other words, a wide range of interests—that related to the provisions in new sections 118B and 119B for the closure or diversion of footpaths and bridleways to prevent crime in certain areas and to increase school security. The core amendments have four main effects. First, amendments Nos. 230, 235, 241 and 246 deal with the powers to close rights of way in certain areas to prevent or reduce crime. In Committee, Conservative Members argued that those powers should not be confined to designated urban areas but should be available throughout England and Wales. As I made clear in Committee, the principal threats that the powers are intended to counter arise from the use of back alleys in built-up areas to gain access to premises. However, we accept that confining those powers to urban areas could exclude any smaller settlements in rural areas where there may be a case for them to be available. The amendments would therefore remove the word "urban", enabling the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales to designate any area in which it appears to them that the powers should be available.

David Kidney (Labour, Stafford)

I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way, but he has hurt my feelings by not mentioning the many amendments to which I spoke in Committee on closing footpaths to prevent crime. The piece de resistance concerned the process of designating an area in which closures and diversions could take place. From my initial reading of that great list of Government amendments, I cannot see how my right hon. Friend intends to go about designating areas Will he refer to that?

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

I certainly will, and I apologise to my hon. Friend because, entirely as he said, he did a great deal of work in Committee, particularly on that issue, and I am grateful for it. Indeed, the Government amendments reflect his input and I shall immediately explain what we are doing to designate. Secondly, the same amendments clarify the grounds on which orders in designated areas may be made. They make it clear that these powers are intended to be used only where persistent and high levels of crime against properties next to a right of way are being generated by the access that the right of way gives. The powers to close or divert rights of way through school grounds to protect children and staff already apply to all schools in England and Wales, but, by their nature, these powers are site specific. Thirdly, in line with the sites of special scientific interest provisions, the amendments provide that the powers under new sections 118B and 119B should lie with local highway authorities. Schools will also be able to apply for orders in respect of restricted byways and byways open to all traffic just as the Bill will enable them to make applications in respect of footpaths and bridleways. The remainder of the Government amendments in the group that I mentioned are consequential, or make minor drafting improvements. Amendments Nos. 39, 41, 114, 115, 122 and 123 would make the powers to close or divert rights of way to prevent crime available throughout England and Wales. The key question is whether closing a right of way is an effective way of tackling crime in an area where criminals have a variety of means of gaining access to premises. That is the central issue with which we should be concerned. The public interest in reducing crime, which is considerable, has to be weighed against the public interest in losing a right of way. It is assessing that balance that has weighed with us. It is worth noting that a consultation paper on road traffic law that was issued by the previous Government expressed the view that it is neither desirable nor appropriate for crime prevention to become a reason in itself for the permanent closure of rights of way. That is an important statement. By contrast, we have accepted that there may be a case for doing so in certain circumstances, but there needs to be strict safeguards and that is why we are insisting on a targeted approach—that is, a designation of areas. Amendments Nos. 59 and 60 would remove the power to close rights of way to prevent crime and to protect children and staff in schools. The Bill already requires that, before closure should be contemplated, the local authority should consider whether there is a reasonably convenient alternative route and, if not, whether it would be reasonably practicable to divert the right of way. There may be cases—for example, in densely populated areas—where diversion is not an option. We have introduced those crime-prevention powers only because we are persuaded that it is necessary for them to be available in certain circumstances as an additional weapon against crime. The provisions have been tailored to ensure, as far as it is possible to do so, that the powers are not abused and will not lead to widespread loss of rights of way, which are important to law-abiding people who use them. Amendments Nos. 75 and 76 would introduce additional conditions to the making of a diversion order. Those reflect similar conditions relating to the convenience of the public and their enjoyment of the right of way in question. The tests would make it more difficult to divert a right of way to prevent crime or to protect a school. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) and my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) had that in mind, but there are associated problems. One problem is whether, in view of the reasons for the diversion powers, it is appropriate to have additional tests. The second is that, given our view that there should also be powers to close rights of way for those purposes, we do not want to make it more difficult to divert a right of way. If we raise the tests on a diversion, a local authority may feel that it has no option but to go for closure. I am sure that that is not what my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend intended. Amendments Nos. 79, 77 and 78, which are consequential, would introduce an additional layer into the decision-making process, to consider whether a right of way should be closed or diverted to prevent crime. As I said in Committee, such additional procedures are not necessary. We shall be consulting widely with local authorities and other bodies in designating areas in which the new powers are to be available. Given our additional amendments to the grounds on which orders may be made, I believe that there are sufficient safeguards in the system to ensure that thorough scrutiny will be undertaken before a right of way is closed or diverted for crime prevention purposes. I have carefully considered what my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend said, but I hope that, in the light of the reasons that I have given, they will not press their amendments.

Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)

It would be churlish of me not to welcome the Minister's conversion. Therefore, I do so. It is a genuine step forward. The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), made the point that the Government have accepted many of the minor improvements that we have suggested, but that is the most significant change in the Bill so far. We should welcome it and we do. The Minister was slightly scraping the barrel in going back to a consultation document on transport that was issued by the previous Government. We do not have to go that far back to find some interesting views. We have merely to go back to the Committee stage, when he said in opposing the amendments that we tabled to bring about this happy coincidence: There is no case for the powers to apply beyond urban areas … It is a question of targeting: we do not have the resources that we would all like to put into the police force. Risks of vandalism, burglary and vehicle-related theft were also lower for retail and manufacturing premises in rural locations. Burglary forms a smaller proportion of crime in rural areas than it does elsewhere.—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, s16 May 2000; c. 663.] Not just I and my hon. Friends but the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) thought that the Minister was wrong. I am glad that he has joined us in rejecting those arguments, effectively saying—as the Government amendments, as well as our own, do—that rural crime is every bit as important as urban crime and that, even though the incidence in terms of the sheer quantum may be less—fewer people live in rural areas, which is what makes them rural, so fewer crimes are committed there—crime can be equally distressing to those who live there. I will not attempt to deal individually with all the amendments in my name and those of my hon. Friends. There are 20 of them in the group. Essentially, they seek to equalise action to prevent rural crime and urban crime—the Government have accepted that—and to improve the definitions in the Bill by replacing the phrase "footpath or bridleway" with "relevant highway". The Minister did not particularly deal with that. We are seeking simply to add consistency. In the Bill's provisions dealing with SSSIs, "relevant highway" is the definition that is used. We think that that would be the most appropriate definition to use in this part of the Bill, too. The Minister may believe that the Government amendments cover that. If so, I would welcome some indication of that when he responds to the debate. I make two final points on what is an important group of amendments and an important concession. I note that amendment No. 239—which stands not only in my name and in those of my hon. Friends, but in the names of the hon. Members for Somerton and Frome and for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake)—has been expropriated by the addition of the Deputy Prime Minister's name to it, turning it into a Government amendment. That not only creates one of the most diverse group of bedfellows ever to appear on a Commons amendment paper, but shows admirable economy of effort on the part of the Government: they have stolen our amendments, rather than merely accepting them. However, in the interests of promoting better legislation, we are happy to lend our amendments, and our efforts to draft them, to the Government. The Minister has already asked the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) not to press his amendments. There is a wider point. The Government are, I think, rejecting one of the bad arguments presented by the Ramblers Association, which, in its briefing, expressed concern about possible moves to extend provision for the extinguishment and diversion of footpaths beyond urban areas. I think that the association was wrong about that, and I am glad that the Government now agree with us.

Andrew Bennett (Labour, Denton and Reddish)

I think that the Government are misguided. If we want to stop crime, why is it logical to specify footpaths rather than roads? In the area that I represent, far more burglars arrive at premises by road than arrive by footpath. Surely, if we want to reduce the incidence of crime, it is logical to close roads as well as footpaths—but, of course, it would be considered outrageous to give in to crime in that way. When people have been burgled, they feel helpless. They want to blame someone, and they cannot necessarily kick the cat. The police tend to send an officer round—perhaps a crime prevention officer, and often a young officer. That officer will of course be tempted to agree with the distressed householder, and say, "Isn't it terrible—the burglars climbed over the back fence from the footpath." The blame is somehow shifted from the criminal to the footpath. The Government are raising people's hopes by suggesting that closing footpaths will cut crime. That is nonsense. It is possible that, when a footpath is closed, a criminal will go to a different house, or will enter through the front rather than the back door; but I do not believe that closing footpaths will reduce crime in most instances. Indeed, in my area and, I suspect, that represented by the Minister, it may make life easier for criminals. In the case of many closed footpaths, there will not be barbed wire everywhere making access impossible. Sometimes foot patrols are introduced. It does not happen often, but it happens a little in my constituency and the Minister's. The other day, a young officer told me that one way of cutting crime is to walk down unattractive passageways. Officers on the beat are looking for crime, but when the passageways have been closed they will have to obey the law that says that they cannot go on to private property unless they are invited, or can prove that a crime is occurring. They will no longer be able to nip along the passageway to see what mischief is going on; they will have to be certain that some mischief is going on before they can investigate the problem. If we are to do anything at all, we should concentrate on diversion. In particular, we should consider diversions where new housing estates have been built. I can think of two cases in my constituency, and one in the Minister's, in which, to get the maximum number of properties on to new sites, builders arranged for footpaths to be diverted so that they went in at a right angle, went along behind some of the houses, and went out again at a right angle. That meant that there was a small area at the back that no one could look through—not a nice area for people to walk through when going to and from the shops. It is a pocket in which crime can occur. I hope that the Minister will consider both the points that I have made. First, closing a footpath makes it even less likely that a police officer will go along it, secondly, in the event of a diversion, it should be incumbent on the local authority agreeing to that diversion to take crime prevention measures to ensure that, once diverted, the footpath is less likely to encourage crime than it would have been if diverted in a slightly different way. The Minister is raising expectations that, by taking away rights to footpaths, he will somehow have a significant impact on crime. He is giving way to pressure—to the suggestion that it is not possible to tackle the real issue, which is the criminal, so something should be done about footpaths. In practice, that will not work.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I, too, welcome the Minister's conversion to the cause. I am glad that the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) drew attention to amendment No. 239. I was not remotely miffed to find that he and his hon. Friends had added their names to our amendment, and I am even more pleased to see it nationalised, although perhaps without compensation. I may have to look to my lawyers, if yesterday's debate is anything to go by. The most important thing is the loss of the urban designation, which I think discriminated against rural areas. The Minister met with something of a rural backlash in Committee. The argument with which he was provided—that because there was a lower overall crime rate in rural areas, measures that might help to fight crime should not be applied there—was not entirely convincing. I am glad that he has seen the strength of the opposing argument. Let me give at least a partial answer to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). As I said in Committee, I hope that the power will be used sparingly. There will be few occasions on which it proves to be the right answer. The Government have seen the wisdom of requiring its use to comply with the locally derived crime and disorder strategy, which is a strong point in its favour. If it can help at all, let us support it. I thank the Minister for his helpful letter about the definition of "school". I understand that there is a provision to enable the definition of a primary school to encompass nursery schools, although it does not encompass the pre-school facilities, playgroups and other nursery provision with which I was concerned in Committee. I accept what the Minister said in his letter about why it would be difficult to formulate legislation encompassing all the different species. I understand that alternative arrangements can be used, and I am grateful to the Minister for taking the trouble to cover the points that I raised.

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

It is always a cause of concern when changes made by the Government are solidly welcomed by the phalanxes of the Opposition, and rejected only by our own side. However, I believe that the welcome is justified. I shall try to persuade my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) of that, or at least to placate him a little. The hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) asked about the meaning of "relevant highway". The Government amendments extend the provisions to cover restricted byways and BOATs; the effect is the same as that of the Opposition amendments. My hon. Friend asked whether the closure of footpaths would be affected in combating crime. I went to great lengths to make it clear that any diversions should be carefully restricted. I repeat that the powers are intended to be used only where persistent and high levels of crime against properties next to a right of way are being generated by the access that that right of way gives. Those are quite limiting conditions: they are not at all the basis for widespread diversions. I also said that the Bill requires that, before closures are contemplated, the local authority should consider whether there is a reasonably convenient alternative route. If there is no such route, the authority must consider whether it would be reasonably practicable to divert the right of way. My hon. Friend laid down two conditions for me. In answer to his first point, it seems slightly odd and rather double-edged to argue that footpaths assist burglars and criminals but that we ought to keep them open so that police officers can get to areas where they are likely to find and arrest burglars. However, I was also asked to consider whether footpaths should be diverted only where there is good reason to believe that to do so would be likely to reduce crime. I share the concern expressed by my hon. Friend that the power that we are giving should not be used to provide indiscriminate opportunities for the closure of footpaths for other reasons that may be convenient to other parties. Use of the power has to be justified on the basis that it would have—or could reasonably be expected to have—a significant impact on crime.

Andrew Bennett (Labour, Denton and Reddish)

How do we reverse the process if crime is not reduced?

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

If use of the power does not reduce crime, and there is a strong wish to restore a right of way or footpath, there is no reason why it cannot be restored. Local highways authorities are expected to make available plans for improvements to rights of ways. It is unlikely that the problem described by my hon. Friend would occur. However, if it was decided that an unwise decision had been made, that decision is certainly not irreversible.

Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)

I am slightly worried that the Minister may be falling into a trap laid for him by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish. It would be extraordinary if crime in rural areas were reduced by this measure. Crime is rising so fast in rural areas that any reduction in the increase would go against the trend of the past three years and would be an achievement in itself. The measure would be a success if it did no more than contribute to such a reduction. The Minister should not be required to defend a non-reduction in crime. Policies for which he has no responsibility are contributing to the rise in crime in rural areas.

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

Virgil wrote: Timeo danaos et dona ferentes. That can be translated as, "I fear the Greeks even when they are bearing gifts." The hon. Gentleman should not over-egg his argument. As I said in Committee, the level of burglaries in rural areas is only about a third of that in urban areas. It is true that the crime rate continues to rise in some areas, but it is doing so more slowly than over the past two decades. The question is whether this is a sensible anti-crime measure. If it is not and does not meet the strict criteria that I have laid down, I do not believe that it will be pursued. It is certainly my intention that it should not be. Amendment agreed to. 6.45 pm Amendments made: No. 229, in page 51, line 6, after second "of" insert— 'a special diversion order or'. No. 230, in page 52, line 19, leave out from "that" to "of' in line 21 and insert— 'as respects any relevant highway for which they are the highway authority and which is in an area designated by the Secretary of State by order for the purposes of this section, the conditions in subsection (1B) below are satisfied and it is expedient, for the purpose'. No. 231, in page 52, line 23, leave out "path or way" and insert "highway". No. 232, in page 52, line 24, leave out— 'footpath or bridleway in their area' and insert— 'relevant highway for which they are the highway authority and'. No. 233, in page 52, line 26, leave out "in the interests" and insert "for the purpose". No. 234, in page 52, line 34, leave out "path or way" and insert "highway". No. 235, in page 52, leave out lines 35 to 37 and insert— '(1A) In subsection (1) above "relevant highway" means— (a) any footpath, bridleway or restricted byway, (b) any highway which is shown in a definitive map and statement as a footpath, a bridleway, or a restricted byway, but over which the public have a right of way for vehicular and all other kinds of traffic, or (c) any highway which is shown in a definitive map and statement as a byway open to all traffic, but does not include a highway that is a trunk road or a special road. (1B) The conditions referred to in subsection (1)(a) above are— (a) that premises adjoining or adjacent to the highway are affected by high levels of crime, and (b) that the existence of the highway is facilitating the persistent commission of criminal offences.'. No. 236, in page 52, line 41, leave out "path or way" and insert "highway". No. 237, in page 52, line 45, leave out "path or way" and insert "highway". No. 238, in page 52, line 47, leave out from beginning to end of page 53, line 19 and insert— '(6) The Secretary of State shall not confirm a special extinguishment order made by virtue of subsection (1)(a) above, and a council shall not confirm such an order as an opposed order, unless he or, as the case may be, they are satisfied that the conditions in subsection (1B) above are satisfied, that the stopping up of the highway is expedient as mentioned in subsection (1)(a) above and that it is expedient to confirm the order having regard to all the circumstances, and in particular to— (a) whether and, if so, to what extent the order is consistent with any strategy for the reduction of crime and disorder prepared under section 6 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, (b) the availability of a reasonably convenient alternative route or, if no reasonably convenient alternative route is available, whether it would be reasonably practicable to divert the highway under section 119B below rather than stopping it up, and (c) the effect which the extinguishment of the right of way would have as respects land served by the highway, account being taken of the provisions as to compensation contained in section 28 above as applied by section 121(2) below. (6A) The Secretary of State shall not confirm a special extinguishment order made by virtue of subsection (1)(b) above, and a council shall not confirm such an order as an opposed order unless he or, as the case may be, they are satisfied that the stopping up of the highway is expedient as mentioned in subsection (1)(b) above and that it is expedient to confirm the order having regard to all the circumstances, and in particular to— (a) any other measures that have been or could be taken for improving or maintaining the security of the school, (b) whether it is likely that the coming into operation of the order will result in a substantial improvement in that security, (c) the availability of a reasonably convenient alternative route or, if no reasonably convenient alternative route is available, whether it would be reasonably practicable to divert the highway under section 119B below rather than stopping it up, and (d) the effect which the extinguishment of the right of way would have as respects land served by the highway, account being taken of the provisions as to compensation contained in section 28 above as applied by section 121(2) below.'. No. 239, in page 53, leave out lines 28 to 30. No. 240, in page 53, line 31, leave out from "council" to end of line 35 and insert— 'for the making by virtue of section 118B(1)(b) above of a special extinguishment order in relation to any highway for which the council are the highway authority and which— (a) crosses land occupied for the purposes of the school, and (b) is a relevant highway as defined by section 118B(1A) above.'. No. 241, in page 55, line 28, leave out from "that" to "of' in line 30 and insert— 'as respects any relevant highway for which they are the highway authority and which is in an area designated by the Secretary of State by order under section 118B(1)(a) above, the conditions in subsection (1B) below are satisfied and it is expedient, for the purpose'. No. 242, in page 55, line 32, leave out "path or way" and insert— 'highway, or part of that line'. No. 243, in page 55, line 35, leave out— 'footpath or bridleway in their area' and insert— 'relevant highway for which they are the highway authority and'. No. 244, in page 55, line 37, leave out "in the interests" and insert "for the purpose". No. 245, in page 55, line 45, leave out "path or way" and insert "highway". No. 246, in page 55, leave out lines 48 to 50 and insert— '(1A) In subsection (1) above "relevant highway" means— (a) any footpath, bridleway or restricted byway, (b) any highway which is shown in a definitive map and statement as a footpath, a bridleway, or a restricted byway, but over which the public have a right of way for vehicular and all other kinds of traffic, or (c) any highway which is shown in a definitive map and statement as a byway open to all traffic, but does not include a highway that is a trunk road or a special road. (1B) The conditions referred to in subsection (1)(a) above are— (a) that premises adjoining or adjacent to the highway are affected by high levels of crime, and (b) that the existence of the highway is facilitating the persistent commission of criminal offences.'. No. 247, in page 56, line 3, leave out from "such" to "as" and insert— '(i) new footpath, bridleway or restricted byway, or (ii) in a case falling within subsection (1A)(b) or (c) above, new highway over which the public have a right of way for vehicular and all other kinds of traffic,'. No. 248, in page 56, line 7, leave out "path or way" and insert "highway". No. 249, in page 56, line 13, leave out "path or way" and insert "highway". No. 250, in page 56, line 16, leave out "path or way" and insert "highway". No. 251, in page 56, line 31, leave out "and" and insert "or". No. 252, in page 56, leave out lines 33 to 57 and insert— (9) The Secretary of State shall not confirm a special diversion order made by virtue of subsection (1)(a) above, and a council shall not confirm such an order as an opposed order unless he or, as the case may be, they are satisfied that the conditions in subsection (1B) above are satisfied, that the diversion of the highway is expedient as mentioned in subsection (1)(a) above and that it is expedient to confirm the order having regard to all the circumstances, and in particular to— (a) whether and, if so, to what extent the order is consistent with any strategy for the reduction of crime and disorder prepared under section 6 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, (b) the effect which the coming into operation of the order would have as respects land served by the existing public right of way, and (c) the effect which any new public right of way created by the order would have as respects the land over which the right is so created and any land held with it, so, however, that for the purposes of paragraphs (b) and (c) above the Secretary of State or, as the case may be, the council shall take into account the provisions as to compensation contained in section 28 above as applied by section 121(2) below. (9A) The Secretary of State shall not confirm a special diversion order made by virtue of subsection (1)(b) above, and a council shall not confirm such an order as an opposed order unless he or, as the case may be, they are satisfied that the diversion of the highway is expedient as mentioned in subsection (1)(b) above and that it is expedient to confirm the order having regard to all the circumstances, and in particular to— (a) any other measures that have been or could be taken for improving or maintaining the security of the school, (b) whether it is likely that the coming into operation of the order will result in a substantial improvement in that security, (c) the effect which the coming into operation of the order would have as respects land served by the existing public right of way, and (d) the effect which any new public right of way created by the order would have as respects the land over which the right is so created and any land held with it, so, however, that for the purposes of paragraphs (c) and (d) above the Secretary of State or, as the case may be, the council shall take into account the provisions as to compensation contained in section 28 above as applied by section 121(2) below.'. No. 253, in page 57, line 5, leave out "path or way" and insert "highway". No. 254, in page 57, line 9, leave out "footpath or bridleway" and insert "highway". No. 255, in page 57, leave out lines 16 to 23 and insert— '(12) Section 27 above (making up of new footpaths and bridleways) applies to a highway created by a special diversion order with the substitution— (a) for references to a footpath or bridleway of references to a footpath, a bridleway, a restricted byway or a highway over which the public have a right of way for vehicular and all other kinds of traffic, (b) for references to a public path creation order of references to a special diversion order, and (c) for references to section 26(2) above of references to section 120(3) below. (13) Neither section 27 nor 36 above is to be regarded as obliging a highway authority to provide— (a) on any highway created by a special diversion order, a metalled carriage—way, or (b) on a restricted byway so created, a carriage—way which is by any other means provided with a surface suitable for the passage of mechanically propelled vehicles."'. No. 256, in page 57, line 24, leave out from "council" to end of line 28 and insert— 'for the making by virtue of section 119B(1)(b) above of a special diversion order in relation to any highway for which the council are the highway authority and which— (a) crosses land occupied for the purposes of the school, and (b) is a relevant highway as defined by section 119B(1A) above.'. No. 257, in page 57, line 30, leave out "footpath or bridleway" and insert "highway". No. 258, in page 57, line 47, leave out— 'where the council are the highway authority for the path or way' and insert— 'to the extent that the council are the highway authority for the highway'. No. 259, in page 57, line 49, leave out "path or way" and insert "highway". No. 260, in page 57, line 51, leave out "where" and insert "to the extent that". No. 261, in page 58, line 3, after "substitution" insert "(a)". No. 262, in page 58, line 4, after second "order" insert "and (b) for references to a footpath or bridleway of references to a highway'.—[Mr. Meacher]

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

I beg to move amendment No. 43, in page 58, line 16, leave out "significant damage" and insert "damage or disturbance".

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendment No. 263. Amendment No. 44, in page 58, line 22, after "damage", insert "or disturbance". Government amendment No. 213. Amendment No. 80, in page 59, line 39, after "that", insert— 'the path or way will not be substantially less convenient to the public in consequence of the diversion and that'.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

The amendments have two main purposes—to ensure that disturbance to birds caused by people walking down highways can be a reason for making a site of special scientific interest diversion order, and to ensure consistency between schedules. I shall take the second purpose first. Paragraph 28F of schedule 8 refers to "damage", whereas paragraph 119D of schedule 6 refers to "significant damage". The amendments would ensure that the reference in both cases would be to "damage". I turn now to the first purpose of the amendments. A briefing from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds gives three specific examples of the impact that disturbance can have on birds. It reports that a footpath runs along the top of a flood defence bank by the Ouse washes in Cambridgeshire, and that people on the bank are clearly visible to wintering, passage and breeding waders and wildfowl. A local tourism group proposes to use the bank as part of the Black Fen path. The RSPB believe that walkers on the bank who appear above the skyline will disturb birds on what is a site of special scientific interest. A similar problem is reported at a place called Deadman's Grave, situated near the Norfolk/Suffolk border. The RSPB states that a footpath running through the area is likely to cause disturbance to breeding birds. It is clear from case studies provided by the RSPB that birds can be disturbed at the sites mentioned in the briefing. There is therefore a need to ensure that the Bill takes account of both damage and disturbance. The RSPB states that, unless the amendment is accepted and the word "disturbance" is included in the Bill, it will not be possible to provide the special protection areas for birds required under the EU birds directive. If the Minister does not accept the amendments, I hope that he will explain why he is happy with the discrepancy between schedules 6 and 8 that I have already described. If the word "disturbance" is not included in the Bill, will he say whether the Government will be able to comply with the EU birds directive?

David Kidney (Labour, Stafford)

I wish to raise the issue of the convenience of walkers in connection with amendment No. 80. Will any alternative route that is the result of a diversion be as convenient for walkers as it can be, bearing in mind the need for the diversion in the first place?

Chris Mullin (Labour, Sunderland South)

Amendments Nos. 43 and 44 would modify the new section 119D(1) in schedule 6 so as to enable highway authorities to make SSSI diversion orders in cases where "disturbance", as well as "damage", is resulting or is likely to result from use of a right of way. While I am sympathetic to the concerns about species being disturbed, we are not willing to accept the amendments. The rights of way network and the SSSI regime have co-existed for a considerable period of time and—the two examples mentioned by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) notwithstanding—we do not believe that the use of rights of way causes significant problems in terms of disturbance to SSSIs. We see no grounds for including that as a reason for diverting a right of way to protect an SSSI, nor do we believe that it is necessary to meet obligations under the EC birds and habitats directive. In our view, the current test for a diversion, which is that use of the right of way is causing or is likely to cause significant damage to the site, provides all the protection needed. It might be possible to argue that there are cases in which disturbance to the protected features of an SSSI is of such a type, or such a degree, that it would amount to "significant damage". The examples cited by the hon. Gentleman might come into that category. In such cases, the test would be met and a diversion order could be made. However, I have to stress that we think that such cases are likely to be very rare indeed. Where the disturbance is temporary—for example, during the breeding season—it might be more appropriate to make a traffic regulation order rather than a diversion order. Again, we think that the powers should be used only rarely for this purpose. Amendment No. 80 would prevent a right of way from being diverted to protect an SSSI if the diverted way were substantially less convenient to the public. The amendment closely resembles one tabled in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), along with others that also sought to introduce a similar test of convenience for special diversion and special extinguishment orders for crime prevention and school security. The amendment goes in the opposite direction from those tabled by the hon. Members for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) and for Carshalton and Wallington. Taken together, the amendments are a clear illustration of the conflicting objectives that we have to reconcile. As we explained in Committee, we believe that in order to ensure against a possible breach of our obligations under the EC birds and habitats directive, the making of SSSI diversion orders cannot be made conditional on the diverted way being as convenient as the existing way.

Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)

In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) asked how many traffic regulation orders had been made in the past three years. I believe that the Minister promised to let my hon. Friend and the Committee know. Is that information yet available?

Chris Mullin (Labour, Sunderland South)

It is not available at the moment, but should it become available in the course of my remarks I shall ensure that it is smuggled to the hon. Gentleman. It may be that in some cases, in order to prevent significant damage to an SSSI, a right of way may have to be diverted in a manner that is less convenient than the existing right of way. As I have said, we believe the powers should be used only rarely, but if it is necessary to use them, we must be sure that they are effective in meeting EC obligations when those are involved. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) and the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington will feel able to withdraw their amendments. Government amendment No. 213 will remove the need for an SSSI diversion to be as substantially convenient to the public. It is necessary to ensure consistency with subsection (9) of new section 119D which, unlike section 119 of the Highways Act 1980, does not require that, before a diversion order can be confirmed, the confirming authority must be satisfied that the diversions will not be substantially less convenient to the public—that is for the reasons I have explained in relation to amendment No. 80. Government amendment No. 263 is a minor technical amendment which ensures that, in line with existing diversion powers, the SSSI provisions relate to the line or part of the line of a right of way. News has reached me in relation to the point raised by the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green), but I would not wish to raise the hopes of the hon. Member for Cotswold, because it says only that a letter is on its way. I am sorry to have to keep him in suspense.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

I am happy not to press the amendments to a vote, but I shall provide the Minister with some additional information on disturbance for him to consider before the Bill goes to the other place. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Amendments made: No. 263, in page 58, line 19, leave out "highway" and insert— 'line of the highway, or part of that line'. No. 213, in page 59, line 6, leave out from "it" to end of line 7. No. 264, in page 60, leave out lines 8 and 9. No. 265, in page 60, leave out lines 35 to 40. No. 266, in page 61, line 52, leave out ""to 119B"' and insert— '", 118A,, 119 and 119A"'. No. 267, in page 61, line 52, at end insert— '(2A) After that subsection there is inserted— (1A) Where a council are the highway authority for only part of a highway, the powers conferred on the council by sections 118B, 119B and 119D above are exercisable with respect to the whole of the highway, but subject to subsection (2) and only with the consent of every other council which is a highway authority for any other part with respect to which the powers are exercised."'. No. 268, in page 62, line 32, leave out "path or way" and insert "highway". No. 269, in page 63, line 44, after "order"" insert "wherever occurring". No. 270, in page 64, line 5, after "to" insert— 'special extinguishment orders, special diversion orders and'. No. 271, in page 66, line 5, after "public" insert "free of charge". No. 214, in page 67, line 46, at end insert— '(2A) Where an appeal to the Secretary of State is brought under section 121D(1) above, the Secretary of State may not make or confirm a public path diversion order or special diversion order if it appears to him that— (a) work is necessary— (i) to bring the new highway created by the order into a fit condition for use by the public, or (ii) to provide necessary facilities for the convenient exercise of the new public right of way, (b) if the order were made, the work could not be carried out by the highway authority without— (i) the consent of another person, or (ii) any authorisation (however described) which is required by or under any enactment, and (c) the consent or authorisation has not been obtained.'. No. 272, in page 69, line 11, leave out "path or way" and insert "highway".—[Mr. Meacher

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

I beg to move amendment No. 215, in page 69, line 17, at end insert— '. After section 135 of the 1980 Act there is inserted— "Temporary diversion for dangerous works 135A.—(1) Where works of a prescribed description are likely to cause danger to users of a footpath or bridleway which passes over any land, the occupier of the land may, subject to the provisions of this section, temporarily divert the footpath or bridleway. (2) A person may not under this section divert any part of a footpath or bridleway if— (a) the period or periods for which that part has been diverted under this section, and (b) the period or periods for which any other part of the same footpath or bridleway passing over land occupied by him has been diverted under this section, amount in aggregate to more than five days in any one calendar year. (3) Where a person diverts a footpath or bridleway under this section— (a) he shall do so in a manner which is reasonably convenient for the exercise of the public right of way, and (b) where the diversion is by means of a temporary footpath or bridleway, he shall so indicate the line of the temporary footpath or bridleway on the ground to not less than the minimum width that it is apparent to members of the public wishing to use it. (4) This section does not authorise a person to divert a footpath or bridleway on to land not occupied by him without the consent of the occupier of that land and of any other person whose consent is needed to obtain access to it. (5) The person by whom a footpath or bridleway is diverted under this section shall— (a) at least fourteen days before the commencement of the diversion, give notice of the diversion in accordance with subsection (6) below, (b) at least seven days before the commencement of the diversion, publish notice of the diversion in a local newspaper circulating in the area in which the footpath or bridleway is situated, and (c) displays such notices as may be prescribed at such places, in such manner and at such times before or during the diversion as may be prescribed. (6) Notice under subsection (5)(a) above shall be given— (a) to the highway authority for the footpath or bridleway, (b) if the footpath or bridleway is on or contiguous with access land in England, to the Countryside Agency, and (c) if the footpath or bridleway is on or contiguous with access land in Wales, to the Countryside Council for Wales. (7) A notice under subsection (5)(a), (b) or (c) above shall be in such form and contain such information as may be prescribed. (8) If a person— (a) in a notice which purports to comply with the requirements of subsection (5)(a) or (b) above, makes a statement which he knows to be false in a material particular, (b) by a notice displayed on or near a footpath or bridleway, falsely purports to be authorised under this section to divert the footpath or bridleway, or (c) in diverting a footpath or bridleway under this section, fails to comply with subsection (3) above, he shall be guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale. (9) In this section— access land" has the same meaning as in Part I of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000; minimum width" in relation to a temporary footpath or bridleway, means the minimum width, within the meaning of Schedule 12A to this Act, of the footpath or bridleway diverted; prescribed" means prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State. Temporary diversion for dangerous works: restrictions 135B.—(1) The person by whom a footpath or bridleway is diverted under section 135A above shall, before the diversion ceases to be authorised by that section, make good any damage to the footpath or bridleway resulting from the works mentioned in subsection (1) of that section, and remove from the footpath or bridleway any obstruction resulting from those works. (2) Any person who fails to comply with the duty imposed on him by subsection (1) above is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale. (3) The highway authority may make good any damage, or remove any obstruction, in respect of which any person has failed to comply with that duty and recover from that person the amount of any expenses reasonably incurred by them in or in connection with doing so. (4) Paragraph 3(1) of Schedule 12A to this Act does not apply in relation to any disturbance of the surface of a footpath or bridleway which subsection (1) above requires any person to make good; but paragraphs 7 and 8 of that Schedule apply for the purposes of subsection (3) above as if— (a) references to the authority were references to the highway authority, (b) references to the work were references to work carried out under subsection (3) above in relation to a footpath or bridleway, and (c) references to the relevant land were references to the land over which the footpath or bridleway passes. (5) The diversion of a footpath or bridleway under section 135A above does not— (a) affect the liability of any person for anything done in relation to the path or way otherwise than for the purposes of or in consequence of the works mentioned in subsection (1) of that section, or (b) authorise any interference with the apparatus or works of any statutory undertakers. (6) Without prejudice to section 130 (protection of public rights of way) above, it is the duty of the highway authority to enforce the provisions of section 135A and this section.".'. Government amendment No. 215 gives effect to the commitment that we made on Second Reading to introduce provisions enabling land managers to divert rights of way temporarily for exceptional land management operations. Generally, we believe that temporary diversions to rights of way should be avoided as far as possible, because the public is entitled to reasonable certainty that a public right of way will be available for them to use. However, we accept that there may be instances when a diversion for a very short period—such as five days—would be a practical way to enable land managers to carry out certain operations with minimum inconvenience to the public, in particular when such operations are likely to cause danger to users of a right of way. The new provisions would enable an occupier of any land over which a footpath or bridleway passes to divert it temporarily for up to five days a year. It would not be possible to divert a right of way on to another person's land without consent. The occupier would be required to notify the local highway authority in advance, advertise the intention to divert in a local paper, and place notices showing where the diversion would run. Those are obvious, common-sense requirements. Where the right of way passed over or adjoined land to which the public would have a right of access under part I, the occupier would also have to notify the Countryside Agency or the Countryside Council for Wales. This is a limited but sensible amendment and I commend it to the House.

Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)

I have no wish to add to any problems that the Minister may have with his hon. Friends, but we think that this is a sensible improvement to the Bill. It was, as he said, raised in Committee, and it seems a sensible and practical way to deal with what could otherwise be a serious problem. Amendment agreed to. Amendment made: No. 273, in page 69, line 32, at end insert— '( ) after the definition of "cycle track" there is inserted— '"definitive map and statement" has the same meaning as in Part III of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981;";'.—[Mr. Meacher.]

RIGHTS OF WAY IMPROVEMENT PLANS

Andrew Bennett (Labour, Denton and Reddish)

I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 28, line 5, at end insert— (za) the desirability of ensuring that the overall length of local rights of way is increased during each consecutive period of 12 months beginning with the date of publication of the rights of way improvement plan'.

Andrew Bennett (Labour, Denton and Reddish)

Although I would like to think that Ministers will accept either our amendments or our new clause, I would be surprised if they did. Nevertheless, I hope that rather than leaving the Bill as it is, they will come up with a map or a set of signposts explaining how rights of way improvement plans will work. That is really the purpose of our amendments and new clause in this group. I also hope that they will give us some reassurance about the Bill's provisions on rights of way, which seem to be weighted heavily towards reducing people's right to use rights of way, rather than towards promoting that right. Amendment No. 5 provides for increased rights of way. The first argument for increasing rights of way is based on the fact that the popularity of walking as a recreational activity is increasing yearly. Currently, almost half the British population list walking as an enjoyable recreational activity. It is only logical that if ever more people are participating in walking as a recreational activity, we should provide more facilities for them to do so. Part I of the Bill makes very important provision for access to large tracts of mountain and moorland. However, although very many people enjoy walking, they want to walk only short distances. Many of those people live in urban areas, and an increasing proportion of them are elderly. Increasing the number of footpaths in urban areas is therefore an extremely important issue for those people. I hope that the Minister will consider the issue solely on the basis of demand—the number of people who walk on footpaths. Walking is also good for people's health. The Stockport health authority has even been encouraging doctors to prescribe walking and other exercise for their patients. For many people, walking is probably far more useful than the drugs that are often prescribed at considerable expense. Therefore, if we are going to encourage people to walk for their health, particularly those who are not used to walking, we will have to increase substantially the number of footpaths, especially in urban areas. That would enable people to get out and enjoy themselves. The Government have introduced an initiative to encourage schoolchildren to walk to school. The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions has even undertaken one or two pilot projects—perhaps the Minister will tell us a bit more about them—in which new routes will be created to enable children to walk safely to school. That type of project is very important. Additionally, particularly on the urban fringes, an increasing number of people are participating in horseriding. That fact strongly supports arguments for increasing the number of bridleways. In short, therefore, we need to include in the Bill a bold statement to local authorities that we expect there to be more rights of way. New clause 2 deals with the overall issue of creating new public footpaths, so that people are not forced to walk on roads. I remember that when I was a child, at school half terms, my mother took us out to walk in Cheshire, where there were some very fine rambles. Every Saturday, the Manchester Evening News recommended various walks. Now, with the number of cars on those country lanes, some of those old walks are almost impossible to do. My mother also took my young sister, who was then in a pushchair, on those walks. Now, walking on those roads would be a horrendous experience. Walkers have lost very many safe countryside walks to the motor car. In many cases, landowners can very simply solve the problem of road dangers by creating a footpath along field boundaries near roads. I can think of several examples in the Lake district where the National Trust has done an excellent job of creating paths just along field boundaries, enabling people to walk safely, rather than dangerously in the road. A key aspect of rights of way improvement plans should be to provide a real impetus to create new roadside footpaths. We also have to address seriously the issue of improving access for people with disabilities, such as those who are blind or partially sighted, or who have problems with mobility. We need to do much more work on that. We also need to examine the best way of linking up some of the traffic-calming schemes. It is logical to build new routes, especially in urban areas, to enable people to move safely from one traffic-calmed area to another. Additionally, it is often possible to include safe footpaths on the edges of new motorways and railways, so that people can cross areas safely. In our amendments in this group and the new clause, we are really pressing the Government to say not only that rights of way improvement plans are desirable, but that pressure can be applied to local authorities to ensure that rights of way are useful, and not just something mentioned in a rarely read Act.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I tabled three amendments in this group—amendments Nos. 35, 36 and 37. The Minister can very easily satisfy me about the matters that they deal with—nature conservancy, the particular requirements of SSSIs, and consultation with English Nature and the Countryside Council for Wales—simply by telling me that they will be dealt with in the advice to local authorities. However, they must be dealt with in that advice, because they are very important aspects of drawing up rights of way improvement plans. On amendment No. 37, concerning organisations prescribed by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, the Minister can reassure me by telling me that the substance of the amendment will be dealt with under Government amendment No. 298, and that the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales will prescribe those organisations in regulations. I expect that he will be able to give me that assurance, and I shall be pleased if he does. I welcome Government amendment No. 298. Finally, I should like to say a few words about the comments made by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). I entirely agree with him that if we are to have rights of way improvement plans, the Government have to give clear guidance on what is intended in the legislation, and provide some real impetus. There is a desperate need to improve the rights of way network for walkers and cyclists, and particularly for equestrians, who have very few safe places in the countryside to ride. Not only do they have to contend with traffic, but the bridleway system is lamentably poor. If rights of way improvement plans are to be effective, not only must the intentions of the legislation be clear, but there must be resources to back up those intentions. Over the years, there have been good intentions towards rights of way, but local authorities have not had the money to pay for the work to implement them. Unless the Government come forward with the money—either in local authority standard spending assessments, in stewardship schemes or in modulation directly to landowners—those intentions will not be realised. We have to have those assurances if our intentions are to be anything more than pious hopes.

David Kidney (Labour, Stafford)

I welcome Government amendment No. 297—which, astonishingly, represents another success for yours truly. Although it is a seemingly modest amendment—

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

More modest than the hon. Gentleman.

David Kidney (Labour, Stafford)

Perhaps. Nevertheless, I believe that the amendment will have very far-reaching effects. I think that it might also help to reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), because it will ensure that the Countryside Agency and the Countryside Council for Wales are consulted on every local authority's rights of way improvement plan. It is important to ensure that there is a consistent approach between different authorities. More importantly, the amendment will enable the Countryside Agency to monitor each area. That will be a useful power for Countryside Agency and the Countryside Council for Wales. They are alert to the dangers of losing parts of the network and to the need to expand the network in the way described by my hon. Friend. In being able to draw attention to the worst performers, and with the assistance, I hope, of public disapproval, they will be able to ensure that matters improve, or that the Government do something about authorities that perform badly. On the brighter side, the Countryside Agency and the Countryside Council for Wales will be well positioned to ensure that best practice is disseminated, so that all authorities can perform to the standard of the best. I am pleased that the Government have introduced this amendment as a result of the argument advanced in Committee.

Gordon Prentice (Labour, Pendle)

I shall speak briefly in support of the amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). Astonishingly, clause 51 contains no definition of "improved network". It may be self-evident what an improved network is, but the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend flesh it out and give some guidance. I am particularly interested in the re-creation of historic routes. I cannot remember whether I mentioned this in Committee, but in my constituency there is a holloway—a mediaeval road—which runs from Bracewell church to a deserted mediaeval village. The holloway has been there for about 600 years, until the present generation. It is overgrown and neglected now, and I should like local authorities to treat these historic routes seriously and open them up so that people can enjoy them again. New clause 2, also tabled by my hon. Friend, refers to the desirability of creating new public footpaths where the old one, running along a riverside or a cliff top, has been swept away or eroded. I hope that the Government will look favourably on this group of amendments. They are sensible, and would give local authorities the steer that is required.

Chris Mullin (Labour, Sunderland South)

I regret that once again I have to disappoint my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). It grieves me that I have had to do this so often during today's proceedings, because he has a long-standing and honourable record on campaigning for access to the countryside. I hope, however, that he will acknowledge that although the Bill does not go quite as far as he would like, it represents a substantial advance for the causes that he and I, along with many others, care about. As he has also campaigned for improvements in the regime affecting footpaths and bridleways, I hope that he can take some comfort from what I say, although I cannot satisfy him on everything. Amendment No. 5 would require local highway authorities to include in their rights of way improvement plans an assessment of the desirability of ensuring that the overall length of local rights of way is increased each year. Amendments Nos. 53 to 57 would require assessments of a range of other matters, each worthy in its own right. I sympathise with the intention of those amendments, in so far as we would expect local authorities, where appropriate, to include proposals in their plans for extending their networks if there was a case for doing so, and for addressing the other points—although some aspects of road safety, for example, in amendment No. 55, are covered in the Government's road safety strategy, which was published on 1 March. The key point, however, is that the proposals relating to creations and other relevant matters will flow from each authority's assessment, which clause 51(2)(a) requires it to undertake, of the extent to which local rights of way meet the present and likely future needs of the public. This is purposely a broad objective, because there are many factors to be considered in deciding what improvements to local rights of way should be made for the benefit of the public as a whole. We do not want to pre-empt the assessment process by requiring in the primary legislation that particular weight be attached to certain narrowly defined matters as opposed to others. 7.15 pm I see no advantage in identifying specific individual factors in the Bill. Indeed, there could be disadvantages; it would encourage people who believed that their interests were not represented to seek to add to the list as the Bill continues its passage through Parliament. For example, some might argue that if there is to be a separate assessment of the case for increasing the overall length of local rights of way, there should also be an assessment of the need to reduce or rationalise the network. One can foresee a longer and longer list, with some items perhaps cancelling out others. We believe that clause 51 provides all that is needed to ensure that each authority undertakes a fair and rigorous review of the current state of its local rights of way network and, on the basis of that review, identifies priorities for action to improve it for the wider public benefit. New clause 2 would place a duty on local highway authorities to take reasonable steps to implement proposals made in their plans as a consequence of the assessment of the matters listed in amendments Nos. 53 to 57. There is no reason why authorities should be required to implement certain proposals and not others. Moreover, we take the view that a specific duty to implement could be counter-productive, in that authorities might decide that a prudent course would be to make few specific proposals in their plans. We want to encourage a more ambitious approach. Highway authorities have never previously been required to take a strategic overview of their rights of way networks, and we are keen to see a more creative and positive approach to making rights of way more accessible and convenient, and to having fewer gaps. Local authorities are best placed to judge, in the light of local circumstances, what the range and timing of those improvements should be. They will be required to report on the action that they have taken, and will be accountable to the public if they drag their feet. As for amendment No. 35, the Bill already contains a number of measures to improve nature conservation and protect sites of special scientific interest. For example, new section 28E of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which is inserted by schedule 8, requires local authorities, among others, to further the conservation and enhancement of the special flora, fauna or geological or physiographical features of SSSIs. Together with other measures—such as section 11 of the Countryside Act 1968 and the complementary amendment to section 29 of the Highways Act 1980 introduced in schedule 6, requiring councils to have due regard to nature conservation in the exercise of their functions—we consider that sufficient. We are sympathetic to amendment No. 36, in the name of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath). It would give local authorities a duty to consult the Government's statutory advisers on nature conservation in preparing and reviewing their rights of way improvement plans, and we will consider that. The hon. Gentleman also asked whether the regulations would cover organisations such as English Nature. I am told that they will. I hope that he and my hon. Friend will agree not to press the amendments and the new clause. Amendments Nos. 297 to 301 arise from amendments tabled earlier by Opposition Front-Bench Members and by my hon. Friends the Members for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) and for Stafford (Mr. Kidney). They will give the Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales a power to make regulations prescribing whom, in addition to those already set out in the Bill, local highway authorities must consult when drawing up their rights of way improvement plans. They will also require every local highway authority to consult the Countryside Agency or the Countryside Council for Wales on their rights of way improvement plans, irrespective of whether a national trail passes through their area—a limitation currently in the Bill. We expect local authorities to consult widely in the preparation of their plans. In Committee we considered a range of options for prescribing who should be involved. Our initial view had been to set out who else should be consulted in the statutory guidance under clause 52(4), but we were persuaded of the merits of a regulation-making power to prescribe consultees on improvement plans. In part, that was because current legislation on changes to rights of way and the recording of rights of way contains provisions requiring consultations with various organisations. It would be useful for other key consultees to be identified in secondary legislation, while local authorities retain a discretion over who else to consult. I commend the Government's amendments to the House.

Andrew Bennett (Labour, Denton and Reddish)

I shall not say that I am disappointed in the response of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, because I have long appreciated that he is under close control, if not actually on the lead—[Interruption.] If it was for only four months of the year, perhaps we could escape fairly soon. However, I wish he could have shown a little more enthusiasm for our improvement plans and given local authorities a little more of a steer towards what we expected. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

RIGHTS OF WAY IMPROVEMENT PLANS: SUPPLEMENTAL

ENFORCEMENT OF DUTY TO PREVENT OBSTRUCTION

POWER TO ORDER OFFENDER TO REMOVE OBSTRUCTION

David Clark (Labour, South Shields)

I beg to move amendment No. 71, in page 33, line 15, at end insert— '(5) It shall be the duty of the local highway authority to monitor from time to time the compliance with any order made under subsection (1) above, and to bring proceedings under subsection (4) if the obstruction is not removed within the time specified in the order.'.

David Clark (Labour, South Shields)

Clause 55 is a welcome addition to the armoury of those fighting for footpaths and for footpath freedom. It will enable the magistrates courts, on conviction of a person for wilful obstruction of a highway, to order that person to remove the obstruction. That may be in addition to, or instead of, a fine. The key point is that failure to comply with the decision of a magistrates court is an offence punishable by a fine of up to £5,000. That may seem strange. However, many people have experienced great frustration, after taking time and trouble and raising money to fight a footpath blockage case, on finding that, even though their case was verified and justified in the magistrates court, they were unable to have the blockage removed. The classic example is the infamous van Hoogstraten case, when the magistrate ordered that there was an obstruction and that it should be removed. The company was fined £800 on each of two separate charges and the Ramblers Association was awarded costs of £3,500. Even after all that, the footpath remained obstructed, because the magistrates court does not have responsibility for clearing the obstruction—that is the responsibility of the highways authority. Clause 55 puts the matter right. We very much welcome it. Amendment No. 71 is modest. It would put a duty on the relevant highways authority to monitor compliance. We are concerned that, although the magistrates court may assume responsibility for insisting on the clearance of a blockage, it will not be able to monitor compliance. That will remain with the highways authority; it would not be an onerous burden and would be of great assistance to the magistrates court. That would ensure that obstructions along the Queen's highway were actually cleared. In that spirit, we move the amendment. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment will look on it favourably. We welcome the provisions included in the clause; this small, fine-tuning amendment will ensure that obstructions do not remain undetected and uncorrected in future. I commend the amendment to the House.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

Many hon. Members are asked a question that is impossible to answer without sounding pompous or slightly self-righteous. It is: "Why have you become a Member of Parliament?" When one sits on the Opposition Back Benches, listening to thousands of words that seem to have no particular purpose, one sometimes comes to the conclusion that one agrees with the questioner that there may be no purpose in it. However, occasionally, one's confidence in the world is reasserted, when, for example, one tables in Committee an amendment that was proposed by the British Horse Society and one finds on Report that one's name has been removed from the amendment and replaced with that of the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions. That reassures one that one is doing something slightly useful. The next time I am in Wiltshire, relaxing after a tough week in this place, riding down a bridleway whose overhanging branches have been lopped back, or on my way to the opening meet, next season, of my local hunt—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—I shall be glad that I took the trouble to propose the amendment. I am glad that the Minister for the Environment has turned up today to accept it.

Chris Mullin (Labour, Sunderland South)

I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) for his comments on clause 55. Amendment No. 71 repeats one tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper) in Committee. The amendment would require a local highways authority to police any orders made by magistrates courts under the new section 137ZA of the Highways Act 1980 and to prosecute any breach of an order. Although I agree with my hon. Friend on the importance of ensuring compliance with orders of the court, I stated in Committee that there are several reasons why we cannot agree to his amendment. First, not all prosecutions under section 137 of the Highways Act will be brought by a local highways authority. Members of the public may bring prosecutions and so may the Crown Prosecution Service. It is not clear how, in practice, a local highways authority could monitor all such orders. More fundamentally, it is not appropriate that a local highways authority should always be obliged to prosecute the offence of breaching an order. Section 222 of the Local Government Act 1972 provides a discretion to local authorities to prosecute where they consider it appropriate in the interests of the inhabitants of their area. We see no reason to remove that discretion in the particular case of highway obstructions. Moreover, in exercising their discretion to prosecute, local highways authorities, like any other local authority, should have regard to the CPS code of practice. That advises that the decision to prosecute an individual is a serious step, and that fair and effective prosecution is essential to law and order. Each case is unique and must be considered on its own merits.

Gordon Prentice (Labour, Pendle)

The van Hoogstraten business still worries me. He is also known as Adolf von Hess, I believe. He was fined £1,500 by the magistrates court. The Ramblers Association was awarded £3,500. The man is a multimillionaire. What happens if he refuses point blank to remove the obstruction? He seems determined not to do so.

Chris Mullin (Labour, Sunderland South)

As a result of the Bill, there will be powers to require the removal of the obstruction. I hope that my hon. Friend will join me in celebrating that fact. Before a prosecution is taken, it must be decided whether there is sufficient evidence to prosecute and whether it is in the public interest to do so. If the amendment were passed, those factors would not be taken into account. 7.30 pm Therefore, although I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields on the importance of effective enforcement, I do not believe that we can approach it in the way that his amendment proposes. I believe that, in practice, a local highway authority that has spent time and money on bringing a successful prosecution will keep an eye on what happens afterwards—and I am sure that, if it does not, others will tell it what is happening. Authorities will then have to decide whether, if an order has not been complied with, there is a case for further prosecution. I hope that, in the light of these remarks, my right hon. Friend will not press his amendment. New clause 24 arises, as the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) modestly suggested, from an amendment that he tabled in Committee. It would modify section 154(1) of the Highways Act 1980 so that a highway authority may, under that section, require the removal of vegetation overhanging a bridleway up to a height convenient to horse riders. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take some satisfaction from having made a small footprint on the sands of time.

David Clark (Labour, South Shields)

I listen to my hon. Friend with some disappointment, although I know his good intent. The point of the amendment was not only to restrict the monitoring of cases that had been brought by the local authority, but to monitor those cases that had been brought under a private prosecution, and which had been upheld in the magistrates court. Therefore I am disappointed by what my hon. Friend has said, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

MAKING OF TRAFFIC REGULATION ORDERS FOR PURPOSES OF CONSERVING NATURAL BEAUTY, ETC.

DRIVING OF MECHANICALLY PROPELLED VEHICLES ELSEWHERE THAN ON ROADS

EFFECT OF PART I ON POWERS TO STOP UP OR DIVERT HIGHWAYS

OVERHANGING VEGETATION OBSTRUCTING HORSE-RIDERS.

EXTINGUISHMENT OF UNRECORDED RIGHTS OF WAY

EXCEPTED HIGHWAYS OR RIGHTS OF WAY

BRIDLEWAY RIGHTS OVER WAYS SHOWN AS BRIDLEWAYS

CUT-OFF DATE FOR EXTINGUISHMENT ETC.

DEFINITION OF LEGALLY RELEVANT OBJECTION

SITES OF SPECIAL SCIENTIFIC INTEREST

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

I beg to move amendment No. 274, in page 35, line 11, at end insert— '(3) After section 15 of the Countryside Act 1968 there is inserted—

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

I shall deal first with the Government amendments. Amendment No. 274 parallels the changes that we have made in clause 60 to enable the conservation agencies compulsorily to purchase land that is outside a site of special scientific interest for the purposes of conserving the site's special features. However, the power cannot be exercised unless the agencies have tried, and failed, to make an agreement as to the management of the land or there has been a breach of such an agreement. An example might be the need to protect a water source that feeds an SSSI habitat. As with compulsory purchase order powers generally, we would expect these powers to be used only in exceptional circumstances, where other avenues have failed. Their use will follow extensive discussions with the owner or occupier of the land to secure the action necessary to protect the SSSI and, if agreement cannot be reached, there will be a voluntary offer to purchase the land. Only if that process fails, and only where action is essential if an SSSI is to be appropriately conserved, may the agencies take compulsory purchase proceedings. There is a full and appropriate balance between private and public rights.

Simon Thomas (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)

Will the Minister confirm that the reference in subsection (5) of the amendment to the Council as respects land in Wales refers to the Countryside Council for Wales? If so, the amendment should state that. The amendment applies to clause 60, which brings into effect schedule 8. I may be ignorant and innocent, but I have read the Bill closely over the past two days, and I cannot see in the clause a reference to the powers of the Countryside Council for Wales as regards SSSIs. It appears that the Nature Conservancy Council will report to the National Assembly; surely that cannot be the case. Will the Minister reconsider the drafting of the Bill to ensure that CCW's legal remit is fully taken into account?

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

On the first point, the wording is a reference to the Countryside Council for Wales. If I can give more precise information about the second, technical point during the debate, I shall certainly do so. Government amendment No. 216 ensures that parts I and III are consistent. This matter was discussed in Committee, and we agree that there is a case for removing the unilateral test of reasonableness—which members of the Committee will remember having anguished debates about—which is implied by the inclusion of the words "to them". We also want to ensure that both parts use similar terminology. Government amendment No. 282 addresses the situation where an SSSI is landlocked, by which I mean that there is no access to it by routes that are open to the public. However, if the agency needs to take action in relation to that SSSI for its statutory purposes—in this case to carry out works in a management notic—it cannot do so without the agreement of the owner of that adjoining land. The land adjoining the SSSI may be in the same ownership, or it may be in other ownership or occupation, in which case the SSSI owner will no doubt have negotiated formal or informal access arrangements with the adjacent landowner, in order to enjoy rights of ownership. Government amendment No. 290 deals with compulsory purchase and Crown land. The Bill extends the circumstances in which the agencies can, exceptionally, exercise powers of compulsory purchase of land, to include the acquisition of land notified as an SSSI. 8 pm I shall deal equally briefly with the Opposition amendments. I am happy to say that we are prepared to consider further amendments Nos. 46 and 47. Amendment No. 46 would allow the conservation agencies to vary the area of an SSSI, using the procedures of notification under section 28A of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. It should be noted that they have already been given power to denotify a site or decrease the area, where the special features no longer exist, and to vary the matters mentioned in the notification, including a list of operations likely to damage the site, and a statement of the council's views about management. Amendment No. 47 attempts to deal with renotification of sites. I was aware that the agencies would welcome a facility to vary, by increasing, SSSI boundaries. Perhaps surprisingly, that is not at present specifically allowed for in the Bill. My officials have been actively discussing this situation with the agencies, and exploring how it could be achieved. We said that we would do that, and I am about to explain why were are still doing it. Again, it is not as simple as it looks. We need to ensure that the procedures allow for the right people to be notified of the changes, and that there is proper publicity and the opportunity to make representations. Provided that the arrangements prove workable, the intention is to return with an amendment in another place, but we do not believe that the proposed amendments fully meet the requirement. They have some technical deficiencies and, if we can overcome them, we will introduce an amendment in another place. I trust that that is acceptable to hon. Members.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I shall be brief because I am pleased to note that the Minister has heeded the advice that we gave him in Committee. Government amendments Nos. 216 and 217 achieve exactly the same result as we were trying to achieve with amendments Nos. 95 and 96. I could chide the Minister slightly. I seem to recall that, in Committee, he was adamant that it was perfectly reasonable that it should be up to the authority to decide whether something appeared to them to be reasonable. By making the changes that he has now made, he has, I am pleased to say, accepted the advice that we proffered him. I am grateful to him for taking the matter away and having a rethink about it. Therefore, we shall support his amendments.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I shall continue with the good wishes. I am grateful to the Minister for the consideration that he has given to amendments Nos. 46 and 47, which are in my name. They deal with an issue of some concern to the conservation bodies. Clearly, the right hon. Gentleman has the matter in hand. He is looking carefully at it. On the basis of his assurances that the matter will be dealt with again in another place, there is no need for me to pursue the matter further.

Chris Mullin (Labour, Sunderland South)

I beg to move amendment No. 281, in page 81, line 16, leave out from "functions" to end of line 17 and insert— 'so far as their exercise is likely to affect the flora, fauna or geological or physiographical features by reason of which a site of special scientific interest is of special interest.'.

Chris Mullin (Labour, Sunderland South)

Government amendment No. 281 imposes a duty on public bodies in exercising their functions to take reasonable steps, consistent with the proper exercise of those functions, to further the conservation and enhancement of special features of the SSSI. Amendment No. 48, tabled by the hon. Members for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) and for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake), would achieve the same effect, and we ask that they do not press it.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I am most grateful to the Minister for his response to amendment No. 48. I agree with him that Government amendment No. 281 deals with the issue that I sought to address. I am grateful for the fact that he has listened to what we have had to say. Amendment No. 49 deals with a slightly different issue. It would ensure that all operations carried out by section 28E authorities listed on the notification of the SSSI as well as those that, in the opinion of the agency, are likely to cause damage are first referred to English Nature or the Countryside Council for Wales. The Minister will remember that we discussed the matter in Committee. He stated that the Bill already caught operations listed on the notification as, by implication, they will be operations that might damage the SSSI. However, that misses the point slightly. There is no duty on section 28E authorities to inform the council if, in their view, the operation is not likely to damage the site. The point is that there is a difference between section 28E authorities and what is required of private landowners. It begs the question whether those authorities are in a better position to judge what may be damaging to an SSSI than a private individual. I see no inherent reason why they should be. It seems better that there should be a safeguard that requires the nature conservation bodies to be aware of what is to be done and enables them to give appropriate advice, or take appropriate action if need be. That is what my amendment would provide.

Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)

I wish to speak to amendment No. 94, but all the amendments are pointing in the same direction. We are grateful that the Government are moving along with those of us who have sought to equalise an imbalance between the obligations that the Bill places on private landowners and those that it places on public bodies. That was a matter of some debate in Committee. We argued strongly that private landowners were treated unfairly as compared with public bodies—those laid out in new section 28E in schedule 8. Our amendments would restore that balance. The thought behind our amendment and other amendments is that schedule 8 should be tightened up considerably to ensure a number of things. It should ensure that the duty on public bodies to further the conservation of SSSIs applies to activities that public bodies may undertake not on the site but in an area that will affect the site. The most common example used is off-site abstraction of water by water companies. Clearly, sources of water are important. I am sympathetic to the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) that, on a separate issue, English Nature or the Countryside Council for Wales should be consulted and informed if public bodies are planning potentially damaging operations, just as they would expect to be consulted if private landowners intended to do something potentially damaging. Another point covered by the group of amendments is that there should be restoration orders for offences by public bodies, including their operations away from SSSIs. Those various loopholes were subject to amendment in Committee. I am glad that the Government have acknowledged the general, genuine concern. If it is addressed properly, it will alleviate one of the Bill's remaining unfairnesses. Amendment agreed to. Amendments made: No. 216, in page 84, line 30, leave out— 'terms appearing to them to be reasonable' and insert "reasonable terms" . No. 282, in page 84, line 51, after "land" insert— ',and any other land,'. No. 217, in page 87, line 6, leave out— 'terms appearing to them to be reasonable' and insert "reasonable terms".[Mr. Pope.]

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

I beg to move amendment No. 283, in page 87, line 47, at beginning insert "subject to subsection (4A),".

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

Government amendments Nos. 283 to 285 relate to the question of a defence against prosecution for failure to follow procedures in section 28C of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, as amended in schedule 8: notifying and obtaining the consent of the Nature Conservancy Council when proposing to carry out operations that are likely to damage the special interest in circumstances where those operations have received the permission or authorisation of a public body. A similar issue was debated in Committee, which I promised to consider. I have done so and the amendments are the result. They tackle a similar question, but we have approached it from a different angle. Where a public body has issued a consent for works after fully involving the conservation agency, as required under section 28G, it is wholly appropriate that the recipient should be able to proceed with the activity without delay. We have already acknowledged in section 28M(4) that a planning permission will constitute a reasonable excuse to carry out the operation authorised by it. Indeed, that has been so for many years. Amendments Nos. 283 and 284 cover a section 28G consent, but amendment No. 285 ensures that, where both a planning permission and the permission of a section 28E authority are required, there is no reasonable excuse or defence if work commences before both have been obtained. On Government amendment No. 286, I undertook in Committee to re-examine the effectiveness and proportionality of offences under section 28M(5) in relation to damage of the special features of SSSIs, but I emphasised that we did not want to create disproportionate offences. I remind the House that section 28M(5) introduces a wholly new offence to apply when any person intentionally or recklessly damages or destroys the special interest feature of an SSSI. That is intended primarily to catch third parties, with the proviso that they should be aware that the land is notified as an SSSI. In response to revisiting the offence, Government amendment No. 286 and consequential Government No. 287 seek to extend the offence to include intentional or reckless disturbance of fauna. 8.15 pm Government amendments Nos. 288 and 289 would extend the courts' powers to order restoration of an SSSI. We discussed the issue of restoration extensively in Committee. I emphasised strong support for the general principle that damage should be subject to reinstatement. I confirmed that I would look further at whether a restoration order could be made in other circumstances—where the damaging activity has taken place on land that is not within the SSSI. The provisions already allow the courts to order restoration where the damaging operation takes place on the SSSI. The amendments extend that to damaging operations away from the SSSI that nevertheless have an effect on the special features. In such circumstances, there may he a requirement for restoration either within or both within and outside the SSSI in order to restore the special features. I think that that meets the wishes expressed in Committee, and I ask, for that reason, that amendment No. 52 should not be pressed to a vote. Government amendments Nos. 277 and 278 affect the exercise of powers of entry by conservation agencies. That is a sensitive issue. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) is not present to hear me register my appreciation of his anguish over it. We heard in Committee examples of insensitive exercise of powers of entry to private land—I am speaking somewhat euphemistically; I cannot imitate the hon. Gentleman's purple prose—by other public bodies. No examples—I checked this—have been brought to my attention of any insensitivity on the part of the conservation agencies, but we of course expect them, as we do any public body, to behave with propriety and, wherever possible, to act with the agreement of the owner or occupier of any land in which they have a statutory interest. Government amendments Nos. 277 and 278 address the issue of a landlocked SSSI—where there is no access to it by routes that are open to the public. Other public bodies exercising powers of entry are able to enter adjoining land on the sole basis that it is necessary to do so in order to get to the landlocked land and carry out their functions. Government amendment No. 277 delivers that, and Government amendment No. 278 makes a minor technical amendment. Government amendments Nos. 279 and 280 address some of the concerns expressed. It is difficult—I said this in Committee—to conceive of a body that is charged with the conservation of the natural environment causing damage in entering land, but should it inadvertently do so, it is of course wholly appropriate that the agency should compensate any person who has sustained damage. It may also be necessary to emphasise that land should be left as secure following entry as it was previously. I hope that what I have just said demonstrates that amendment No. 137—my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies), who tabled it, is present-is unnecessary. There should be no question of corporate bodies seeking to evade their responsibilities, either collectively or individually. I hope that, with that assurance, my hon. Friend will feel able not to press his amendment to a vote. On amendment No. 138, I cannot accept that the decision on whether to prosecute should be removed from the hands of the statutory nature conservation advisers. Their posts have been specifically established to carry out nature conservation functions on behalf of the Government. They have specific powers and duties in relation to SSSIs, including the identification and notification of sites, the granting or withholding of consent for operations likely to damage the features and the preparation of, and support for, management schemes that will identify how best to maintain the features that make the site special. If they have those functions, they should also have the means of enforcement. I should add that other persons may prosecute, providing that the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions has been obtained. Again, I hope that, on that basis, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central will not press his amendment to a vote. Amendment No. 51 applies intentional or reckless disturbance to the general offence where it is significant in relation to the special interest feature. This applies disturbance more widely than the Government amendment, but qualifies the offence with a test of significance. How is the assessment of significance to be made? Perhaps I am being a little cheeky when I say that I remember having lengthy discussions in Committee about what we meant by predominantly". Now the boot is on the other foot. Perhaps I will be told what is meant by "significant". The Government's approach to disturbance will be more readily enforceable, and more robust, than a test of significance in wider circumstances. Amendment No. 50 may be based on a misapprehension about the SSSI citations—that is, the lists of the fauna or flora or geological or physiographical features, by reason of which the site is of special interest. The Bill includes a provision for the conservation agencies to amend the details of notification, including the list of features by reason of which the site is of special interest. I give an assurance that I will encourage English Nature to look carefully at any citations that do not fully reflect the features of interest on the SSSI, to ensure that they are appropriately updated, with the necessary opportunity for consultation, so that they fully reflect, and protect, the scientific importance of the site. On those grounds, I hope that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) will not press the amendment. I apologise for speaking at such length, but I hope that I have explained the Government amendments and our position on the others.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

As the right hon. Gentleman said, I tabled amendments Nos. 50, 51 and 52. I acknowledge that amendment No. 51 is largely covered by Government amendments Nos. 286 and 287, for which I am grateful, and that amendment No. 52 is largely covered by Government amendments Nos. 288 and 289, for which I am equally grateful. That leaves only amendment No. 50 to be discussed. As the right hon. Gentleman said, it refers to a test of significance. Why is the test of significance there? It is simply because the right hon. Gentleman told me in Committee that the amendment that I had tabled previously was insufficiently specific and would catch too many people. Because of the test of effectiveness and proportionality that he required, I introduced that qualification. However, the Minister and I are clearly working to the same ends, and I do not intend to press the amendment.

Geraint Davies (Labour, Croydon Central)

I am reassured by my right hon. Friend the Minister, but for the record I shall set out the basic arguments. Amendment No. 137 would bring the Bill into line with the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and make company directors, not just companies, personally liable for offences. According to the Department, more than 3,000 English and Welsh SSSIs are partially or wholly owned by commercial operations, and many more are subject to the actions of corporations such as utility companies. Company directors would take their responsibilities towards SSSIs more seriously if they were personally liable. Under other environmental legislation, where offences are committed directors are subject to legal redress. There are case studies, including one on the acid spill in the Tees estuary in 1999. A massive spill of acid polluted Greenabella marsh, which is a roosting site for over-wintering birds and a habitat for seals. The company responsible for the chemicals is now subject to legal action by the Environment Agency. Individual directors would also be subject to action. Had the damage occurred not as a result of pollution but as a result of mismanagement such as ploughing or building, directors would not be liable. In the case of SSSIs, directors may be less likely to consider the implications of breaking the law if they were not personally accountable. Ultimately, it is an empirical question whether there are disparities in the behaviour of companies. I have been reassured by my right hon. Friend that the Bill's provisions are sufficient and that my amendment may not be necessary. I shall keep an eye on the situation. The purpose of amendment No. 138 was to bring SSSI prosecutions in line with species offences. In the case of such offences, prosecutions can be taken by the wildlife agencies or by third parties, with the consent of the Crown Prosecution Service. The Law Commission recommended in its 1998 report "Consents to Prosecutions" that such consents should be abolished. Some 45 per cent. of England's 4,000 SSSIs are in an unfavourable condition, and every year hundreds suffer loss and damage. According to the information available to me, English Nature has taken only one prosecution for an SSSI offence—in May 1997—and papers were laid before the courts in four other cases. English Nature may be unwilling to take prosecutions from the wildlife agencies, which have been anxious to build positive, not punitive, relationships with landowners. There is a danger, therefore, that neglect of SSSIs could become commonplace. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and I am reassured by my right hon. Friend's words.

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

I believe that my hon. Friend is reaching the end of his comments and may helpfully ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Before he does so—if he does so—may I say that he is right: neglect is the major problem with SSSIs, but damage is done by commercial and other interests. I assure my hon. Friend that section 69 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 already applies a provision in relation to offences by bodies corporate in virtually the same terms as his amendment No. 137. That will apply in relation to offences under new section 28A. What my hon. Friend seeks to achieve is already in statute. I support his view that there are insufficient prosecutions, although the number is gradually increasing, and that where convictions are secured, the penalties are not adequate to provide an effective deterrent. I support my hon. Friend, but the objective is already covered by existing statute.

Geraint Davies (Labour, Croydon Central)

I thank my right hon. Friend for that helpful intervention. Other parties should have the right to take a prosecution where the wildlife agencies fail to do so. Although they have the teeth, the question is whether they will bite. I hope that we will keep a monitoring brief. When public attention is focused by the enactment of the Bill, I hope that the wildlife agencies will act through the courts to bring offenders to justice. If not, we can return to the matter. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

RAMSAR SITES

Chris Mullin (Labour, Sunderland South)

I beg to move amendment No. 275, in page 35, line 28, at end insert— '(1A) Subject to subsection (1B), upon receipt of a notification under subsection (1), each Council notified shall, in turn, notify— (a) the local planning authority in whose area the wetland is situated; (b) every owner and occupier of any of that wetland; (c) the Environment Agency; and (d) every relevant undertaker (within the meaning of section 4(1) of the Water Industry Act 1991) and every internal drainage hoard (within the meaning of section 61C(1) of the Land Drainage Act 1991) whose works, operations or activities may affect the wetland. (1B) The Nature Conservancy Council for England and the Countryside Council for Wales may agree that in a case where the Secretary of State notifies both of them under subsection (1)(c), any notice under subsection (1A) is to be sent by one or the other of them (and not both), so as to avoid duplicate notices under that subsection.'. The amendment responds to a particular point that the Opposition made in Committee. They said that we should ensure that the relevant owners and occupiers, local authorities, the Environment Agency, relevant undertakers and internal drainage boards should be properly informed of the designation of Ramsar sites.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I do not want to put the Under-Secretary off his stride, but I want to ask a simple question. Proposed new subsection (1A)(a) mentions "the local planning authority". Should I be concerned that that is expressed in the singular? In Somerset, a site could fall under the jurisdiction of several local planning authorities.

Chris Mullin (Labour, Sunderland South)

All planning authorities are covered. The hon. Gentleman should not be concerned; I do not like him to be concerned. The amendment would achieve its objective by placing a duty on the conservation agencies to carry out the same procedures to inform relevant parties as those that already exist for sites of special scientific interest—and are reflected in schedule 8—when they are notified by the Secretary of State of the designation of a Ramsar site. We have used that approach, which is the same as for sites designated under the European birds and habitats directives, because the detailed information on owners and occupiers will be held by the conservation agencies in connection with SSSI notification. Several queries were raised in Committee about Government policy on Ramsar sites. We have concluded that we should publish a policy statement to set out our commitment to the Ramsar convention and explain how it will relate in future to our obligations under the European directives and the Bill as it applies to all SSSIs. The statement is in preparation, and I hope that we shall be able to publish it later during the Bill's passage.

Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)

I am glad that the Government took some notice of the amendment that we tabled in Committee on the importance of Ramsar sites and the way in which they should be recognised. However, the amendment is inadequate and does not cover our concerns and those of many knowledgeable bodies, including, most notably, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. The Under-Secretary knows that amendment No. 275 is not as strong or wide ranging as the amendment that we tabled in Committee. It will not fulfil the aspirations, which I hope that the Government will outline in their policy statement. I am glad that such a statement will be produced soon. I am sure that we all look forward avidly to reading it. However, the information is not new. In Committee, the Government said that they intended to publish a policy statement highlighting their commitment to protecting and managing Ramsar sites on a par with sites that form part of the European Union's Natura 2000 network…—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 18 May 2000; c. 741.] They may not be the same words as the Under-Secretary used tonight, but I suspect that they are startlingly similar. The Under-Secretary argued, especially in Committee, that most but not all sites are already protected under the European birds and habitats directives and that most Ramsar sites in this country will be SSSIs and will therefore benefit from the existing provisions of the Bill. He said that additional regulations were unnecessary, but he promised to give the matter further thought. I assume that the amendment is the fruit of that thinking. To some extent, the Under-Secretary's analysis is correct. Most Ramsar sites are designated as special protection areas under the birds directive, or special areas of conservation under the habitats directive. That means that they are already subject to a high degree of protection. However, that applies only to the Ramsar interest, which is also the designated interest of the SPA or the SAC. The interest leading to designation as Ramsar sites may be different, and regulations may be necessary to establish, for example, how that special interest should be judged in terms of the planning system and how it should be balanced with other special interests of sites that have more than one specific interest. Relying on SSSI provision fails to recognise the international importance of Ramsar sites. We believe that only the introduction of regulations such as those that we proposed in Committee will achieve the Government's stated aim that Ramsar sites should be protected on a par with the Natura 2000 network. Let us consider a specific example. The north Norfolk coast is internationally important for a range of coastal and freshwater wetlands. It is home to globally important populations of nesting terns and the bittern, which is increasingly scarce. Those species and the habitats on which they depend are protected by SPA and SAC designations. However, there is a wide range of other habitats and species, such as the plants and invertebrates, associated with the wet flushes along the spring line. They are part of the notified Ramsar site. Those marshes are threatened by permanent tidal flooding as sea levels rise. The shingle bank that currently protects them will not be sustained for much longer. The Environment Agency plans to build a new sea defence, which will result in a loss of some freshwater wetlands, which will become brackish. Since the site is an SPA and an SAC, the Environment Agency intends to recreate it nearby. No such requirement exists for the Ramsar interest, which, despite being of international importance, is wholly dependent on the SSSI provisions for protection. We need an amendment that recognises international obligations under the Ramsar convention and elevates them to equal status with SPAs and SACs. There are 136 designated Ramsar sites in the United Kingdom, of which 66 are in England and 10 are in Wales. Many important sites need and deserve greater protection than they will receive, even under the amendment, from the Government. I therefore urge the Government to reconsider yet again before the Bill goes to another place. Amendment agreed to. Amendment made: No. 276, in page 35, line 40, leave out "this Act" and insert— 'the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000'.—[Mr. Meacher.]

POWERS OF ENTRY

WILDLIFE: AMENDMENTS OF PART I OF THE WILDLIFE AND COUNTRYSIDE ACT 1981

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

I beg to move amendment No. 218, in page 92, line 43, leave out from "In" to "after" in line 44 and insert— 'section 1(5) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (offence of intentional disturbance of wild birds)'.

Michael Martin (Deputy Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 219.

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

The Bill includes new provisions developed from recommendations by the partnership for action against wildlife crime. They will provide new protection from reckless disturbance for protected species. I refer specifically to new protection from reckless disturbance for birds listed in schedule 1 and animals listed in schedule 5 to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, while they are in their nest or place of shelter or protection. However, some protected marine species do not have readily identifiable places of shelter, and for those species it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to apply the current provisions of the Bill. Concerns were expressed in Committee that some of those species, namely the cetacean family, such as dolphins, whales and porpoises, and the basking shark are vulnerable to disturbance. In Committee, hon. Members drew my attention to the disturbance of these species, especially the bottlenose dolphin, by fast, personal, motorised leisure craft, such as motor boats and wet bikes or jet skis. I agreed that the issue of disturbance by motorised leisure craft should be addressed, and that I would table a suitable amendment on Report. Some concern has been expressed about the potential effect of the amendment on commercial fisheries. As I pointed out, the concerns about disturbance to these species relate to motorised leisure craft. The 1981 Act provides a defence if the disturbance is an incidental result of a lawful activity and could not reasonably have been avoided. Responsible commercial fisheries will no doubt want to rely on that defence. I believe that the amendments are necessary. They will address the perceived loophole in the Bill with respect to these marine species and the practical issue of reckless disturbance by motorised leisure craft, without having an unfair impact on commercial fisheries. I commend them to the House.

Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)

I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman about new subsection 4A in amendment No. 219. It seems on the face of it that it protects the species that he mentioned—dolphins or whales and basking sharks. I wondered whether that was indeed the case, and whether a provision is needed to extend the list of species in the future. Is there any provision, perhaps by regulation, for Ministers to do that? It would be a shame to introduce these welcome extensions of protection and then find at some stage in the future that they were not entirely adequate to deal with other species that may need to be included in schedule 5 of the 1981 Act.

Simon Thomas (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)

I welcome the Government amendments. They will be welcomed along the west and north coasts of Wales, where we have a particular problem with jet skis. There is anecdotal evidence from wildlife wardens of jet skis buzzing bottlenose dolphins. The only conclusion that can be drawn from these observations is that people are doing that for fun and to provoke a reaction in these sensitive and intelligent mammals. We must draw a line under such practices, much of which is due to ignorance. The insertion of this new subsection in the Bill will help to underline the need for people to learn a little more about these animals. The Cardigan bay has the only resident population of bottlenose dolphins in England and Wales, although they visit the coast of other areas of the country. The bay has also been designated a special area of conservation, the official title of which is Penllyn ar Sarnau—I look forward to the note from the Official Report asking how to spell that. Penllyn ar Sarnau covers a huge area from the Llyn peninsular in north Wales down to the north of my constituency. A range of management devices are now being used, and the amendment will be an extremely useful addition to the management of that area. I was grateful for the remarks about commercial fisheries, and the reassurance that the amendments should not affect them. Small shellfish fishing takes place from the coast in Ceredigion. I am sure that those fishermen will be grateful that they will not be included for any unintentional actions that they may undertake. We also have a growing tourism industry. People come to observe these mammals, especially the dolphins. The boats that go out to observe the dolphins do so peacefully and should not come under the new subsection. I welcome the new provisions. They are an essential part of extending wildlife protection to the extremely intelligent, sensitive mammals that are a great addition to the biodiversity of the west Wales coast.

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

I am grateful for the recommendation of the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas). He is right; the amendment will be valuable and widely welcomed for dolphins at least. However, I am not sure about the basking shark, although its name belies its rather mild habits. 8.45 pm The hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) made a fair point—the amendment mentions only two species—but I am assured that the reason for that is that primary legislation would otherwise be required. I am a little surprised at the explanation I have been given, because I thought that that is what we are debating. However, there should be the capacity to extend provision further, and I shall take the point away to see whether we can find the means to achieve that. Amendment agreed to. Amendment made: No. 219, in page 93, line 21, at end insert— '. In section 9 of that Act (protection of certain wild animals)— (a) in subsection (4) after "intentionally" there is inserted "or recklessly", and (b) after that subsection there is inserted— (4A) Subject to the provisions of this Part, if any person intentionally or recklessly disturbs any wild animal included in Schedule 5 as— (a) a dolphin or whale (cetacea), or (b) a basking shark (cetorhinus maximus), he shall be guilty of an offence." .In section 16(3) of that Act (power to grant licences) for "and (4)" there is substituted ", (4) and (4A)".".'.—[Mr. Meacher.]

Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)

I beg to move amendment No. 97, in page 93, line 21, at end insert— '4A. For section 14(2) of that Act (introduction of new species) there is substituted— "(2) Subject to the provisions of this Part, if any person plants, releases or otherwise causes to grow in the wild any plant which is included in Part II of Schedule 9 he shall be guilty of an offence. (2A) Subject to the provisions of this Part, if any person— (a) sells, offers or exposes for sale, or has in his possession or transports for the purpose of sale, any living wild plant included in Part II of Schedule 9, or any part of such a wild plant; or (b) publishes or causes to be published any advertisement likely to be understood as conveying that he buys or sells or intends to sell, any of those things, he shall be guilty of an offence.".'. This is the time at which we must discuss the giant hogweed, which represents an important issue that we have not yet properly addressed. I hope to deal with it and other similarly invasive plants. The simple purpose of the amendment is to ban the sale of non-native invasive plant species, which are listed in schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. We often discuss animals—we did so in our previous debate—and for some reason there is a feeling that plants are less important and less emotionally involving. I disagree with both propositions. Indeed, at the last meeting of the World Conservation Union there was consensus that the biggest threat facing biodiversity this century will come not from habitat destruction, but from non-native invasive species. These alien species come in all shapes and sizes, but have one thing in common—they threaten our wildlife and, in particular, our wild plants. In a sense, the amendment would not be an add-on to Government policy because, as signatories of the Rio convention, they are legally obliged to prevent the introduction of, control and eradicate alien species … Ministers should be aware that they are under a legal obligation backed by an international treaty to achieve the ends set out in the amendment. The 1981 Act is good in many ways, but I am afraid that it has proved unenforceable in this area. A law governs the prevention of release of non-native invasive species into the countryside, but to date there have been no successful prosecutions for illegal release of listed schedule 9 plants. Yet the relatively few species that are supposedly controlled, including the Japanese knotweed—the Minister, I think, said in Committee that it was a problem for him—and the giant hogweed are still causing havoc. A number of other species are causing problems, many of which are associated with aquatic habitats. An unfortunate side effect of the recent massive growth in the trendiness of gardening—in particular, gardening promoted by Charlie Dimmock—is that aquatic gardening is much more popular than ever before. At least three species of non-native aquatic plants—New Zealand pigmyweed, parrot's feather and floating pennywort—cause significant environmental damage. They are widely sold to garden pond enthusiasts, but unfortunately, the plants grow so rapidly that purchasers soon have too much of them and they often end up being dumped in the wild, where they swamp native plants. New Zealand pigmyweed is pushing one of our rarest plants to the brink of extinction. Starfruit is highly threatened; it was once relatively common. It is now found in just nine locations in the UK. On at least five of those sites, the growth of New Zealand pigmyweed threatens its survival. The only efficient way to prevent the release of those non-native invasive plants is by imposing a ban on the sale of schedule 9 plants. In that way, well meaning gardeners will be able to choose alternative plants that are less likely to cause problems if they end up in the wild. It is worth emphasising that the ban would apply only to schedule 9 species and therefore to a relatively small number of plants. It is already accepted that those plants cause problems, yet the law is powerless to prevent their spread. The Government have pledged to review the list of plants in schedule 9. Only subsequent to full consultation will new plants be added and, therefore, be subject to a ban. The ban would not work on its own, but it would be an important first step. Many bodies back the idea. Non-governmental organisations such as Plantlife want it. Experts including the Institute for Aquatic Plant Management want it. The gardening industry appears to want it. A consultant to the Garden Centre Association Ltd. has been quoted on television as saying that a ban would make it easier for everyone, including garden centres. Even the Government's own advisers want it: this year, the Joint Nature Conservation Council advised the Minister that a ban was necessary to prevent further damage to our native species. It is a real case where prevention is much better than cure. Imposing a ban on the sale of those invasive plants would not only save the Government millions of pounds, which they could spend to control problem species, but even more important, it would prevent threatened species from being pushed to the brink of extinction. It is a simple, common-sense amendment that would modernise the legislation and safeguard our plants from an increasing and insidious threat. I commend it to the House.

Peter Brooke (Conservative, Cities of London and Westminster)

I make a very late contribution to the proceedings on the Bill; I make my maiden speech on it. I should declare an interest. I have been a member of the all-party group on conservation since the 1970s. I am now its vice-chairman. I am glad to see its secretary, the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), in the Chamber. I am, perhaps slightly more surprisingly, the parliamentary vice-president for my party in the London Wildlife Trust. Given the nature of my constituency, the provenance and pedigree are not automatically obvious, but I once had to make the keynote address at an international conference on the royal parks, which are significantly in my constituency. It was on the strength of that that I earned my place as parliamentary vice-president. As the other two parliamentary vice-presidents are, for the Labour party, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and, for the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), who obviously have Front-Bench roles too, I have an enviable independence as a Back Bencher in that regard. I shall make the briefest of speeches in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green). I was the Whip on the 1981 Wildlife and Countryside Bill. I think that the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) is the only other Member in these debates who served on that Committee. I understand my hon. Friend's concerns about the Bill's lack of efficacy with regard to the subjects that we are discussing. I am sorry about that. Plantlife, which is located in my constituency, brought the New Zealand pigmyweed, the parrot's feather and the floating pennywort into my life via its briefing in advance of Second Reading. Having played no part in the proceedings on the Bill until now, I am delighted that my hon. Friend should have tabled an amendment at this late stage, which enables those of us who have taken an interest in the New Zealand pigmyweed, the parrot's feather and the floating pennywort to have the opportunity to express our support.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I wonder whether it might be helpful to Members to make the point that the New Zealand pigmyweed and the Australian swamp stonecrop are the same plant: crassula helmsii.

Peter Brooke (Conservative, Cities of London and Westminster)

I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman. His constituency is more rural than mine, and it is approaching a quarter of a century since I was last in Australia and more than 40 years since I was last in New Zealand; so I am not surprised that the confusion has been introduced to my mind. As I was saying, the basic point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford is eminently sensible. If plants such as this run riot, they have a stifling effect on certain natural habitats. They are hazardous invasive species.

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

One nice consequence of the moving of amendment No. 97 at this late stage was hearing the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) make a passionate case for the need to deal with New Zealand pigmyweed—or whatever its Australian name may be—and floating pennywort. However, this is a serious issue, and both the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) and the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster made a relevant case that needs to be addressed. The amendment seeks to tackle the important issue of the effect of invasive non-native plant species on native fauna and flora. A number of recent articles have highlighted the problem that can be caused by such species, such as Japanese knotweed. It was not I but my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State who admitted that he was concerned because there was a considerable problem in his neighbour's garden, which might affect him as well. We are talking about non-native invasive species with the ability to oust native species, to damage crops, and to be a public nuisance all round. I have a good deal of sympathy with the amendment, but there are arguments against it. They are the same as those that were advanced in the case of a similar amendment tabled in Committee. I think that it was amendment No. 361. We need to deal with the issue in a co-ordinated way, taking account of the many varied factors arising from the introduction and spread of non-native species, animals as well as plants. I repeat—the hon. Member for Ashford mentioned this—that early next year we will undertake a full review of policy on non-native species that can present an ecological threat to the United Kingdom's indigenous wildlife, taking account of the work already done by the JNCC. As I have said, this is a serious issue, but it is also complex. As former Ministers and current Opposition Front Benchers will be well aware, Government must consider such matters in a structured way, taking account of the implications of any policy changes for various parties. I should add—although it may be a less important point—that the amendment would introduce differences in the treatment of the sale of plants and animals under schedule 9, which is difficult to justify.

Peter Brooke (Conservative, Cities of London and Westminster)

I intervene because I have a sense that the Minister is bringing his speech to a conclusion. I take his point about the review that he expects to take place early next year; but given that 19 years have passed between the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the Bill, and given the amount of literature that we have received from wildlife organisations during those 19 years stressing the need for an update, will he tell us something about the possible legislative consequences of the review, and about the possible timetable?

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

That is a fair question, although I am tempted to say that during 16 or 17 years of the 19 that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, his own Government—

Peter Brooke (Conservative, Cities of London and Westminster)

I was not making a political point.

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman was not. His point is that countryside Bills, or Bills dealing with wildlife, are relatively infrequent. I obviously need to look at how far the matter can be dealt with through secondary legislation. If it requires primary legislation, for the reasons that I have given I do not see how I can advance the issue in the course of proceedings on this Bill, which are due to move to another place, or in the course of the year. 9 pm I do not think that a gap of some 20 years between Bills such as this is inevitable. For example, a general Bill on the environment might well be able to deal with the matter, even though it would not be directly concerned with the countryside. I do not say that in order to kick the matter into the long grass, which I think was the fear of the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster. I intend to deal with it, but I cannot do so before next year's proper and balanced review is complete.

Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)

I cannot say that I am heartened by the Minister's response, which closely resembles his response to a similar amendment in Committee. I take his point that animals and plants are both included in schedule 9, but I urge him not to let the best be the enemy of the good in this matter. If complications arise owing to the existence of separate regimes for plants and animals, then so be it. The problem is clearly defined, and the Bill could deal with it, so this seems to be the optimal time to make it do so. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) and, I suspect, the Minister, I think that it may well be another couple of decades before a Bill such as this comes along again, regardless of what happens to party politics in the meantime. I hope that the Minister is right and that a proposal such as this can be added to another, more general Bill. The Minister's argument about the review was not desperately convincing in Committee, and time has not improved it. The review will be based on the recommendations of the Joint Nature Conservancy Council, and will be conducted by the same people who conducted the previous review. That review recommended the ban, so it seems overwhelmingly likely that the next one will too. All that will have happened in the intervening period is that a Bill that could have introduced the ban will have been passed, and we will have neglected to take the opportunity to do so. That does not seem an especially sensible way to proceed. The Minister said that he did not intend to kick the matter into the long grass. If he fails to seize the opportunity presented by the Bill, he will be kicking it into the giant hogweed. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LOCAL SITES

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

New clause 4 would give local authorities a duty to adopt and maintain a scheme for maintaining a series of sites in their areas. The corollary of the duty is that they would be provided with the means and resources to do so. Sites of special scientific interest are covered at some length in this Bill and other legislation, but areas of outstanding natural beauty and other wildlife sites are not. The new clause would promote the better protection and management of wildlife sites outside the SSSI network. In managing, maintaining and resourcing such sites, local authorities should have regard to striking a balance between visitors' enjoyment of the sites, the interests of members of the farming community, and those of others on whose land those sites are situated. The interests of the farming community need to be recognised, given the depths of the crisis in which its members still find themselves. Is it not surprising that at present there is no statutory provision covering such sites, not even in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981? The Minister may be surprised to hear that until now there has been no legal definition of what constitutes a wildlife site. I can see that the Minister shares my amazement and is hearing that fact for the first time. There is currently no legal definition of what constitutes a wildlife site, and that is a serious omission from the Bill and the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. The aim of the new clause is to oblige all local authorities to ensure that they maintain a wildlife site system that follows common standards. The processes are in place in most of England and Wales already, but they need to respect commonly laid down standards. Wildlife sites would not create the equivalent of more SSSIs, because they would not have the same legal status. Although I welcome the fact that the Bill makes improvements to rights of way legislation and wildlife protection, it fails adequately to protect those local wildlife sites. Such a scheme would not be too onerous for local authorities, or for the owners of the land on which the wildlife sites are situated. Local authorities could include policies to protect wildlife sites in all local plans, and advise on the effective implementation of the policies. Adverse development proposals would not be allowed or approved if they would damage or destroy the wildlife sites. Advice and support should be made available to the owner or manager of every wildlife site, and incentives should be offered to owners of such sites to maintain and enhance their value. When common standards for wildlife site systems are recognised, sites should be identified using locally determined criteria, developed within a national framework. All wildlife site systems should be operated to common standards, and sites should be selected on the basis of sound adequate information. The owners and managers of sites should also be kept well informed of all stages of the process of identifying and protecting sites. The common standards should be agreed by statutory environmental organisations, local authority bodies, relevant Government Departments and voluntary bodies. The conservation of local sites is crucial if declining wildlife trends are to be reversed and national biodiversity action plan targets are to be achieved. The creation of a framework in law under which a local system of conservation is implemented will help to alleviate regional differences that currently exist. A legal framework should also reflect adequate resourcing for the system and provision of information and advice to landowners and the public. Late last year the Government established the local site review group, which reported to Ministers in March this year. The new clause would directly enact the recommendations of that group and would deliver a concrete conservation gain for endangered species and habitats on the ground. In moving new clause 4, I recognise that my constituency has only six SSSIs, because so many special sites have already been lost to agriculture, which is the most important industry in Vale of York. Areas of outstanding natural beauty, such as the Howardian hills, are also not adequately covered by the Bill. Therefore the best places for wildlife in Vale of York are local sites, which need better protection. A system such as I have outlined in new clause 4 needs to be developed, with common standards for local authorities. It should be backed by the Government so that local authorities know where the sites are and have a presumption against developments that would destroy their interest. The Government recognised the issue by referring to the importance of local sites in its consultation paper on SSSIs, which led to the Bill, and by setting up the local sites review group. Will the Minister agree this evening that the issue will be rigorously pursued by the Government so that we will see action to protect wildlife sites properly in the future, and will he accept the new clause?

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

I speak in support of new clause 6, in my name. The Minister will know that the proposal to place biodiversity action plans on a statutory footing is a much debated subject. It has been one of the key topics of debate during the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee inquiry into biodiversity. I am sure that when he appears in front of the Select Committee, he will already have prepared and rehearsed his answer to the question whether BAPs should be put on a statutory footing. So far, the view of the non-governmental organisations that have given evidence to the Committee is that BAPs should be provided for in legislation. The Government, however, continue to believe that they should not be. The Government's principal argument against doing so is that it would destroy existing partnerships and voluntary agreements. I do not, however, understand why legislation should necessarily have that effect. The NGOs' argument—that biodiversity action plans are not always implemented—is more convincing. In Northumberland, for example, although the county council is pushing ahead with work on biodiversity action plans, district councils do not think that they are a priority. Across Yorkshire, progress on BAPs has been slow because no public body has taken a lead on them. Another reason why BAPs should be provided for in legislation is that the Government are relying very heavily on them not so much to feed the world as to save it. In Committee, in replying to the debate on an amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), the Under-Secretary of State said: the best route for dealing with the issue is to use the current biodiversity action planning process.—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 18 May 2000: c. 720.] In response to another amendment moved in Standing Committee, the Minister reaffirmed that the best route is through the biodiversity action planning process. The Government are therefore relying heavily on BAPs. However, I think that they may have some unrealistic expectations about what BAPs can achieve without being provided for in legislation. There is no point in heaping responsibilities for the environment on to BAPs when, as we have heard, they are not being implemented in places such as Northumberland and Yorkshire. I urge the Minister to grasp the opportunity provided by the new clauses.

David Kidney (Labour, Stafford)

I recognise the wording of new clause 4, because in Committee, I moved an amendment containing the self-same wording. On that occasion, the Minister, having listened to the arguments, gave a most encouraging reply—saying not only that there should be action, but that the Government, with some time to reflect, would act. I therefore did not seek to table an amendment similar to new clause 4 or to support the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) in tabling it.

Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)

I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has made that clear. May I therefore assume that he will be supporting new clause 4 in the Lobby?

David Kidney (Labour, Stafford)

The hon. Gentleman would have had to wait only another 30 seconds to hear me say that—for the reasons that I have given, and such is my faith in the Minister to deliver on his word—I shall not vote for new clause 4. A great network of systems of local wildlife sites has been established in the United Kingdom. As the hon. Member for Vale of York said, that network has developed entirely in the absence of supporting legislation. Great thanks are owed to landowners, the Wildlife Trust, local authorities and others who, through their own efforts, have created the network. I am indebted to the Wildlife Trust for providing me with some information on a survey that it is conducting, before it has completed or published the full results. The emerging results of that nationwide survey show that the Wildlife Trust is the lead partner in more than half the current systems of wildlife sites. The system is so extensive that throughout the whole country only about 10 local authority areas are not already covered by some kind of system. In total, there are more than 100 systems of wildlife sites, incorporating an astonishing 40,000 or so sites. 9.15 pm That would not have been possible without the dedication and application of people of good will, especially among local authorities, the Wildlife Trust and landowners. Great thanks are due to landowners who co-operate and become involved in the selection, assessment and management of sites. I am sure that all those people would agree that the protection of biodiversity outside protected areas—sites of special scientific interest, for example—is essential. Wildlife sites need to be identified and maintained at local level. They host some internationally and nationally important species and habitats, and contribute to biodiversity action plan targets. The development of the systems that I have described has depended on voluntary effort. It is all going in the right direction—advisory services are being developed, links to agri-environmental and grant schemes are being developed, and some limited monitoring has taken place. It is exciting that so much has already been done through voluntary partnerships. I hope that the Government keep their word and give the support necessary to ensure that that commendable effort is sustained in the long term.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I rise to speak briefly to the new clause moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh), to which I have added my name. As the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) said, he put forward a similar proposal in Committee. We want to give the Government another opportunity to tell us what they are planning to do. The Minister said in Committee: the Government are prepared seriously to consider placing biodiversity action plans on a statutory footing.—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 23 May 2000; c. 820.] He went on to say that he gave no commitment, but on that basis he wanted the new clause withdrawn, which it duly was. How long do the Government need to consider a number of matters? It is true that they were generous in Committee in agreeing to consider a whole range of issues that we proposed. I am the first to accept that yesterday and earlier today, the Government have moved a small number of amendments that met some of our concerns. We will cover some of the other areas on Third Reading. This is a big issue. Local wildlife sites and the habitat action plans proposed by the Liberal Democrat party in new clause 6 are very important, and the Government should know by now what they intend to do. It is not as if they have had the opportunity to consider the matter only since the Bill's Committee stage—it came up in their documents published last year. They have been thinking about it for a long time. It may be argued that it is unusual for my party to recommend a statutory basis instead of a voluntary approach. I am sure that the Minister would normally have pointed that out, as he did occasionally in Committee. However, this is an important pair of new clauses. As the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) said, there is no doubt that many local councils are not doing the work that we wish them to do. Not all of it is their fault; they simply do not have the resources. That is why we believe that a statutory basis would mean not only that they had an obligation to do it but that they had a far better argument when asking the Government for the extra money. I was astonished to read that only one person in this country has any legal responsibility for ensuring that biodiversity action plans are drawn up for the long-term survival of threatened or vulnerable species. That person—God help us—is the Mayor of London.

Patrick Cormack (Conservative, South Staffordshire)

Newts, newts

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

Indeed, that will probably ensure the survival of newts, although I was not aware that they were a threatened or vulnerable species.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

What about the great crested newt?

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

The great crested newt is certainly a threatened and vulnerable species—it holds up many planning developments. More seriously, if it is right for the Mayor of London to be given that statutory obligation—the Government included it in legislation—why should it not be given to every local authority? My final point is about credibility. The Government and their supporters have tried to portray my party as looking after only the interests of landowners. However, both the Country Landowners Association and the National Farmers Union oppose the new clauses. I make that point not because I agree with them, but to emphasise the fact that we do not always agree with them. We support the new clauses because of out real commitment to try to improve wildlife conservation both in local sites and under our national treaty obligations.

Peter Brooke (Conservative, Cities of London and Westminster)

I strike my second London note in our proceedings by speaking to the new clause so admirably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh). My hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) reminded the House of the role of the Mayor of London. In an admirable Adjournment debate two nights ago, the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies) provided a harbinger for the Mayor's role. I claim dual, if vicarious, credit for that development. First, I served last year on the Standing Committee dealing with the Greater London Authority Bill, whose section 352 confers that unique power on the Mayor of London. That development was encouraging, not only to members of the Committee but to people outside, because I had seen minutes by members of Wildlife and Countryside Link that indicated concern that environmental considerations were fairly low in the priorities of the regional development agencies. That is a little surprising given the fact that the RDAs and this Bill emerge from the same Department. Secondly, I am the parliamentary vice-president of the London Wildlife Trust, and played a reasonably significant role in securing the first tranche of £125,000 from the Bridge House Estates trust fund, in the City of London in my constituency, to launch the London Wildlife Trust's own biodiversity action plan. I am delighted to say that the same City of London source provided more than £200,000 in each of the following two years, making a total of more than £500,000. That made a significant contribution. The transition from the biological recording project to local records centres is the next stage in the creation of a sustainable, long-term picture of London's natural heritage. Work is going on to ensure that a partnership approach is pursued, involving all organisations and individuals who generate data, and who need co-ordinated information on London's wildlife. Indeed, the trust has commissioned an independent study of the issues relating to a local records centre for London. That will be vital if the Mayor of London is to fulfil the statutory duty that has been bestowed on him. I warmly support the new clause. More than 100 plants that had never been seen before in London appeared as a result of the second world war—frequently on bomb sites—which had a broadly beneficial effect on London's habitats. However, other global forces have the potential to cause an adverse effect. That is why statutory responsibilities—not least those in the new clause proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York—should be enshrined, to ensure that a notable cause is further advanced.

Simon Thomas (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)

I shall speak mainly in support of new clause 6, but in doing so I shall mention many of the virtues of new clause 4, which was moved by the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh). On biodiversity action plans, from the Welsh perspective I cannot paint a picture as optimistic as that painted by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney). As I understand it, the plans are the Government's main method of delivering conservation measures for endangered species and habitats outside sites of special scientific interest. Unfortunately, in Wales there is a clear example of things not going right, and in that respect new clause 6 has a lot of virtue in it. We have 222 species and habitat action plan areas that are relevant to Wales; in other words, there are about 222 species and habitats in Wales that could be considered rare or endangered, and they are in need of urgent conservation action. The implementation of the action plans for these areas and these species would be the main contribution of the Countryside Council for Wales—the leading body in Wales on this—to the United Kingdom biodiversity action plan. However, the Countryside Council for Wales, like other publicly funded bodies, has—or claims that it has—a chronic shortage of money. In a council meeting last December, setting the budget for this financial year, it made a commitment only to work on 120 of the 222 action plan areas. Therefore, hon. Members will understand why I do not take as optimistic a view as does the hon. Member for Stafford. For the foreseeable future, all work on the 102 remaining biodiversity action plan areas is suspended. Although the staff of the Countryside Council for Wales obviously recognise the importance of those plans to Welsh biodiversity, resources are scarce and they prioritise their statutory duties, so what is discretionary goes by the board. I feel that that reveals a certain lack of joined-up thinking on biodiversity by the Government, when so much emphasis is placed on the voluntary side of things and so little is therefore placed on the Bill. New clause 6 provides an excellent opportunity to insert that legal underpinning into the Bill. The result is that Welsh wildlife and habitats remain in danger, and that little or no action is being taken to conserve at least the majority of them. The individual species and habitat action plans will implement the UK's commitment under the United Kingdom biodiversity action plan and under the convention on biological diversity—the overall convention which, I believe, the Government are ratifying. The current approach to that ratification is based on voluntary and participatory methods, both of which are very welcome—they build partnerships, and I can concur with other hon. Members' views that such partnerships often work. However, in the long term they cannot sustain the whole process, especially in the light of the experience of the Countryside Council for Wales. We must have a legislative foundation for biodiversity action plans. I understand that the Government want to preserve the voluntary approach and I believe that new clause 4 retains some of that approach, but it is important that the process has a legal underpinning. I hope that the Government will consider new clause 6 and how it might be implemented, so that we may improve both the UK's and the Welsh aspect of implementing biodiversity action plans.

Desmond Swayne (Conservative, New Forest West)

I support new clause 4, which was so ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh). If we take recent history in the New forest in, let us say, the last 30 years, in every issue of development versus conservation, one or other of the local authorities—the county council, the district council or its predecessors—has been on the side of development, and conservation has been championed by the commoners of the New forest, especially the Court of Verderers. I do not necessarily criticise the local authorities for that; after all, local authorities do have priorities with respect to housing, traffic management, tourism management, jobs, development and so on, but this new clause strikes me as a powerful corrective to that, so that a new responsibility is laid upon them that might have changed the history of the last 30 years in the New forest. 9.30 pm Equally, the Minister's intention is to turn the New forest into a national park shortly and he will know that the proposal has not been universally welcomed. In particular, it has not been welcomed by existing local authorities, which are not keen to see yet another precepting and planning authority created on their doorstep. Has the Minister considered that, with a little creative thought, he could use the provisions in new clause 4 to develop all the responsibilities that he seeks to lay on a new national park authority without creating yet another administrative authority? The new clause seems to be the solution to the problem. I hope that he will consider it.

Chris Mullin (Labour, Sunderland South)

Let me make the position on new clause 4 clear. The Government are firmly committed to action on local sites, whether we decide to use legislative means or not. The Government's framework for action on sites of special scientific interest emphasised the commitment to developing proposals on locally important sites in consultation with local authorities and other parties. We set up the local sites review group and the group agreed on the need for action, but views differed on the means of delivering the recommendations. There is enormous scope for action. Local authorities are already incorporating local wildlife sites into their biodiversity action plans and I believe that this is the best way of delivering them in a coherent way. I can give the House a firm commitment that we will take forward work on local wildlife sites, seeking to progress the general thrust of the group's recommendations and drawing in other interests to the extent that that is necessary. The issue to be resolved is whether delivery is more appropriate through legislative or other non-statutory mechanisms. As I said, however, the local sites review group was not unanimous on that point. On new clause 6, the Government are sympathetic to the intention to provide a firm statutory basis for the UK biodiversity action plan. The new clause would require all public bodies to further the objectives of the action plans for individual species and habitats in carrying out their functions. We understand fully that the aim is to ensure that the biodiversity process continues with a firm basis into the future. It is very important for action on biodiversity to be taken at the local level through local action plans. It is important, however, that action is not seen as something separate from the day-to-day work of local councils. The Government want the work to be fully integrated into councils' wider responsibilities. The importance of biodiversity, including local wildlife sites, should inform the full range of a council's activity. However, that may not happen if we treat biodiversity as a discrete and separate function. There are many examples of service and specific local plans which, although they look good on paper, lead to little action on the ground or which remain at the periphery of what the council does.

Desmond Swayne (Conservative, New Forest West)

Will the Minister give way?

Chris Mullin (Labour, Sunderland South)

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but I think that everyone is anxious to make progress and to move to Third Reading. He has not been with us much this evening, although I welcome his attendance now. Those Members who have been with us will confirm that my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and I have been generous in giving way, but I detect that the mood of the House is to make progress. That is what I propose to do. The Government propose that local biodiversity action plans, incorporating local councils' work on wildlife sites, should be integrated within the wider strategies that are being put in place in the current Local Government Bill. Part I of that Bill will require local authorities to prepare community strategies that contribute to sustainable development by promoting the economic, social and environmental well-being of their areas. Draft statutory guidance published last week makes clear the Government's view that the strategies should become the overarching framework for other service or theme-specific plans, and that the priorities and activities in the community strategy should influence the range of actions of the council and its private, voluntary and community sector partners. The strategies should bring coherence to service and specific plans, establish the links between them and the rest of local activity and, as far as possible, rationalise the number of plans, processes and partnerships that exist locally. There are already many of those, so the burden on local authorities is already considerable. We will make it clear in further statutory guidance that biodiversity should be an important element in community strategies, in delivering local authorities' new obligations on sustainable development and in improving local quality of life. The conservation of biodiversity in the wider countryside is very important. We agreed in Committee seriously to consider whether any statutory underpinning would be appropriate. The Government's main objective is to ensure that the biodiversity process continues and effectively delivers the protection of our threatened habitats and species, using locally protected sites and other means. However, we have reached the conclusion that the commitments that we have given to take forward the agreed recommendations of the local sites review group and the statutorily based community strategies give a strong basis for securing that objective at local level. By making biodiversity an explicit factor in the new strategies, we will be giving substantial new impetus to the good progress that many local authorities have already made in protecting and enhancing local wildlife. We are firmly committed to implementing the biodiversity action plan at national level, and we have a solid and effective policy process in place which would not benefit from legislation. I hope that hon. Members will not press the new clause.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

My right hon. and hon. Friends and I are disappointed. I am grateful to the colleagues who supported the new clause, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) and my hon. Friends the Members for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) and for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne). The Government will not extend to authorities throughout the country the statutory duty imposed on the Mayor of London, although I specifically said that no onerous burdens will be placed on local authorities. I therefore urge hon. Members to support the new clause.

REPEALS

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time. As we come to the end of our debates on the Bill, may I say again how much I have enjoyed them? Our debates have, on the whole, been positive and constructive, and all parties have improved the Bill in the process. I should like to thank the Clerks, the Hansard staff, and all the other staff of the House on whom we rely so much. I should like to thank parliamentary counsel, who have produced some complex provisions in a short time. I should also like to thank my Department's officials, who have dealt, as I well know, with amendments extremely promptly and efficiently and have provided comprehensive back-up support. Making the provisions work well will involve a wide range of people, including the staff of the Countryside Agency, English Nature and the Countryside Council for Wales, and I am grateful to them for all the work that they have been doing to advise on the provisions and to prepare for their implementation. My thanks go wider. There has been a tremendous input to the Bill—I cannot remember a similar impact on any recent Bill in my experience—from a large number of non-governmental organisations representing a wide range of interests concerned with the use, protection and enjoyment of our wonderful countryside. Even without the massive amount of correspondence with which members of those organisations have flooded my postbag, I know full well how strongly people feel about the issues dealt with by the Bill. I pay a warm and genuine tribute to my colleagues, and extend that to right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition Benches for the balanced and thoughtful manner in which they have represented their views and for the generally constructive approach taken throughout our debates. It would, of course, have been impossible to satisfy everybody on every issue on which strong and opposing views are held, but I believe that we can claim that we have been a listening Government and that we have considered the issues carefully. The Bill is, by any standards, historic. It increases everyone's ability to enjoy the countryside and enhances the protection of our hugely valuable natural heritage. Our debates have inevitably concentrated largely on areas of controversy, but there is a great deal in the Bill that is supported by everybody. This is a good Bill. It has something in it for everybody who loves our priceless countryside and wants to enjoy the many benefits that it brings to the nation. In that inclusive spirit, I commend it to the House.

Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)

I beg to move, That this House declines to give a Third Reading to the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill because the Government has rejected proposals which would reduce the impact of the proposals for a right of access to open country upon land management and other users of the land, because the liability placed upon land owners arising from any man-made features of that land contains no exclusions for ancient or historical features, because there are no provisions for compensation for those affected by the Bill in this way, and because, whilst there are welcome improvements to rights of way legislation and wildlife protection, the Bill fails adequately to protect biodiversity. Special Protection Areas and local wildlife sites. Let me start by being as generous as possible to the Government. The Bill is not as bad as it was when it started its journey from Second Reading. In a few particulars, it is less messy than it was when the Minister, incautiously but with devastating candour, so described it in Committee. While I am being generous, I thank the Minister and his colleagues for their unfailing courtesy and apparent willingness to listen to the many deficiencies that we pointed out during the Bill's progress. Having said all that, I must also say that the Bill falls lamentably short of the Minister's desire, which he expressed on Second Reading and again tonight, to enact an historic measure. Its three parts contain serious deficiencies. I shall spend a short time detailing them. On the access provisions in part I, let me say that we oppose unrestricted compulsory access to private land, but we recognise the reality of the Government's majority. We have therefore sought to make the regime as practical as possible. In doing that, we are selflessly trying to prevent the Government from digging themselves ever further into the hole of profound unpopularity in rural areas. However, the Government are determined to resist our efforts.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

Last night, we discussed one of the holes in the measure and in the Government's thinking: the complete absence of provision for proper compensation for those who will be adversely affected by the Bill. The Minister regrettably failed to understand, or respond to the arguments that we presented—

Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)

I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for his brief intervention. He is right about compensation. That affects not only those who own land in the countryside, but poses the question whether the Bill breaches the Human Rights Act 1998. I suspect that the measure will be tested in the courts before long. The Government have determinedly resisted our efforts to stop them becoming ever more unpopular. Despite our efforts, part I constitutes further confirmation that those who live and work in rural areas are no priority for the Government. I shall list part I's manifold failures in no particular order. It is unfair. The penalties for transgressions by farmers and landowners are wildly out of kilter with those for walkers. Walkers can become trespassers, who are taken off land for a few hours, whereas farmers and landowners can be criminalised. The Bill is impractical. The Government have insisted that access can be restricted for only 28 days and that the restriction cannot apply to weekends. We will therefore have to breed new sheep, which know not to have lambs at weekends. After we get used to that, we will have to train them not to lamb on bank holidays. I look forward to hearing the Government's strategy for achieving that. The Bill is confusing for farmers. For what are they liable if walkers injure themselves on their land? If a walker is injured climbing over or through a hedge, the occupier is not liable. However, if a walker is injured while climbing over a wall, there is liability. Indeed, if a walker damages a wall when climbing over it, the farmer is responsible for repairing not only the wall but the walker. That is not sensible proposed legislation. NFU News stated: Gilbert & Sullivan would have enjoyed writing a satirical operetta about the absurdities … including the charming point that an occupier will not owe a legal liability to a visitor who falls in a natural lake—but would do so if it was a reservoir! The restrictions on dogs are wildly inadequate. Dogs do not have to be kept under proper control for the right amount of time. That poses a severe threat to ground-nesting birds. Part I contains many other examples of the Government's signal failure to take the advice given in Committee, notably by several of my hon. Friends who have great experience in country matters, to make practical improvements to the Bill. Part II, which deals with rights of way, is not as bad. However, although it has been radically revised, it still contains glaring errors. Members of the Green Lanes Environmental Action Movement—GLEAM—who wish to protect green lanes from the inappropriate use of motor vehicles, will be unhappy about the Government's rejection of the cross-party amendments that my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) moved. I think Ministers will also find that the horse world is not happy with them. It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned. Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business), That, at this day's sitting, the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Jamieson.] Question agreed to. Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)

The many people who have problems driving to their own front door across a common will be fearful that the Minister's failure to give any commitment to rectify that problem in the other place will condemn them to years of uncertainty and misery. Part III on wildlife protection should be the heart of the Bill. For many months, we argued that we would give a fair wind to a decent wildlife protection Bill. The SSSI protection is welcome, but it is not enough. We should have better protection for local wildlife sites, and proper backing for biodiversity action plans. We should also have proper protection for our wildlife outside the SSSIs. There should be better protection for areas of outstanding natural beauty. That is in many ways the most important area for Government action. The Government's response was to issue a press release yesterday. While our deliberations on the Bill have been going on, I have been able to read on the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions website what the Minister proposes, and I have been able to read in the press what he proposes, but the one place I have not been able to get any information about what he intends is on the Floor of the House of Commons when we debate the very Bill in which he proposes to introduce these measures. That is a scandal, and it is not the way to promote decent legislation. I am not clear why the Minister is so afraid of the House. On Second Reading, he referred to additional funding for areas of outstanding natural beauty and said: I promise to make a statement soon about further measures.—[Official Report, 20 March 2000; Vol. 346, c. 731.] He has made that it statement, but he has deliberately chosen not to make it to the House when we discuss the Bill. That is regrettable. The Bill misses its most important targets. It is too timid when it should be bold on wildlife protection, and it is too dogmatic when it should be practical on access measures. If it is in any way historic, it is an historic missed opportunity.

David Clark (Labour, South Shields)

I am pleased to take part in the Third Reading of this historic Bill. It may not be the Bill that certain Conservative Members would like, but it is historic because it charts new waters for this country and its people. I am indebted to the Minister for the Environment and to the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), for all their work and for the way that they have kept an open mind on many of these issues. Everyone in this country who is interested in outdoor recreation, nature conservation or wildlife feels that the Bill is a step forward. Every 20 years or so we have such a Bill, we move forward and then events in nature overtake us and we have to take action once again. The measure in the Bill that pleases me most is that on access to open spaces. Ever since I entered the House, almost 30 years ago to the day, alongside my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment, I have been pressing for such a measure. It was not only me: I was just one of a long line of socialist politicians. I am a politician, and I do not think that any of us, in this Chamber of all places, should apologise for being politicians. We believe in this measure, and, ever since the Labour party's inception, people have been striving to achieve it. We finally have a Labour Government who have done so. I am proud of the Labour Government and of the fact that they have delivered this manifesto promise. I am conscious of the fact that, in my constituency stretching back over 70 years, its three Labour Members of Parliament have all introduced private Members' Bills to achieve this measure. We all failed, but it looks like the Government may now be succeeding. I shall move on from that issue to make a point about national parks, which were discussed by Conservative Members. I recognise that many of them have experience of the countryside, but I hope that they will recognise that many Labour Members have equal experience. Indeed, I might even suggest that our experience is more relevant than that of many Conservative Members as we live in, and represent, the upland areas, which will be particularly affected by the Bill's access arrangements. I look forward to national park status being extended to the New forest, and perhaps to the downs, but we must take local people with us if we can. National parks have many pluses for them as well as for business and we must build a consensus and co-operation in that respect. National parks are not only areas of outstanding natural beauty, but places to go to enjoy quiet recreation. That makes them stand out. However, because of the development of the internal combustion engine and of four-wheel drives, motorised vehicles represent an increasing threat to rural Britain, especially national parks and affluent areas. Speaking from experience of the Lake district and with the consent of the Lake district planning board, I plead with my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment: I hope that we will reconsider whether we can do anything to alter the traffic regulations to allow us to control the use of motorised vehicles off the metallic roads in the national parks. That is very important, as is the issue of quietness in this modern world. Only last weekend, I came down off Helvellyn, looked over Ullswater to see the sailing boats there and quietly blessed the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South, for his decision to ban speedboats on Windermere. The 10 mph speed limit on Windermere was long overdue. It was introduced by the local authority and the planning authority and then considered by the planning inspectorate, which upheld it. The previous Government could not go along with it, but my right hon. Friends called it in again and reconsidered. Most of those who know the Lake district will applaud that example of trying to get a bit of quiet in these areas. During these two days of debate, it has been interesting to hear Conservative Members make a case against access, but they did so as if there was no previous experience. I do not want to repeat what I said yesterday, but there is 75 years of experience of open access in that huge area, the English Lake district. Of course there have been difficulties. The Lake district planning board has had problems, but it has learned to work with the farmers who keep the landscape as we want it. I shall not pretend that things will be easy, but we have to learn from that experience and transfer it to other parts of the country in which we have access. In our debates, we inevitably cite extreme cases to make our points, but I say to Conservative Members that the situation will not be anywhere near as difficult as they think. I believe that, if we can work one side with the other, we can achieve what we all want: allowing all our citizens to enjoy more and more the beautiful countryside in our United Kingdom.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I join the right hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) and others in thanking everyone connected with proceedings in Committee, including the Clerks, our four Chairmen and the members of the Committee. It was a delight to serve because the Committee handled its business constructively. Most importantly, Members from both sides of the House engaged in the debate. Sometimes, Government Back Benchers do not have the opportunities, to express their views. That did not happen in the Committee. They played an important and constructive role. I am grateful to them for that. The right hon. Gentleman said that it was a good and perhaps historic Bill. I agree. It is potentially historic. It is certainly important. It is, in essence, a good Bill, but it is flawed. That has been my concern throughout the proceedings. We have an important vehicle for conservation legislation. As has been said many times, such Bills do not come along very often, yet some areas of conservation reform have not found their way into the Bill. We have discussed biodiversity action plans, which are an essential element. No one is looking for a uniformity of approach, but we are looking for a commonality of intent. That is missing. We still await the proposed changes on areas of outstanding natural beauty. I agree with the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green): we in the Chamber should have been told what the Government intended. By all means let it then be considered in another place and returned to us, but the announcement should have been made here during consideration of the Bill. There have been less important—although they are still important—areas of consideration, such as the hon. Gentleman's amendment on invasive aquatic species. That should be in the Bill. Again, the provisions on rights of way are important. There are important improvements, but there is a lack of provision for recreational riding, which is a missing component. The proposals lack clarity. The most important element of all is the resources that will underpin effectiveness of the rights of way improvement plans, which we hope will succeed. On access, the thing that has bedevilled the Bill is the expression "right to roam". It has raised the expectations of both those in favour of the Bill and those against—expectations that it does not for one moment meet. People have the idea that, as a result of the Bill, they will find people with bobble hats in their chrysanthemum beds. They will not. It is essentially a modest move to increase access to upland areas and open countryside. We wholeheartedly support that. Where we differ from the Government is that we see that there are difficulties with the definitions within the Bill; with the effect on agriculture—there is an apparent lack of understanding of agricultural practice—and with clarity, which will be essential if the thing is to work properly in practice, so that walkers, landowners and those who work the land know what their rights are. The provisions on liability and compensation lack clarity. All those are essential elements that will need to be debated in another place. They will have to be resolved before the Bill comes back to us. We have ranged wide in our discussions on the Bill. We have gone from the floating pennywort to the prevalence of llamas in Llanberis. It has been an interesting journey. We must decide today whether, on balance, the Bill sufficiently covers the various points that we have raised to give it support. The view of the Conservative Opposition is that it does not. They have tabled a reasoned amendment stating some of the deficiencies of the Bill; I agree that there are deficiencies. In their view, on that basis, they should reject the Bill tonight. I do not take that view and will advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the Bill. However, that does not alter the fact that substantial improvements need to be made in another place before the Bill becomes law. We will seek those amendments elsewhere and when the Bill returns to the House.

David Kidney (Labour, Stafford)

I realise that the Bill has reached the halfway point, in that the whole process will now be repeated in the other place, but I think that I am entitled to talk of successes at this stage. There is the success represented by Labour's delivering on a manifesto promise, and translating the right of access to open countryside into legislation. There is the success involved in the attempt to modernise our complex law of rights of way, and the delivery of new entitlements for which landowners have waited for many years—entitlements to divert and close rights of way that, over many years, have become out of date and inconvenient, and have got in the way of businesses that want to make money. All those developments are welcome, although the subject is so complex that further refinements will be needed before the Bill completes its passage. The Bill has achieved a further success in protecting wildlife. It has strengthened the protection of sites of special scientific interest, strengthened police powers to gather evidence of crimes against wildlife, and strengthened the powers of the courts to punish those who are caught committing such crimes. Nevertheless, I hope that there will be further developments in part III before the Bill returns to the House of Commons. The final success that I want to cite is one that many Members have already mentioned: the success of the parliamentary process. In that context, the Bill has given us a model to follow in future. Even before its publication, there was full consultation. As all Members who have taken part in our deliberations know, the Government received many responses, and responses of good quality. I think it fair to say that they developed policy and changed decisions as a result of some of those responses. We also conducted ourselves well in Committee. The official Opposition had a forceful, although principled, objection to part I. They presented their arguments with reason and certainly with vigour, but never with excess verbiage. I congratulate them on that. Let me also draw attention to the contribution of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath). Acting single-handedly on behalf of his party, he not only followed proceedings throughout the Committee stage but was one of the main movers in Committee. Despite having no support, he tabled detailed amendments, to the extent of proposing improvements in the wording of parts of the Bill. He spoke with authority about his amendments and those of others. I think that he can claim credit for improving the legislation. The Government also deserve credit for the number of promises made in Committee that were redeemed on Report. That is thanks to the Ministers who have seen the Bill through this part of the parliamentary process. Lastly, I give a pat on the back to myself and to my Labour colleagues who took part in the Committee stage. As both the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome and my right hon. Friend the Minister said, we were not silent. We were not mute. We did not simply vote at the right times when required to do so. We contributed fully to the debate; we spoke, and moved amendments. I have been pleased to note the number of amendments proposed and spoken to by me which, yesterday and today, have been translated into the Bill as a result of Government amendments. So far, the whole thing is a success, although it has some way to go in the other place. I hope that Members of the other place will take account of the detailed process that has already taken place. I hope that they will respect what has happened so far, that they will interpret the clues they have been given about ways in which the Bill can still be improved, and that we shall end up with an Act of which the House of Commons can be proud and which will survive for many years.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

Let me, in the same spirit as the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), congratulate those on both Front Benches on having conducted the Committee proceedings with such good humour. At least we all know now where Somerton and Frome and Merionnydd Nant Conwy are. There is a certain irony in today's debate. In a week in which the introduction of the right to roam was introduced, it was also announced that the ancient right to hunt was to be abolished. There is a further irony. Why—the Minister has not satisfied me in this regard—is it appropriate to provide a statutory right of access when it is thought that a voluntary arrangement is not appropriate, when the Government fall short of providing statutory protection for local wildlife sites? There is a certain lack of logic in the Government's thinking. I shall certainly find it very difficult to justify to my constituents night-time access, which will be the most difficult part of the Bill to administer. Equally, the lack of compensation for those who will be adversely affected will detract from the many positive elements of the Bill. I shall therefore support the reasoned amendment.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I support the reasoned amendment and shall concentrate on part I of the Bill, for whose provisions I very much doubt that there is a need. I have been a walker all my life. Walking is my chief recreation. I have never felt constrained in my access to the countryside. The existing network of footpaths is largely adequate for the purpose. Where it is not, it can be improved by Voluntary agreements. Part I of the Bill is cavalier about private property. I deeply regret that. The business of the House is in part to defend private property, on which the Bill intrudes to an unwarranted extent. Moreover, the Bill imposes unreasonable costs and obligations on landowners and farmers. That is wrong in principle, and especially wrong at this time. I deeply regret the absence of proper compensation. The Minister for the Environment yesterday referred the House to clause 33, but I shall remind him of what I told him last night. The compensation payments under clause 33 depend on the existence of a voluntary access agreement, in the absence of which there would be no payment. In any event, clause 33 does not entitle the landowner or of hers affected to require provision of payment to be incorporated into an access agreement. In reality, therefore, there are no statutory rights to compensation. I am against part I of the Bill. It is wrong in principle, and I am sorry that it will become law. I hope that it is looked at further in the other place.

Desmond Swayne (Conservative, New Forest West)

The reasoned amendment is cogent and sums up my feelings about the Bill, but I want to air one other issue very briefly—namely, the opportunity missed by the Bill in respect of national parks. Under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, the Minister has power to create a national park without creating a national park authority at the same time. Ministers have received representations from the local authorities in the New forest asking for him to do precisely that. The Minister could have used the Bill to lay new responsibilities on local authorities to discharge the duties otherwise discharged by the national parks authority. When I asked the Under-Secretary whether new clause 4 offered the appropriate vehicle for that, I did not even get an answer. I intervened on him later, and his response then was that I had not been in the Chamber for the debate. Perhaps he suffered a momentary lapse of attention when I made my contribution, or perhaps it was so unmemorable that he missed it. Strange though it may seem, he is uncharacteristically absent from the Chamber at the moment. However, I hope that the question will be revisited in the other place, as I think that it deserves proper attention.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

Those of us who live and work in the countryside, and who love it, have always been keen that as many people as possible can be found room for to enjoy the countryside as we do. It is for that reason that many people have worked so hard for so many years to arrange managed access to the countryside. That was achieved successfully on the Templars Firs estate, just outside my constituency. Over a number of years, everything possible has been done—including redirecting rights of way and promoting horse riding—to encourage people from Swindon and Bristol to visit the estate. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the Ramblers Association have acknowledged the estate as an exemplar of all that should be done to open up access. However, the Templars Firs estate has succeeded because it has achieved a balance between, on the one hand, the rights and interests of the landowner and of the farmers who grow our food, and of the walkers on the other. That is a very delicate balance and only by getting it right could the Bill possibly work. In a variety of areas, the Bill fundamentally upsets that delicate balance. Instead of providing a way in which landowners and walkers can get together to arrange proper access to the countryside, the Government have set up a confrontational approach. The walkers' approach is to say from the start that they believe that landowners will prevent access, and the walkers want access despite the fact that landowners have their farming interests at heart. What is more, the walkers want that right by law. There is no requirement for a provision that will allow walkers to do what otherwise they would not do. I am not aware of vast hordes of walkers ready and determined to go on to the moorlands, uplands and commons mentioned in the Bill and I would be very surprised if they existed.

David Lepper (Labour/Co-operative, Brighton, Pavilion)

If there are no vast hordes, why have Opposition Members made such a fuss about the provision on access?

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

If there are no such vast hordes, why are we wasting parliamentary time passing a law to allow them access? There is no demand for that right. The Bill is more about ideology. It is about saying, "These landowners will not give us what we want, so we will show them." This week, the Government have taken steps towards banning fox hunting, but that has nothing to do with animal rights or the countryside. It is about saying, "We are going to show the landowning classes that we are still the old Labour party." That is also what lies behind the Bill. If that were not the case, the Government would have considered various issues more carefully, such as the 28-day exceptions, which appear wildly inadequate to anyone who knows anything about the countryside. They would take the lambing season more seriously, but they have dismissed it airily. It is in fact vital, but it will be disrupted in the areas involved. The Government would also consider how we can keep our uplands going through shooting. They do not understand shooting, but it is the only way to preserve the uplands as they are at the moment. [Interruption.] Labour Members find that humorous, and the Minister laughs, but it is true. The Government do not understand the countryside. They do not understand the areas to which they will give people access. The Bill is driven by ideology. For example, several hon. Members have described this as a historic day. If what we were talking about was a few people going for a walk in the countryside, it would not be historic. Labour Members say it is historic because they view it as an ideological triumph of the left over the landowner. The Bill is badly drafted and the Government have missed opportunities in what has been the first countryside Bill for many years. The Minister has also admitted on several occasions that much more work needs to be done on the Bill, and I hope that that will happen in the other place. The reasoned amendment makes sense because it shows up the Bill for what it is. It has nothing to do with encouraging people to enjoy the countryside and much to do with an ideological hatred of those of us who are lucky enough to live there.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I am always pleased to follow my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray), because it makes me seem so moderate. However, I do not disagree with some of his views. I concur with all the thanks and plaudits that have been expressed, but nobody has yet mentioned the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), who astounded me and many others in Committee with his incredible knowledge of countryside issues and legislation. He was of great benefit to the Committee. From the outset, we have welcomed the changes to the rights of way legislation, and I was interested to note that the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) referred to outdated legislation and the need for the ability to divert footpaths. I agree with him, although his view was not shared by all his hon. Friends or the organisations which have supported the Bill. They feel that every footpath should be sacrosanct for ever and a day, and that no account should be taken of changing needs. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) said, it is part I that has caused immense concern in the countryside. I suspect that the Minister for the Environment regards the Bill as his big political memorial, but I do not criticise him for that. The Bill is his great opportunity to put a significant piece of legislation on the statute book, and it is right that he should take credit for it. It is just a great shame that the Government did not seek to create a much more comprehensive network of footpaths across the country. Such a network would have been closer to people's homes, and would have increased accessibility for them much more than open access will. In Committee, the Minister asserted—he has kindly done so again today—that the Opposition have approached the Bill constructively. At times, so did he, and I am grateful to him for that. I make it clear that the Opposition do not want to deny any responsible person the opportunity to enjoy the countryside. However, we believe that that could have been achieved in a different and better way, making access more convenient for constituents such as mine and those of many other hon. Members representing constituencies in the south-east who do not live close to open country. There is a great difference between linear access and open access. Many problems that do not result from linear access—such as landowners' liability—most certainly will result from open access. Many Labour Members have demonstrated a mindset that is against the interests of landowners and land users, and which is indifferent to the legislation's impact on agriculture, on wildlife—especially ground-nesting birds, including our waders in the uplands—and, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire said, on sporting use and landowners' ability to use their own land without encumbrance. As I said in earlier debates, there are also serious clashes between the Bill's provisions and the Government's own action plan for farming policy document. Many amendments were tabled to the Bill. In Committee, many amendments were supported by all the Opposition parties but were rejected. My noble Friends will have to address the issues dealt with in those amendments in the other place. Yesterday, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) moved an amendment on the issue of compensation, but the Minister dismissed it as legalistic. Not only would I expect an eminent lawyer to make a legalistic speech, but we are talking about making a law. It seems odd to say that one should not be legalistic in passing legislation. The Bill's most serious default—on top of all those described by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) in opening our first debate today—is perhaps its failure to provide for information to walkers. Much information will have to be conveyed to those who want to use the rights provided to them in the Bill—such as which parts of a moor are closed, and, for those who do not have an appropriate map, the limits to the open country. Walkers will also have to know the boundaries of land owned by different individuals, as they will be subject to the absurd notion that, if they transgress schedule 2 provisions, they would have to leave that specific land for 24 hours. As those who are familiar with open country will know, the boundary between the land of different owners may not be easy to perceive. People may also have to know the rules on dogs, such as the dates on which they have to be on leads. The Government, however, rejected the eminently sensible approach of creating access points to the open country at which such information could be displayed. Labour Members seem to think—the attitude has come through again in the past two days—that all walkers are responsible people and that all landowners will seek to thwart the legislation. I do not believe that either group can be so characterised. Sadly, some people will try to abuse the rights being provided to them, and some landowners will probably—because of the Bill's compulsory elements—be less than enthusiastic about those rights. Despite what the right hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) said—with respect to him, he has not been in the Chamber for most of the debates—in our consideration of the Bill, including in Committee and in the past two days, we have seen at best an ignorance of countryside and land management activities, and at worst a barely concealed contempt on the part of some Labour Members for those who earn their income from the land or enjoy their sport, quite apart from those who own the land. It is not jut the wealthy landowners who will be affected, as Labour Members have sought to portray, but countless thousands of men and women who work on the land in the countryside, in all manner of ways, will find their occupations affected by these rights. Those effects have not been countered by measures in the Bill. It should not surprise us that there is this ignorance and intolerance of farmers and landowners from a party which is essentially urban. Labour Members may claim to represent rural seats—they may, temporarily, actually do so—but there is a gulf between representing rural seats and the countryside, and understanding what it is all about. I commend our amendment to the House.

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

Before we conclude our proceedings, I want to respond to the churlish and curmudgeonly reasoned amendment put down by the Conservative party. In my opening remarks on Third Reading, I rather unwisely praised Conservative Members for their thoughtful and constructive contribution to the debate. However, from their remarks on Third Reading, it is plain to all in the House that the mask is beginning to slip. When I first made the statement to the House on 8 March last year, Conservative Members' reaction was one of spluttering rage and outraged repudiation. A further year of considered reflection, and the realisation that the Bill is hugely popular, have tamed their response. We are now down to four relatively small matters of outstanding difference between us. Even on these, their reaction is biased and unbalanced, as I will show. I accept that the Bill does not do all that the Opposition would like it to do—for very good reasons. Were we to accept all the amendments tabled by the Conservative party on Report, open countryside could be closed for more than half of all Saturdays throughout the year, and would certainly be out of bounds at night, with people becoming criminals for the heinous offence of swimming in a lakeland tarn. Conservative Members have chosen to overlook just how far the Bill goes in meeting the genuine concerns of those who own and manage the land. In the run-up to the introduction of the Bill, we had many genuinely constructive meetings with representatives of landowners, particularly the Country Landowners Association. I do not for one moment pretend that they are happy with all the access provisions, but I know that we have reassured them on many important issues about how the right of access will operate in practice. The Opposition's reasoned amendment complains that the provisions on occupiers' liability placed upon landowners arising from any man-made features contain no exclusions for ancient or historical features. It totally ignores the fact that the Bill already introduces a key change of principle by removing all liability of occupiers in respect of natural features of the land.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

rose—

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

I think that the hon. Gentleman knows full well what I am saying. Although we had originally proposed that the liability owed to those exercising the new right would be the very low level owed to trespassers, we have agreed to lower it further still and to remove all liability. It would help if there were some acknowledgement of that in the so-called reasoned amendment.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

Of course I acknowledge that there has been a change, but the fact is that is only to do with natural features. In open country there are countless features which, at some stage in history, were made by man. Iron age forts, ancient peat diggings, and dry stone walls which may have been there for hundreds of years cannot possibly be the responsibility of the land's present owner, yet landowners remain liable for an accident that may occur on them.

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

The hon. Gentleman continues to refuse to acknowledge that we have removed all occupiers' liability in respect of natural features of the landscape—[Interruption.] Yes, he is referring to man-made features. We believe that a measure of liability in respect of farm equipment and other man-made features of the landscape is only right and proper. The reasoned amendment complains of the absence of provisions for compensation. I repeat that the Bill includes a range of provisions specifically to safeguard the interests of landowners and managers. We do not expect the Bill to impose significant costs on landowners. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions signed a certificate of compatibility with the Human Rights Act 1998, after careful consideration and based on legal advice. The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) said that part I was controversial. I acknowledge that. However, we have gone out of our way to put in place management arrangements that will ensure that the right of access and the proper use of land can co-exist. A short time after the new right has come into effect, people will look back and wonder what all the fuss was about. On part II, the reasoned amendment welcomes the rights of way provisions of the Bill. The Opposition should remember that they cannot cherry-pick. Certainly, those provisions stand in their own right, but they form part of the measure's overall package. We have done much that the Opposition welcome, but my concern throughout was to benefit everyone involved—users and landowners alike—and not just the narrow sectional interests that the Opposition have been promoting. Finally, I recognise and welcome the general support throughout the House that the wildlife provisions of the Bill have received. We can justly claim that the strengthening of the protection and management of sites of special scientific interest represents a major step forward in the conservation and enhancement of our wildlife. The Bill forms only part—although a vital and essential one—of the steps we are taking to demonstrate our commitment to biodiversity and nature conservation. That commitment will continue. We will ensure that we fully comply with our obligations under the birds and habitats directives—including the completion of our contribution to the Natura 2000 network; we will develop the agreed recommendations of the local sites review group that we discussed this evening, so as better to deliver wildlife conservation locally; and we will continue to give our fullest support to the delivery of the UK biodiversity action plan. To sum up, the reasoned amendment is distinctly churlish in its response to the Bill; it looks solely and excessively at the sectional interests of only one of the many groups of people who will be affected. The Bill will benefit all who love our beautiful and priceless countryside and our rich natural heritage. I urge the House to reject the amendment and to send the Bill on its way.