Orders of the Day — Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

House of Commons, 11 October 2005.

New Clause 11 — Traffic Regulation on Byways Etc. in National Parks in England and Wales

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

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

It is a pleasure to be able to return to this Bill so soon after the summer recess. Given what the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) has just said about off-road vehicles, it is especially appropriate that we should begin with this new clause, which would give the national park authorities powers to make traffic regulation orders in respect of unsealed roads. The new clause follows points made in Standing Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) and by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams).

Some national park authorities already carry out limited highway authority functions in respect of rights of way, which are delegated to them by agreement with their local highway authority under section 101 of the Local Government Act 1972. However, it is unclear whether those agreements are able to cover the making of traffic regulation orders.

Therefore, national park authorities must rely on negotiations with the local authority when they want to impose a TRO. That process can be time consuming and resource intensive, and the outcome is often uncertain. As I said in Committee in response to the points made by the hon. Members to whom I have referred, I believe that the national park authorities should have the necessary tools to manage traffic effectively on recreational routes in the national parks.

Ian Liddell-Grainger (Conservative, Bridgwater)

The Minister is absolutely right; Exmoor national park has exactly that problem. But would he differentiate between recreational users and people who have legitimate reason to have their vehicles up there? There are areas where people use their vehicles for farming and so on, and if the national park has measures that are too draconian it could be a problem. Would the Minister be able to arbitrate in a dispute between landowners?

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I am not sure that I personally would want to arbitrate in all those matters. The expectation would be that the national park authorities would use those powers sensitively, as highways authorities currently do. We would be applying the rules that currently apply to highways authorities in respect of the powers to make TROs also to national park authorities, who would use them in the same way.

The amendment will make it easier for the park authorities to protect routes that are most vulnerable to damage of the type that we heard about from the hon. Member for Castle Point when he introduced his ten-minute Bill.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I am grateful to the Minister for commencing this afternoon's proceedings with what I might call a bit of a climbdown, because he will remember that he opposed the amendment when it was tabled by the Liberal Democrats in Committee. To be fair, he said, as he has just repeated, that he wanted national parks to have the tools but he was not at that stage prepared to give them the powers. Now he is doing so and he is doing that correctly.

I also want to express my gratitude to the Minister for informing those of us who were involved with the Bill, early in the recess, that this was his plan, and for making similar comments about other things. I only hope that this presages a useful next four-and-a-half hours of proceedings and that there will be other measures on which we can agree, but clearly it is sensible that national parks authorities should have the opportunity to issue traffic regulation orders. We shall return to traffic regulation orders later this evening, but the fact that the Government are seeing fit to give national parks authorities the power to issue TROs is an important step forward, not just because of national parks but also because of the principle of using TROs to deal with some of the negative effects that mechanised vehicles can have on byways that are open to all traffic. We need not repeat at this stage all the damage that can be done—members of the Committee and many other Members of the House are well aware of it—but it is very serious, and giving national parks authorities the opportunity to issue TROs takes us a long way forward. It still leaves the rest of the country and we shall return to that in a later group of amendments, but I appreciate the Minister's concession on this new clause and welcome it.

Tom Levitt (Labour, High Peak)

I very much welcome the new clause. As the Minister knows, the Peak district is the most beautiful part of England and he is welcome to come and see for himself at the earliest possible time all that the area has to offer. Unfortunately, one thing that he might see on a visit is damage that has been done by 4x4s and off-road vehicles to the rights of way that we are talking about today. Many national parks have had this problem for a long time, but the issue has perhaps been growing faster in the Peak district.

I should like to raise with the Minister a number of issues on which I hope he can provide answers, but whatever he says in answer, he can be assured of my 100 per cent. support for the new clause. First, is this just about 4x4 vehicles or is it about other forms of mechanised transport as well? I am thinking of trail bikes, motor bikes and so on. Secondly, in recent months there has been a rush by various groups to try to squeeze some rights of way under the finishing rope, to get them recognised as rights of way on which they can use motorised vehicles before legislation such as this comes into effect. I should be grateful if the Minister would assure me that where there is evidence that these have been raised at a late stage to try to get them under the wire, that can be resisted. I am not really asking for retrospective powers for the national park, but I am asking for it to have powers to resist applications for rights of way status that are already in the pipeline where, for example, there is no evidence that motorised vehicles have ever regularly used those rights of way.

I am also interested to know about the use of the definitive map in these cases. Why is it that only rights of way are on the definitive map, rather than other routes that may well be established as walking routes and so on and could be abused by users of motorised recreational vehicles? Does the Minister envisage that, as a consequence of the new clause, powers will be given to national parks to repair, upgrade or make changes to rights of way or to force others to do so in order to maintain or restore their essential character?

The final point—I think that the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) hinted at it—is that if the national parks had such powers they would obviously need the resources to impose them. Can we be assured that national parks funding will take into account the need to maintain the character of rights of way?

Roger Williams (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

I welcome the wisdom of the Minister in tabling the new clause. In all respects, it replicates my intention in tabling an amendment in Committee. I have no doubt that the statutory intent is expressed in better language, and I welcome that, too. It is desperately important for national parks, which have the statutory duty to conserve the appearance of the countryside as well as to promote recreation and enjoyment of those areas, to have the power to make TROs. The national parks are best placed to strike a balance between conservation and recreation. I have no doubt that they will use the Sandford principle in coming to decisions. The Sandford principle puts the emphasis on conservation if there is ever a dispute between the two statutory duties.

The hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger), who represents Exmoor, made a point about landowners having access over rights of way when TROs are made. I am sure that in the consultations that national parks will undertake with the local residents and the local authority such access would be protected, because it is so important to the local economy.

Ian Liddell-Grainger (Conservative, Bridgwater)

One of the issues that I touched on was the relationship between the Ministry of Defence and national parks. Two national parks have MOD land on them—Dartmoor and Northumberland. I have seen little mention of that. Both bodies have statutory rights, and Crown immunity is going. I wonder whether the hon. Member has any thoughts on that.

Roger Williams (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

The hon. Gentleman raises a valuable point. I am not aware of the military use of national parks where the MOD either owns part of the national park or has been given use of land. The military uses the Brecon Beacons national park on a rather more informal basis. The MOD has a very good relationship with the national park, and I am sure that the national park would see that no damage was done.

I welcome the new clause. I am sure that it will give national parks great heart that they are in a better position to look after the countryside for which they have responsibility, and to promote enjoyment and recreation.

Bob Spink (Conservative, Castle Point)

The hon. Gentleman on the Treasury Bench represents part of one of the most beautiful counties in England—Dorset. Scrambling and offroading are major problems in that region. Is he aware that the courts have recently ruled that gopeds and, presumably, mini motos are classified for legal purposes as motor vehicles? Will those new miniature motorised devices be covered by the national park TROs?

John Mann (Labour, Bassetlaw)

Is my hon. Friend's Department considering issuing any guidelines to national parks and others about the use of traffic regulation orders, particularly where upgrades to BOATs—byways open to all traffic—have already made progress and where there is the possibility of countering those upgrades that may have been objected to but passed in advance of the Bill becoming a statute? If so, what is the time scale in relation to such advice?

Robert Goodwill (Conservative, Scarborough and Whitby)

While I recognise the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger) about farmers or gamekeepers gaining access to national parks, I realise that national parks will treat such use sympathetically. Similarly, I am critical of the use in national parks of trail bikes and other vehicles that can cause damage. However, can the Minister allay my concerns about legal motor sports in national parks that are undertaken with the landowner's permission and are sometimes a valuable source of income to the landowner? In particular, trial riding, as opposed to trail riding, is a sport enjoyed by many families and young children and a valuable part of the activity that takes place in national parks.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

A lot of points have been made in quick-fire succession, which is obviously an efficient way for us to go about our business. I am grateful to the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) for his comments, which do not require me to add anything.

My hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Tom Levitt) raised some important and valid issues, some of which we will deal with much more fully when we come to the fourth group of amendments, which relate to rights of way, 4x4s, trail-bike riders and so on. Clearly, the use of traffic regulation orders by national park authorities will apply to all vehicles, depending on how those orders are framed. As I said in response to the intervention from the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger), we shall simply apply the powers that are currently available to highways agencies. I shall deal later with the rush to make claims if my hon. Friend will be patient with me.

The powers are not limited to rights of way on the definitive map and statement. The powers also apply to all unsurfaced routes within the national park boundary—in other words, to all routes that are likely to be vulnerable to damage by mechanically propelled vehicles. My hon. Friend's next question related to the associated works that might need to be carried out in support of that. We are confident that the powers that the proposals confer will be implicitly granted to national park authorities under the new clause.

Finally, my hon. Friend asked the inevitable question about resources. We have consulted the national park authorities about the funding implications of the new powers. I visited several of them over the summer, and they are all very enthusiastic about them. Indeed, I spoke to the annual general meeting of the Association of National Park Authorities, and I got the closest thing to a cheer during my whole speech when I said that I was actively considering introducing such a proposal. The national park authorities have said that they are happy to take the new powers without additional funding. They believe that determining the priority of such things within the funds available to them and how best to use their resources to protect the landscapes that they are responsible for protecting are matters for them.

I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) for his comments. In respect of the intervention made by the hon. Member for Bridgwater, I am happy to write to him about the issues that he raised about the Ministry of Defence, if that is helpful to him.

The hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) will be pleased to know that, yes, despite being new devices, gopeds—I share some of his mystery about what they are specifically—and certainly mini mopeds, which I do know about, will be regarded as mechanically propelled. In any case, traffic regulation orders will apply to all vehicles.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) asked about guidelines on using the new powers. Those will be published shortly and I shall be able to talk a little more about that later.

The hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Goodwill) raised an important point, which I did not have time to write down, so it has subsequently escaped me, but if he wants to make a rapid intervention it may be possible for me to remember.

Robert Goodwill (Conservative, Scarborough and Whitby)

To help the Minister, the point I made was about legal motor sport in national parks. I referred to uses that would almost invariably be treated sympathetically by national park committees, such as use by farmers, but there are a number of such activities; for example, in my constituency, the Colonial trial—a national motorbike trial event—is held with the landowner's permission and is a valuable source of income for many farmers. It is a family activity and is by no means antisocial. I should like an assurance from the Minister, as some national park committees might take a dim view of that type of legal activity.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for clarifying that for me. We are talking about rights of way and unsealed routes in national parks. The national park authority would have to make a judgment about whether it should use the powers for such things, but the Government have proven supportive of responsible use of motorised vehicles in the countryside, especially in our interpretation of the single payment scheme for farmers, to allow that sort of activity on land being claimed for SPS. The hon. Gentleman should take that as an indication that, although we intend to deal robustly with those who abuse the countryside with motorised vehicles, people who choose to be responsible and use vehicles without damaging the environment should be able to continue to do so.

I commend the new clause to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 12 — Agreement between Secretary of State and Designated Body

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

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

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

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government new clause 13—Agreement between designated bodies.

Government new clause 14—Designated bodies.

Government new clause 15—Reserved functions.

Government new clause 16—Maximum duration of agreements.

Government new clause 17—Particular powers.

Government new clause 18—Agreements with local authorities.

Government new clause 19—Supplementary provisions with respect to agreements.

Government new clause 20—Interpretation.

Government amendments Nos. 19 to 28.

Government amendments Nos. 31 to 34.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I now turn to an important part of the Bill, which is essential to help make the new delivery arrangements work in practice, give us flexibility to respond to further changes in the future, deliver better services to our customers, and provide important efficiencies.

In Committee, the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) proposed a number of amendments to chapter 1 of part 8. They were designed to restrict the power of Ministers and designated bodies to enter into agreements to delegate their functions to another body unconditionally. In response, I said that although I was confident that the Bill contained adequate safeguards to ensure accountability and control, the amendments had highlighted legitimate concerns about the breadth of clause 70 in particular. In fact, I ventured to say that I did not think his amendment went far enough. I suggested that the clauses might be better restricted to DEFRA-related functions only, and I undertook to reflect on the balance of the provisions, consult delivery bodies, and come back with a clear line on Report.

Over the summer, we have reviewed carefully the clauses in part 8, chapter 1 and have concluded that some further limitation on those powers would be appropriate. We now propose that the Bill should be amended as in these new clauses and amendments, which stand in the name of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The amendments would delete clauses 70 to 77 and replace them with new clauses 12 to 20. Although that may appear to be a somewhat radical revision to this part of the Bill—indeed, a transplant—in practice the amendments are not extensive. They introduce some further limitations on the clauses while leaving them essentially flexible, to enable DEFRA and its delivery bodies to respond swiftly to the need for changes in delivery arrangements. For ease of understanding, we felt it would be preferable to present the changes to the House as revised clauses rather than as detailed amendments—hence the transplant. It may, however, be helpful if I summarise the changes that we have made in the amendments.

Paddy Tipping (Labour, Sherwood)

I welcome this move; the Minister is acting sensibly. However, I want to make a practical point. He may use the phrase "clear lines", but this bit of the Bill is far from clear. It shows how difficult it is for the various bodies operating in this sector to interrelate. One of the real weaknesses of the Bill—the bit that we need to think through—is how we can co-ordinate activity across the countryside so that the various elements of biodiversity, economics and social access all link together. I am not confident that we have achieved that at the moment.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

As ever, and as I was in Committee, I am grateful for my hon. Friend's wisdom. The new clauses and amendments are essential to allow the delegation of powers between bodies carrying out DEFRA-related functions so that we can achieve exactly the aim that he seeks.

The most important change is that we have limited the types of delegation provided for in old clauses 70 and 71. Previously, clause 70 provided for any Minister of the Crown to enter an agreement with a designated body to perform any eligible function, while clause 71 provided additionally for the Secretary of State to delegate an eligible DEFRA function to an undesignated body. Under new clause 12, the Secretary of State may enter an agreement to perform a DEFRA function with a designated body only, as listed in schedule 7. Like old clause 72, new clause 13 provides for the possibility of agreements between bodies, but only between designated bodies—we have removed the possibility of delegating functions to undesignated bodies—and only of DEFRA-related functions.

Patrick McLoughlin (Conservative, West Derbyshire)

That is clear then.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I am glad that it is clear to all right hon. and hon. Members.

As in the existing clauses, we have retained the possibility in new clause 14 for the Secretary of State to add new designated bodies to the schedule, by negative resolution order, to provide future flexibility. Such additional bodies must exercise functions related to, or connected with, DEFRA functions in line with the general limitation of these powers to the DEFRA area.

Because there is no longer the possibility of making agreements with undesignated bodies, we have taken the opportunity to review the list in schedule 7 to ensure that it covers all those bodies with which DEFRA, or other designated bodies being set up by the Bill such as Natural England, might need to make agreements in the near future. As a result, we are adding to the schedule English Heritage, which is described as the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission, and local authorities. The addition of local authorities gives rise to the need for some technical changes to ensure consistency with local government legislation, and these are contained in new clause 18.

New clause 15 deals with the reserved functions, which may not be delegated and which were previously in clause 73(4). This now additionally provides that the Secretary of State may not authorise a designated body to perform functions under the Water Industry Act 1991 or subordinate legislation made under it. This was an important clarification for the industry. The new clause also retains the requirement that functions to be delegated must be compatible with the purposes for which the receiving body was established, together with other limitations to ensure that this power is not used inappropriately.

I believe that these changes significantly improve this part of the Bill. They address the genuine concerns that the Opposition raised about the potentially wide implications of these agreements and they introduce greater certainty and transparency into the types of functions involved, and the bodies that can enter into agreements. But—this is essential, to address the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping)—they also provide us with the tools that we need to continue to deliver a challenging programme of reform in DEFRA now and into the future. They will give DEFRA and its bodies the flexibility that we need to look at the best ways of delivering our strategic outcomes, to assist customers by operating in a joined-up way, to avoid duplication and waste, to devolve delivery to the regional and local level and to respond to changing needs over time. These amendments and new clauses strengthen important provisions in the Bill. I commend them to the House.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

It is not often that the Opposition manage to persuade the Government to tear up a whole chapter of a Bill and rewrite it. I will take all the credit that is going for achieving that. Indeed, I was reflecting on whether to send a letter to the chairman of the 1922 committee on the strength of it, given things that are going on—

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

A dark horse candidate.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

Very dark.

I shall not use emotive words. The Under-Secretary described the sensible complete revision of this aspect of the Bill. He kindly said that we had raised a range of worries about the powers that were being given, not only to Secretaries of State but to any Minister of the Crown, to devolve virtually anything to anybody. We thought that that was excessive, bearing in mind the House's important role of accountability to the people who elected us. If we start devolving any function to any organisation, theories of accountability seem to go out of the window. I am thus especially pleased that the Government have backed down from providing for such a widespread power and now want to give a power to only the Secretary of State that will relate to the functions only of DEFRA.

I am also pleased that the Government are getting rid of clause 71, yet are effectively not replacing it. In other words, agreements will be entered into only between the Government and a designated body. The idea of entering into agreements with non-designated bodies seems to have gone. I welcome that decision, because the point of having designated bodies was completely nullified if one could delegate to a non-designated body.

When my right hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) read schedule 7, he identified the fact that the Government would be able to delegate to the Wine Standards Board. He is concerned about what they might want to delegate to that board, but no doubt the Under-Secretary will clarify that important point for us. Perhaps we will need to go on for a moment so that he can receive a note from the Box, because I suspect that the answer is not in his brief.

We want to debate substantive issues tonight, so I do not wish to detain the House. We welcome the new clauses as a significant change of heart by the Government. They bode well and reflect the constructive way in which the Government and Opposition parties have engaged on the Bill. The measures take us a long way forward and I welcome them.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

There is not much to add, beyond comment on the Wine Standards Board. That body clearly carries out DEFRA-related functions and we wish to retain the potential to delegate to all bodies that carry out DEFRA-related functions. However, right now I am struggling to think of a specific example of something that we might want to delegate to the board. I hope that the House will support the new clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 13 — Agreement between Designated Bodies

New Clause 14 — Designated Bodies

New Clause 15 — Reserved Functions

New Clause 16 — Maximum Duration of Agreements

New Clause 17 — Particular Powers

New Clause 18 — Agreements with Local Authorities

New Clause 19 — Supplementary Provisions with respect to Agreements

New Clause 20 — Interpretation

New Clause 1 — Enforcement Powers in Connection with Pesticides: Entry and Search by Force Without a Warrant

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

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

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

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 2—Enforcement powers in connection with pesticides: entry and search with a warrant—

'(1) If, on an application by a constable or an inspector, a justice of the peace is satisfied—

(a) that there are reasonable grounds for believing that—

(i) an offence under section 43 is being or has been committed on any premises, or

(ii) evidence of the commission of an offence under section 43 is to be found on any premises, and

(b) that one or more of the conditions in subsection (2) is met,

he may issue a warrant authorising a constable or an inspector to enter the premises and each them for evidence of the commission of an offence under section 43.

(2) The conditions are—

(a) in the case of any part of premises which is not used as a private dwelling, that the occupier of the premises has been informed of the decision to apply for the warrant;

(b) in the case of any part of premises which is not used as a private dwelling, that the occupier of the premises—

(i) has been informed of the decision to seek entry to the premises and the reasons for that decision.

(ii) has failed to allow entry to the premises on being requested to do so by a person mentioned in section [Enforcement powers in connection with pesticides: entry and search by force without a warrant] (1), and

(iii) has been informed of the decision to apply for the warrant;

(c) in either case—

(i) that the premises are unoccupied, or the occupier is absent, and notice of intention to apply for the warrant has been left in a conspicuous place on the premises, or

(ii) an application for admission to the premises or the giving of notice of intention to apply for the warrant is inappropriate because—

(a) it would defeat the object of entering the premises, or

(b) entry is required as a matter of urgency.

(3) References in subsection (2) to the occupier of premises, in relation to any vehicle, vessel, aircraft or hovercraft, are to the person who appears to be in charge of the vehicle, vessel, aircraft or hovercraft, and "unoccupied" shall be construed accordingly.

(4) Sections 15 and 16 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (c. 60) shall have effect in relation to a warrant issued under this section to an inspector as they have effect in relation to a warrant so issued to a constable.

(5) A constable or an inspector exercising powers under a warrant issued under this section may (if necessary) use such force as is reasonable in the exercise of those powers.'.

Amendment No. 8, in page 16, line 11, leave out clause 44.

Amendment No. 4, in clause 44, page 16, line 13, after 'premises', insert

'which he has reason to believe may be relevant.'.

Amendment No. 9, in clause 45, page 16, line 31, leave out 'and 44' and insert

', [Enforcement powers in connection with pesticides: entry and search by force without a warrant] and [Enforcement powers in connection with pesticides: entry and search with a warrant]'.

Amendment No.10, page 16, line 41, at end insert—

'(5) "Inspector" means—

(a) a person authorised in writing by the Secretary of State to exercise the powers under sections [Enforcement powers in connection with pesticides: entry and search by force without a warrant] and [Enforcement powers in connection with pesticides: entry and search with a warrant] in relation to England;

(b) a person authorised in writing by the National Assembly for Wales to exercise the powers under sections [Enforcement powers in connection with pesticides: entry and search by force without a warrant] and [Enforcement powers in connection with pesticides; entry and search with a warrant] in relation to Wales.'.

Government amendment No. 30

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

We move on to a specific matter that was debated in Committee, so I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing us to address it again because it is important and needs to be examined further.

We are worried about the open-ended nature of clause 44, which details the enforcement powers to be given to inspectors to deal with the Government's decision that is set out in clause 43 to make it an offence for people to possess certain chemicals that could be used to poison birds, primarily birds of prey. I emphasised in Committee and repeat now that we condemn anyone who unlawfully uses a chemical—a pesticide or whatever—to poison birds or mammals. It is already illegal to do that and we understand that the Government want an extra power to deal with the problem, but we are worried about the powers that will be given to inspectors.

Clause 44(1)(a) states that an inspector will be able to

"enter any premises for the purpose of ascertaining whether an offence"

has been committed. That does not require him to have reason to believe that the owner of those premises has committed an offence. An inspector will have carte blanche to go into any form of premises. That is excessive and, to be fair, I think that the Minister accepted that. I remind him of what he said in Committee:

"It may be of some comfort to"

me

"to know that we have sympathy with amendment No. 65, which attempts to deal with the problem of fishing trips."

He went on:

"We cannot accept amendment No. 65 because it constrains our ability to deliver the clause properly. We understand the concerns that the hon. Gentleman and others have expressed. We would like to go away and consider carefully",

and so on. Hon. Members will understand my disappointment when, despite the Government's constructive approach and the considerable correspondence that the Minister sent to us in the recess, nothing has arisen to address that. As a result, we have tabled a new form of words in amendment No. 4 to ensure that the fishing trip, as he described—it was not my term—is prevented. The amendment would prevent inspectors from wandering into any property on the basis that they are looking to see whether an offence has been committed. They would need reasonable justification to do that.

Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 and new clauses 1 and 2 are closely related. They address our continuing concerns about the powers of inspectors and the contradictions in the Minister's responses in Committee. Paragraphs (b) and (c) in clause 44(1) are about inspectors collecting evidence. Yet the Minister made it clear in Committee that inspectors will not have powers under PACE when he stated:

"Wildlife inspectors authorised under the Bill will not have powers under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act . . . Their function is purely to gather information that can inform a criminal investigation."

Without repeating the earlier debate, I want to press him again.

Clauses 43 and 44 deal with the use of pesticides to kill, primarily, birds of prey. Apart from an admission by the person who commits the offence, the most likely evidence to connect an individual to an offence is to find some of that pesticide or chemical on his property or in his possession. If the inspector uses his powers as set out in clause 44(1)(c) to seize and remove it, the only evidence will have gone, but it would not have been gathered under PACE. The Minister said:

"If they"—

the police—

"are assisted by an inspector, they will be governed by the code of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act".—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 28 June 2005; c. 189–191.]

However, there is no use going back to the premises because the inspector will have already taken the evidence outside the terms of PACE. Even given my scant knowledge of the law—gathered through being responsible on behalf of the Opposition for police issues for three years—I know that, if evidence is not gathered under the terms of PACE, it is not admissible in court. The fundamental evidence that will be part of the prosecution's case—it may be the main point of the prosecution—will somehow be lost. I am concerned that the Government have not thought through what they are trying to do.

New clauses 1 and 2 repeat what was tabled in Committee. The Minister knows that they are a direct lift from his Department's draft Animal Welfare Bill. I understand that the Bill is likely to be presented later this week. Whether the provisions remain in the Bill remains to be seen.

In Committee, the Minister said that he had not read the draft Bill. I know that it is not his direct responsibility within the Department, but I hope that he has now read it.

Our contention is that the law should be consistent. The prevention of an animal's current suffering is more urgent than resolving who killed a bird of prey. Both matters are extremely important, but relieving suffering must be more urgent than dealing with something after the event. Yet we have the contradiction that in the Bill the powers given to an inspector in dealing with the poisoning of birds of prey appear to be far wider, more draconian and much less constrained by PACE than the powers given to dealing with current suffering of animals in the draft Animal Welfare Bill. That is wrong.

Our contention is straightforward. It is that these analogous issues—the powers of inspectors and dealing with prosecutions—should be dealt with in the same way. That would make the situation clearer for everyone to understand. Our position is logical, given the analogy between the two different but related issues, which are both concerned with the protection of our flora and fauna. They should be governed by the same set of guidelines and rules for inspection, investigation and prosecution.

I have set out the reasons why we tabled the new clauses and amendments. I hope that, given the three months that the Minister has had to reflect on the issues, he will now consider that changes need to be made.

Angela Smith (Labour, Sheffield, Hillsborough)

I shall speak against the new clause because it significantly weakens clauses 43 to 45. It has been recognised that we need to take assertive action to deal with the problem of poisoned birds and wildlife generally. The deliberate use of pesticides to poison rare and threatened wildlife is a persistent problem and has serious ramifications for the health and safety of people, their pets and their livestock.

There is little evidence that the problem has diminished, hence these clauses. There is a particularly serious threat to birds such as the red kite, one of Britain's most popular birds of prey. It brings valuable tourist income to the country. Between 1989 and 2004, at least 106 red kites were found illegally poisoned, including 16 in 2003 alone. That is only a fraction of the total number of incidents.

English Nature estimates that 31 per cent. of English red kites released or fledged from the wild between 1989 and 1999 were illegally poisoned. It is not only red kites that have been affected. In 2003, 20 buzzards, seven peregrines and one white-tailed eagle were confirmed as poisoned.

Illegal poisoning does not only affect wildlife. Stores of pesticides and baits placed in the countryside are a danger to people, companion animals, working dogs and livestock. Recently, a gamekeeper in Dorset was found to have an arsenal that consisted of a range of agricultural pesticides for which a man in his profession could have no legitimate use.

Peter Atkinson (Conservative, Hexham)

We know and understand that this is a problem. Why does the hon. Lady think that the Opposition's new clauses and amendments weaken the Government's proposals?

Angela Smith (Labour, Sheffield, Hillsborough)

They weaken the Government's proposals because they would impose such restrictions on the operation of the provisions on the inspection of premises as to make them almost meaningless.

Officials from DEFRA estimated that the store that I mentioned contained sufficient pesticides to poison half the population of Dorchester, which is why we need firm, assertive powers in the Bill to ensure that we can take effective action against such people.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

As my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) said, we do not wish to belittle the seriousness of the issue that the provisions try to address. However, if the hon. Lady wishes to criticise our amendments, she should read them and the Bill. Is she happy with clause 44(1)(a), which simply says that an inspector may

"enter any premises for the purposes of ascertaining whether an offence is being committed under section 43"?

What would she say if an inspector knocked on her door and said, "I want to see whether you have committed an offence under section 43."? That is what she is supporting.

Angela Smith (Labour, Sheffield, Hillsborough)

There is no evidence that such powers in other legislation have been used inappropriately to make a request to enter and inspect premises. The majority of the population accept that action needs to be taken.

The majority of wildlife poisoning incidents involve a relatively small number of persistently abused pesticides. Root crop insecticides such as aldicarb and carbofuran, which are usually used on lowland arable farmland, have repeatedly featured in incidents on upland estates where there was no legitimate reason to use such products. Hence the justification for the provisions in the Bill. I would go further than the Government and require a new offence of possession of a pesticide without a reasonable explanation, but I accept that the Minister might think such an amendment goes too far, as it could be impossible to prove that some chemicals are held without a lawful explanation. I therefore urge him to consider making the list of proscribed chemicals as long and comprehensive as possible to ensure that, once the Bill's provisions become operational, they are as effective as possible.

Colin Breed (Liberal Democrat, South East Cornwall)

We are dealing with three distinct and serious issues. First, there is the poisoning of birds, particularly birds of prey, which, regrettably, still takes place far too often. Indeed, there was a well-known case in the west country recently. Secondly, we are dealing with the possession of pesticides that have become unbelievably potent and dangerous, and can be used in various ways. They are not, however, illegal substances. They have a legitimate use but, sadly, they are sometimes used for illegitimate ends even though they are held legitimately. The third serious issue can be summed up as "My home is my castle" and the problem of a continuing drift towards what is almost a police state. Powers must be qualified so that they focus on the offence that needs to be eradicated. That will not happen by giving extensive powers to the police and others that are open to misuse. I put it no more strongly than that. There have been far too many worrying examples of the over-enthusiastic use of powers given to the police and others in recent times. When we give powers to bodies, we should do so in the full knowledge of how they will be used.

Adam Afriyie (Conservative, Windsor)

I attended this debate because I wish to make a small point about cyclists and rights of way, but it sounds like a Home Office debate. I am astounded that amendment No. 4, which would insert the words

"which he has reason to believe may be relevant"

into clause 44 to justify entry into someone's home or other premises has been rejected in such a cavalier fashion. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is very much like a totalitarian state?

Colin Breed (Liberal Democrat, South East Cornwall)

Perhaps when the hon. Gentleman has been here a little longer, he will realise that this is not something that has happened suddenly. Those of us who sat on the Committee considering the Animal Welfare Bill know that. The Bill immediately followed the foot and mouth outbreak, which, as we all know, was extremely serious. The powers introduced then allowing entry to premises initially allowed them to be entered at any time of day, and actually commanded those occupying them to engage in whatever the police wanted them to do. Anything could be killed on site—any animal except, fortunately, a human being—and could be killed immediately.

That provision was at least slightly qualified in Committee, and rightly so, as such powers would have been unreasonable and out of all proportion. We need proportionality. The new clauses and amendments do not exactly drive a coach and horses through what is intended in the Bill, and they constitute a serious attempt to focus on the offence. None of us wants to permit, allow to continue, or encourage the poisoning of any animal deliberately or unnecessarily, but that does not mean that we should grant such broad powers to enter and search premises and remove evidence—which may well contravene the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984—in pursuing people when an offence is being investigated.

Powers are needed, but they need to be qualified. If they prove inadequate, the Minister can return and say that the Government cannot persist with them, but I feel that granting them at the outset is going too far. I support not just the wording of the new clause, but its intention.

Angela Smith (Labour, Sheffield, Hillsborough)

Does not clause 44 make it absolutely clear that there must be reasonable grounds for believing that someone has broken the law before premises can be entered? Would not the new clause restrict the number of premises that can be searched to the extent that it would render the original clauses almost meaningless?

Colin Breed (Liberal Democrat, South East Cornwall)

I do not agree with the last part of that intervention. The problem is that anyone who conceals a pesticide in order to carry out an illegal activity can put it anywhere. We are not talking about people who may occasionally have such substances lying around in their garden sheds or stables. Many of these dangerous substances ought to be locked up, because they can be just as lethal as firearms and can kill accidentally. They ought to be properly controlled. Nevertheless, I cannot bring myself to believe that the wording of the original clause is justified in the pursuit of what we all want, which is why my colleagues and I will support the new clauses and amendments if they are pressed to a vote.

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

When I first saw the new clauses and amendments, I was tempted to speak against them. In the last Parliament, I considered tabling a ten-minute Bill on pesticides and, in particular, the killing of birds of prey. As many Members will know, I have a keen interest in ornithology, and I have looked into this matter.

I do not think that any Member has any time for those who use pesticides illegally to poison birds of prey, other birds, domestic animals or pets. As the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Ms Smith) said, the reintroduction in my constituency of the red kite has been very successful. As Members travel down the M40, many of them doubtless often see red kites near Stokenchurch, for example. They have spread far and wide and have even been seen in the London borough of Hillingdon in winter. That is wonderful, and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and all those concerned should be congratulated. Interestingly, awareness of this development has perhaps led some estates—we do not have the very large estates that are to be found elsewhere in the country—to clean up their act. Buzzards, which used to be seen only in the west country, are now to be found much closer to London. I have seen them, for example, in the Wycombe area and among the wonderful beech woods of the Chilterns.

I was therefore dubious about this provision, as I tend to be on the side of the birds in these matters, but I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) and the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) that we must consider the question of proportionality. I do not necessarily have doubts about some inspectors going over the top, but the danger is that we will lose credibility in the eyes of some if they think that the powers given to deal with this offence are greater than those given to deal with many others. Unfortunately, granting these powers is not necessarily going to solve the problem; rather, what is needed is education. We need to tell gamekeepers that these birds are not predating on what they are trying to preserve on their estates, be it for shooting or other purposes.

I somewhat reluctantly point out that there are a couple of minor flaws in the drafting of the new clause. That is inevitable because, as I have noticed over our years in opposition, we do not always have the skills available to make such provisions absolutely watertight. [Interruption.] I do indeed speak for myself, as I do not claim any expertise on these matters. But I have a great deal of sympathy with the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire, and the Government should also be congratulated on taking this issue seriously. That said, we need to be sure that we do not go overboard by granting too many powers at once. As the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall said, if the authorities in question say that they need more powers, we should perhaps return to this question.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I begin by reiterating what the hon. Members for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) and for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) said: we are all agreed in our opposition to the use of pesticides to poison birds, and nothing that I am about to say should be interpreted as my believing that any Member of this House thinks such use an acceptable practice. I hope that we also agree that wildlife inspectors behave reasonably and according to a code of practice, and that none of us wants to argue otherwise in debating these important matters.

I turn first to amendment No. 4. Clause 44 provides entry powers for inspectors who are investigating the illegal poisoning of birds or animals, and who need to enter premises to find out whether pesticides prohibited by order are on those premises. As it stands, inspectors may enter any premises, excluding dwellings, for this purpose. That is an important distinction to make for the sake of clarity. These are not carte blanche powers to ride roughshod through people's living rooms; there is a difference between premises and dwellings. Where an inspector wishes to enter dwellings, a warrant must first be obtained.

In Committee, we had an interesting debate on whether this provision would allow inspectors to conduct what I will now call "speculative inspections". I agreed to consider whether a form of words could be found that would meet concerns about reasonableness, as the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire reminded us through his use of quotations.

Over the recess, my policy officials, departmental lawyers and I have been considering a suitable form of words that we would like to introduce in the Lords. Clearly the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire has been doing the same, and we have his form of words to debate now. The proposed amendment goes some way to fitting the bill. It restricts an inspector's entry powers to those premises that he or she believes may be relevant for the purpose of ascertaining whether a possession offence is being committed. However, I am not convinced that the wording strikes the correct balance between the protection of landowners and the need to be able effectively to enforce this important new offence.

It should be remembered that any inspectors who investigate a suspected pesticide offence will be operating according to a publicly available code of practice, setting out how inspectors should conduct themselves and giving details of how to complain should anyone be unhappy with the way in which they conduct themselves; effectively, this sketches out "reasonableness." I hope that this will reassure hon. Members who are anxious about the possibility that landowners may be subject to harassment or unsubstantiated random visits.

There are also good grounds for having a test of reasonable suspicion rather than the stronger test of reasonable belief that is used in the amendments. The latter is unusual in law and requires a degree of prior evidence that would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to obtain in these circumstances. For these reasons, I am not convinced that the amendments are the right way to go. I urge hon. Members on both sides not to support them this evening.

We recognise that this is a persistent concern and have said that my officials will look at it; they are doing so. We will consider tabling a suitably worded amendment in the other place which we hope will please all concerned. I hope that Members on both sides will agree that the other place is a good place to deal with the issue.

It makes sense for me to deal with amendments Nos. 8, 9 and 10 and new clauses 1 and 2 together, as they all seek to remove clause 44 from the Bill in one way or another. As I have said in relation to amendment No. 4, which also deals with the issue, I accept that there are fears that inspectors will seek to gain entry when they have insufficient grounds to do so, and I want to look at that matter again.

I have to strike a balance between the intense detail with which I would wish to rebut all of the things that have been said and the desire to address matters more constructively, so I will attempt to summarise. Obviously if more clarification is needed, I will attempt to deal with those matters by intervention.

I believe that the amendments are flawed in respect of applying inappropriate powers, in that they go beyond the powers currently proposed in the Bill by applying powers equally to police officers and inspectors, which we think would be inappropriate. I know there is an issue around the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, but the important distinction to make—I wrote to all Committee Members on this—is that as far as inspectors are concerned PACE applies when they are investigating and have suspicions about an individual person. It does not apply in respect of a place.

In respect of offences where pesticides have been used to poison birds, in almost every case the measure would apply to suspicions about a place. One would find the poisoned bird, which could have come from anywhere. It would be very difficult to have reasonable suspicion in respect of an individual. Therefore I would argue that we should not apply the same powers to police officers and inspectors because of the confusion that that could create.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I appreciate the Minister's efforts at brevity, but is he saying that if the inspector found some pesticides on a premises and took it away as described under clause 44(1)(c) but did not do so under PACE, that would still be admissible as evidence in court?

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

This is where we get into the interesting territory of the application of PACE. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a direct answer with absolute confidence, but if he accepts my request to deal with the issue in the other place, we can continue to discuss it through correspondence.

If inspectors find the insecticide and the poisoned bird on the premises, all manner of individuals—an occupier of the land, an owner of the land or someone who works on it—could be implicated. In those circumstances, the first priority is to remove the poison so that it cannot be used to poison birds of prey again. Evidence could then be taken. I will respond to the question whether it could then be used for a prosecution, but it is important to distinguish between when PACE can and cannot be used.

David Drew (Labour, Stroud)

I apologise for coming late into the debate, but I want to ask the Minister for an assurance. The Bill deals with wildlife, but are we not going to accord the same rights to human beings who are affected by pesticides? Will the Minister give an absolute assurance that if a human being were affected by the inappropriate use of pesticides, appropriate action could be taken against the propagator?

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

It was said earlier that this feels like a Home Office debate. The purpose of these particular provisions is to list the pesticides that are used to poison wildlife and to make it an offence to possess them. Clearly, if they are being used to poison people as well as animals and if they are on the list, an offence has been committed. The provisions would apply equally, which I hope helps my hon. Friend.

I want to express my other concerns about the amendments and new clauses. The issue of "reasonable belief" as opposed to a "suspicion" is important, and I believe that Conservative Members have understood the point even if they do not agree with it. Similar problems also apply to the amending provisions that deal with the circumstances in which a justice of the peace can issue a warrant. Before doing so, a justice must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that a relevant offence is being or has been committed on any premises and that evidence of such an offence is to be found on the premises. In addition, the amending provisions contain a precondition that the occupier of the premises must have been made aware of the decision to apply for a warrant. Effectively, a serious offence has been committed in respect of killing wildlife, which we all agree is precious, yet we are warning someone that we are going to serve a warrant, which might then allow them to remove the evidence. To my mind, that is flawed.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I repeat the point that the new clause provisions are directly lifted from the Minister's own Department's draft animal welfare Bill. Precisely the same warning, which the Minister is now criticising, would apply to someone who is torturing their dog at the very time of torturing, unlike with the bird of prey, which is already dead. If the provision makes sense in one DEFRA Bill, why does it not make sense in another?

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

Let me deal with that point. There are three broad reasons why wider powers for dealing with pesticide offences are needed in the current Bill than are needed in the animal welfare Bill. We wait to see whether the wording in the final Bill will have changed from the draft that the hon. Gentleman has seen.

The first reason concerns the severity of the offence. As I said, the animal welfare Bill will prevent animal suffering but the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill can prevent the death of wildlife, companion animals and, indeed, people. The second point is that the same powers apply for entry into a dwelling and a warrant is needed in both cases, so a false distinction has been drawn there. Thirdly, evidence is more apparent in respect of animal welfare issues. It is pretty straightforward for an inspector to see evidence of the mistreatment of animals and it is much harder for an offender to destroy evidence of such mistreatment. However, with respect to the current Bill, pesticides are easier to hide and much easier to dispose of, so we strongly believe that wider powers are needed.

Peter Atkinson (Conservative, Hexham)

Will the Minister help me to clarify something? In clause 44 there is no mention of the idea that an inspector would need a warrant to enter premises. Where is the requirement that the inspector must obtain a warrant in advance? It is not in the Bill.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

That is inherited from other legislation, so it does not need to appear on the face of the Bill. As I have said, I would like the issue to be properly addressed in the Lords. I do not believe that we have dealt with it satisfactorily yet, and we will be able to do that in the other place.

We had an interesting discussion in Committee on the powers of constables and inspectors in the management of wildlife offences. Government amendment No. 30, which is informed by that discussion, would allow the police to enter premises, but not dwellings, without a warrant if they suspected, with reasonable cause, that a wildlife offence had been committed. That extends the current provisions, which allow constables to enter premises without a warrant only when they suspect, with reasonable cause, that an offence is being committed.

The amendment is important, because with wildlife offences evidence found in the countryside, such as dead birds or animals, can quickly and easily be disturbed by other wildlife, or by weather conditions. Equally, an offence may have been committed very recently. Some offences, such as crushing a nest of eggs, can take no more than a few seconds, and it seems silly to say that the police can act only while the offence is being committed. It is therefore a practical step to enable the police to enter premises if they think, with reasonable cause, that a wildlife offence has been committed. It is important that constables be given powers to act quickly; the time taken to obtain a warrant may be the difference between securing a conviction and losing the evidence entirely.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I did not say this in my opening remarks, but we entirely understand the Government's sensible amendment No. 30, and support it. I was interested to listen to the Minister's supportive remarks about the gist of my proposal in amendment No. 4—although he had some doubts about the precise wording—because the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Ms Angela C. Smith) went out of her way to damn my amendment, and went as far as suggesting that clause 44 already contained a reference to the inspector having to have good reason. Her version of the Bill must be different from mine.

I appreciate the Minister's intention to consider the matter in another place, although it would be better to have done it in this House; ideally, all amendments should come to this place before they go to the other place. That would address part of our concern, but not our fundamental concerns about clause 44 in its entirety. That is what the other amendments, and new clauses 1 and 2, are supposed to deal with, in replacing clause 44.

I have developed a considerable respect for the Minister, and he has dealt with the Bill helpfully and sensibly, but his arguments in the last few minutes have been thin, to say the least.

John Redwood (Conservative, Wokingham)

My hon. Friend is being charitable.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I have been accused of far worse.

I do not think the Minister would find it easy to sell outside this House the idea that more powers are needed to detect who killed a bird than to stop somebody torturing an animal at that very moment, especially as the torture is likely to lead to the animal's death. I find that difficult to comprehend.

That is why I shall repeat that we have simply sought to replicate the powers that the Government seek to take in the draft Animal Welfare Bill. It seems immensely logical to have consistency between inspectors and enforcement in one aspect of animal welfare and those in another. After all, poisoning birds of prey is an animal welfare issue. As my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) said, we all condemn that and want it stopped. However, the Government cannot claim that it is different—and needs a wholly different set of powers—from the case of someone in the process of inflicting pain and suffering on a domestic animal, or whatever the phrase is these days for a pet cat, dog or budgie. If an animal is suffering, the issue is far more urgent than the need to detect the person responsible for something that has already happened—

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

The original death is important, but the reason for the urgency is the need to prevent the death of subsequent birds that are, as we have all agreed, very precious.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

Of course the prevention of the death of other birds is urgent, but it is not as urgent as stopping the present suffering of an animal. That is the issue that the Government's draft animal welfare Bill seeks to address.

A few moments ago I was trying to think of the new jargon for pet and it is, of course, a companion animal. Perhaps I should stick to "pet". In any case, the Government have not convinced us that it is necessary to have wide-ranging powers to deal with one issue when they do not propose to introduce those powers to address far wider problems in the animal welfare Bill. I could argue that point further, but I have made the principal points of concern and confirm that we wish to press the matter to a Division.

New Clause 4 — Byways open to all Traffic

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

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

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

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 10—Driving a mechanically propelled vehicle on a footpath or bridleway or restricted byway (No. 2)—

'(1) Section 34 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) (prohibition of driving mechanically propelled vehicles elsewhere than on roads) is amended as follows.

(2) After subsection (3) insert—

"(3A) It is not an offence under this section for the owner or lessee of premises in existence at the date of commencement of section 47 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 or a successor in title to such premises or a lawful visitor thereto to drive a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road being a footpath or bridleway or restricted byway if the driving of that vehicle is necessary for the reasonable occupation of the premises and where no other right of vehicular access to such premises is otherwise available for the benefit of the premises.".'.

New clause 21—Evidence that a way is a restricted byway—

'Where at any time (whether before or after commencement of this provision) there is evidence of use of any vehicle, not being a bicycle on a bridleway after December 31st 1968, on a way, that evidence shall be acceptable evidence tending to show that the way in question is a carriageway having the status of a restricted byway.'.

New clause 23—Regulation of cycle racing on public ways—

'(1) Amend section 31 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) (regulation of cycle racing on public ways) as follows.

(2) In subsection (2) omit "other than a bridleway".

(3) In subsection (6) omit "but does not include a footpath".'.

Amendment No. 6, in clause 62, page 24, line 35, leave out 'commencement' and insert '19th May 2005'.

Amendment No. 7, in page 25, line 13, leave out 'commencement' and insert '19th May 2005'.

Amendment No. 12, in page 25, line 14, leave out

'was reasonably necessary to enable'

and insert 'enables'.

Amendment No. 13, in page 25, line 19, leave out from 'way' to end and insert

'at all times and for all purposes for the benefit of that land and all parts thereof'.

Amendment No. 11, in clause 97, page 40, line 5, leave out from 'force' to end of line 8 and insert 'upon enactment'.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I suspect that this group of new clauses and amendments, which deals with the Government's proposals to change legislation on rights of way for mechanically propelled vehicles, will engage hon. Members on both sides of the House more than any other tonight. I want to start by re-emphasising the Opposition's support for clauses 61 and 62. We need to ensure that there is peaceful and quiet use of our byways wherever possible, especially given the ample evidence of the damage that is being done to a number of them by motorised vehicles.

There is increasing public concern about four-wheel drive vehicles and motor bikes making many byways impassable for pedestrians and horse riders. Ample photographic evidence of the damage caused by their use has been circulated to members of the Committee, and much of it has been sent to other hon. Members. The Minister has seen it all and, indeed, witnessed the damage for himself, as have I and my right hon. and hon. Friends. I do not intend to rehearse the arguments that the Government have already made for clauses 61 and 62, but I want to say a few words about what may well be perceived as unusual: Opposition support for regulation instead of the voluntary approach. We have concluded that, in this instance, regulation is necessary.

Such regulation is necessary because, first, the damage that is being done to the natural environment—the terrain and the surface of byways—should be linked, if possible, to the responsibility for that and, in turn, for its repair. Even if agreement could be reached with the membership of the bodies who represent some of the people who use these routes—the Trail Riders Fellowship or the Green Lane Association—there is no guarantee that all users will be members of those bodies. The agreement would not apply to everyone who drives vehicles of different sorts along BOATs.

Secondly, there is ample evidence—again, it has been provided to the Minister—that many members of the TRF see the present attempt at a voluntary approach as simply a means of heading off the legislation without serious intent of complying with it. We made it clear in Committee that an alternative approach would be for people to use private land for off-roading and to pay a fee for doing so. That fee could cover the cost of repair. That would be akin to the existing arrangement in different parts of the country for horse riding, where long routes have been devised by adjoining land owners. The riders pay a fee to the landowners and wear some sort of insignia, badge or armband that allows them to ride for many miles. There is no reason why that cannot be done for motorised vehicles.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

My hon. Friend has looked at the issue carefully. Does he agree that until recently if someone wanted to drive off-road in a four-wheel drive vehicle they had to go along a vehicular right of way? Now many farms and estates offer facilities for off-road driving. Therefore, the time has probably come to say to these people "There are plenty of facilities. You do not need to damage bridleways and vehicular rights of way."

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That is exactly our contention. Many landowners have made available former sandpits and other such sites for people to do the most amazing things with four-wheel drives or trail bikes. I have seen it myself. Members of my family have done it and I have been frightened silly watching them. It is done on land that they have paid for permission to use and the fee goes to meet the cost of repair and maintenance.

The Minister has looked carefully at the possibility of carrying out a sustainability assessment for trail management—the voluntary approach that he has rightly been trying to thrash out with users. I congratulate him on his attempt to find a voluntary solution and I congratulate the motoring organisation Land Access and Recreation Association, but frankly I do not believe that it can work for two reasons. First, the devised scoring system, when viewed reasonably objectively, is heavily weighted towards approval of the byway as a BOAT. There is no real process for ensuring that the byways are maintained or for dealing with the problem of regulating people who are not members of associations.

Secondly, new evidence that I wish to cite to the House suggests that at least some members of the TRF are using the process as a smokescreen. I wish to read out a few quotes from the federation's confidential website, which we have managed to access. One states:

"Word is we have to be prepared to have the claims for our '100 lanes' poised and ready to go, if necessary, the same or following day that the Bill is enacted".

Another quote reads:

"But, for sure, we need to be poised to claim at the drop of a hat."

A further quote states:

"Research all you want to ride and prepare the schedule 14 applications in readiness for the lifting of the moratorium on claiming BOATS. We know that has worked where members have become more active, because 6 counties have a hell of a lot of BOAT claims."

I have many more such quotes, all of which emphasise to me and many other observers that there is, at least among some members of the organisation, a conspiracy to provide a vast increase in the number of applications for BOATs the moment that the Bill becomes law, if the Government agree to the voluntary approach.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I am surrounded. I give way to the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping.)

Paddy Tipping (Labour, Sherwood)

The hon. Gentleman has just mentioned a website and talked about some of the people who have contributed to it. Is it not the case that some of the quotes that he used were from executive committee members of that organisation, not the rank and file? This campaign is being led from the very top of an organisation to which the Minister and his officials have been talking in good faith.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

The hon. Gentleman is right. I wanted to conclude this item by referring to one particular quote, which says:

"However, nothing is more certain than if we are seen to break the moratorium, and by doing so illustrate that user groups cannot control the actions of their members and that members care nothing for the proposals that have been submitted to the Minister for the future provision and management of our activity, then the pressure will be increased further to BACK-DATE the cut-off date for claims. . . .

So, TRF DEMANDS is that no claims are submitted at least after the NERC Bill 3rd Reading, which will be between 11–15 October. TRF Officers will reconsider the moratorium after the 3rd Reading.

Regards Geoff Wilson Chairman TRF".

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

While I understand the concerns that the hon. Gentleman puts forward, does he accept that the great majority of users of motorised two-wheel vehicles in the countryside are responsible? In the early stage, when I was involved in trying to develop a dialogue between motor cyclists and the Government, it was obvious that the great majority of them and their organisations, such as the British Motorcyclists Federation and the Motorcycle Action Group, were keen to act and be seen to act responsibly. Does he agree that any legislation should not have punitive consequences for people who have never sought to break the law or cause inconvenience?

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

The hon. Gentleman is right. A large proportion of users cause no serious problems or damage. My purpose in reading out the quotes was to emphasise to the House that, unless we take action by accepting the amendments and new clauses, we will find that what has already happened, namely, a surge in the number of new applications for BOATs, will become a flood the moment tonight's proceedings are concluded. That is my big worry, and that is my purpose in making those points.

Robert Key (Conservative, Salisbury)

I regret to say that my hon. Friend is absolutely right— that flood has already occurred in the county of Wiltshire. I and others who want the date to be brought forward advocate that without any sense of vindictiveness. I spent an afternoon with 4x4 off-roaders. I saw what they were doing and listened very carefully to what they said. I have also had a continuous dialogue with trail riders. I very much regret to say that I see no meeting of minds, and I do not think that there will be one. We must regulate such things sooner rather than later because of the damage that is being done. Yes, it is true that a lot of them are responsible people, but a lot of them are not, and they will not see that they are doing damage that will wipe out the historical evidence and the attractiveness of such byways, which are hundreds and even thousands of years old.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend, and I do not disagree with anything that he says.

John Redwood (Conservative, Wokingham)

I should like to thank my hon. Friend for bringing this important matter to the attention of the House. In Wokingham and west Berkshire, districts covering parts of my constituency, there is great concern. We are all in favour of proper facilities for 4x4 users—they should be well away from settlements and in appropriate places where the damage can be controlled or repaired and where it does not annoy other people—but we are desperately worried that the Government have stirred up a hornet's nest that will lead to lots of applications where they are not wanted and that they have not given councils the powers to resist them properly.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for his support. What matters to me and my hon. Friends is that everyone should have a reasonable opportunity to use all types of our byways. Nothing in any of the amendments or new clauses to which I am about to refer will take away all the existing BOATs. Of course, local authorities, and now national parks, have the opportunity to impose traffic regulation orders on them.

John Mann (Labour, Bassetlaw)

The hon. Gentleman makes the point that his proposal will do nothing to existing rights. How would he deal with the anomaly, which other hon. Members and I have highlighted in the Chamber during the past four years, whereby a number of such applications have been passed because of historic rights? Perhaps he can explain why he suggests putting an arbitrary cut-off date at the beginning of the process?

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will deal with new clause 4 in detail in just a moment, when I will try to address that point. We do not seek in these amendments and new clauses to go back beyond the genesis of the Bill. Let me put it as generally as that. The fact that local authorities, and now national parks, have the power to issue traffic regulation orders is part of the answer to his point about how to deal with those BOATs that have been recorded already, based on the fact that someone once rode a chariot and four down the byway during the Punic wars or whatever. Clearly, the Government are trying to close that loophole under clause 62, and we support that.

I want to mention an e-mail that many hon. Members will have received in the past 48 hours from the British Motorcyclists Federation in which it supports the TRF. I was very sorry to read it because a reputable organisation has done itself a disservice by associating itself with the TRF. I have already made my case about the TRF in the quotes that I have given, but the BMF says that there has been no surge in applications. Well, the facts clearly belie that. My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Robert Key) has just referred to Wiltshire. In Hampshire, 75 claims were made in the first five months of this year, whereas four claims were made in the preceding 12 months. We have evidence, as does the Minister, that local authorities are currently considering about 2,000 claims.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

indicated assent.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I am grateful to the Minister for agreeing with that general figure. It is clear that there has been a huge surge.

The debate centres on the commencement of clause 62. In Committee, the Minister suggested a delay of perhaps six or 12 months that seemed to be based on legal advice on clause 62(3), which deals with landowners and people who have a legitimate need to take a vehicle up a byway. I am grateful to the Minister for the fact that he very kindly made available his legal advice to all members of the Committee soon after its proceedings began—something that the Government do not always do—thus giving the green lanes protection group and the Opposition the opportunity to take our own legal advice on the proposal.

Under amendments Nos. 6 and 7, the commencement of clause 62 would be moved to the date of publication of the Bill. There is an argument that that would be retrospective—an argument cited by the Minister in Committee. I wish to quote the advice given to the green lanes protection group by its counsel. Its counsel

"advises that application of the NERC provisions to pending claims would not amount to retrospection because applications under the"

Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981

"amount to nothing more than an initiation of a procedure of ascertainment. That procedure has nothing to do with the creation of rights, and ascertainment is in any case available by other means. Halsbury's Laws state that retrospection occurs when an enactment 'changes the relevant law with effect from a time earlier than the enactment's commencement' which is not the case here. The NERC Bill simply intercepts an ascertainment procedure and extinguishes such vehicular rights as may exist at the date of commencement. That is consistent with the aims of the Bill and does not impinge retrospectively on those rights."

I think that the Minister has already had sight of that advice, and there is more of it. However, that clearly addresses the issue of retrospection, and my hon. Friend the shadow Attorney-General entirely concurs with that advice.

Paddy Tipping (Labour, Sherwood)

I am grateful to have worked with the hon. Gentleman on that point. Of course, I have seen the advice. The Minister has seen it, and he very kindly met us to discuss it. May I make the case even more strongly? Every legal expert who has been consulted on that advice concurs with that opinion. To put it in a nutshell, those who make a claim do just that. The claim is not established, so there is no element of retrospection in this matter.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I am very grateful as always on this matter to the hon. Gentleman. He has been even more proactive—dare I say?—on the subject over the past few months. I am sorry that I was unable to be with him at the meeting to which he referred. He is right that all the advice that we have received states that retrospection is not a problem. So our contention is that commencement should at least go back to the date when the Government published the Bill: 19 May 2005. That is the purpose of amendments Nos. 6 and 7. If the Minister were to accept that contention, it would dramatically reduce the problem to which I shall refer in a moment and which new clause 4 addresses.

The legal advice to the Minister also suggests, however, that clause 62(3), which will replace the public right with a private right, engages the Human Rights Act 1998. Our advice—I use the word "our" widely and include the hon. Member for Sherwood—is that any such suggestion could be resolved by amendments Nos. 12 and 13, which would slightly alter the wording of clause 62(3). If the Minister were to accept those amendments, he would clear the way for the earlier commencement. He could not only drop his original plan for a six or 12 month delay, but commence the provision on 19 May, as I have said.

That date would be appropriate, although there are of course arguments for an earlier date. It could be 20 January, which is when the Government announced the conclusions of their consultation; it could be December 2003, the date when the Government's consultation actually began and raised the issue that the historical right of users of mechanised vehicles to claim a BOAT might be curtailed. There is a range of dates, but given the concerns expressed on both sides of the House in the past few minutes, the earlier the date, the more everybody would be satisfied. Our amendments simply go back to the date of the Bill's publication, but if the Minister fully accepted the strength of my arguments and wanted to go for an earlier date I should support him to the hilt, and I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends would do the same.

The fallback would be that commencement was at Royal Assent, which is the purpose of amendment No. 11. The very least we should expect from the Minister is that he agree to that, although he should consider and agree one of the earlier dates as, for the reasons that I set out, retrospection is not an issue. However, whenever commencement takes place there will remain the issue of the large number of outstanding claims to which I referred—about 2,000—which can all be traced back to the Government's announcement in December 2003 that they were proposing to close the opportunity to use historical vehicle rights.

The picture is varied across the counties and in different parts of the country. The main problem is in Dorset, the county of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), and in Derbyshire, Hampshire, Somerset and Wiltshire. The 2,000 existing claims are only part of the problem. I have already referred to the quotes from the trail riders website, which illustrate that a further large number of claims are in the pipeline waiting to be launched—dare I say it?—tomorrow. If all those cases, or even a significant proportion of them, are recorded as BOATs the whole purport of clause 62 is useless. One is tempted to say that they would drive a coach and horses, or a tank or motorised vehicle, through the argument. The whole purpose of what the Minister is trying to do, which I think the whole House supports, would be completely destroyed if all those applications were allowed to be recorded as rights of way.

The legal advice to the green lanes protection group is that removal of a public right does not engage the Human Rights Act. That advice was also supplied to the Government. Their own advice does not make that suggestion so there is no contradiction; the Government are not making that suggestion. However, I wanted to make that point clear.

The traffic regulation mechanism has been in existence for many years, since 1984, for local authorities and the Government have already, in new clause 11, given that power to national parks authorities. The whole House welcomes that. The principle of using a traffic regulation order to deal with abuse of byways, where they have become impassable and there are problems for pedestrians or horse riders, is already engaged in law. The issue of human rights cannot be paraded as an argument against new clause 4; nor can retrospection, because traffic regulation orders exist already.

We need to address the problem that I have described: all the applications that have been made since the date when the Government announced the conclusion of their consultations. One could choose other dates but that date is reasonable for the purpose, although I would happily accept December 2003 if the Government agreed. New clause 4 would require the Secretary of State to review all those applications within three years of commencement, whenever they were made, as long as it was after the date and before commencement, and, more important, whenever they were resolved, whether that was before the Bill commenced—not that many would be, because we know that local authorities are not hurrying to do so—or at some stage in the future. If they were resolved and recorded based on an application made between 20 January 2005 and commencement they would fall to be reviewed by the Secretary of State within three years.

The applications would be reviewed against two criteria: damage to the natural environment, which is the theme of the whole Bill; and the impact that the use of the byway by mechanically propelled vehicles would have on other users, in particular whether that would create a danger to other users or would restrict use by other users. If the application fell foul of either of those criteria, the Secretary of State would be compelled to issue a traffic regulation order.

It has been drawn to my attention that there may be a technical problem in the drafting of new clause 4 and that the provision should be more specific about the format of the traffic regulation order. The intention is that the order would prohibit the use of mechanised vehicles on the byway, although I readily accept that that purpose may not be absolutely clear. However, the new clause is a sensible approach, which does not engage human rights or fall foul of retrospection, to deal with what is widely recognised as a serious loophole in the Government's proposals.

I am grateful that the Secretary of State responded to the letter that my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset and I sent her a few weeks ago, giving her notice that that was the course of action we proposed to follow. She seemed concerned that it would lead to much contention and referred to the Countryside Act 1968 where disputes over the reclassification of what used to be known affectionately as RUPPs—roads used as public paths—went on for many years; they are now fortunately consigned to history. The Minister may want to repeat the Secretary of State's position, but I would argue two things. First, we are talking about a defined number; we do not know precisely what it is, but it is in the order of 2,000. Secondly, the criteria against which the applications would be judged are clearly set out in our new clause. The Secretary of State would appoint inspectors who would look at the byways and make the necessary decisions. If there is some twist that would make new clause 4 more effective, I shall be the first to say that we shall happily accept it. We are not wedded to the precise wording of the provision, but we believe that if the Secretary of State carried out a review and issued traffic regulation orders it would address the big surge that I have described and which causes concern in almost every county.

Philip Dunne (Conservative, Ludlow)

My hon. Friend refers to the contention to which the amendment might give rise. In his description of counties where that would be a major issue he omitted Shropshire where there is already considerable contention about the claims that have been made. Will the Minister consider the amendment in the light of its resolving that existing contention? For example, a farmer in the south of my constituency is facing two cases. One is going before the court, with the assistance of the Forestry Commission, which is also involved, and the other is causing the county council immense effort and work in balancing the competing rights of mechanised and pedestrian users of the land. The amendment would help to resolve such issues to the maximum public good.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who demonstrates tremendous support for his constituency. The problems he describes occur not only in his constituency but throughout the country. I apologise for not mentioning Shropshire. Perhaps I should add all the other counties that I failed to mention. The problem probably applies to every county, but I highlighted some of those with the largest backlog of applications.

Patrick McLoughlin (Conservative, West Derbyshire)

I am very pleased by the way in which my hon. Friend has put his case. He has explained the problem very clearly. The truth is that national criteria would be a far better way of dealing with the problem than each county council trying to come to its own conclusions. We are in grave danger of having different rules in different areas. That is particularly so in my constituency, which includes a national park. Great anxiety has been expressed about the number of applications.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's support, and I mentioned Derbyshire as one of the counties most affected. I am sure that he is right about having a set of basic criteria in the Bill. I stress that we are talking only about the bulge of applications that has taken place, but such criteria would be there and local authorities and national park authorities would be able to refer to them when they were considering whether to issue their own traffic regulation orders on other byways.

Before I end my remarks, I wish to make a few comments about two other issues that are referred to in this group. The first relates to the new clauses that were tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay). I do not intend to speak to them; it is for him to do that. I am sure that he will do so far more eloquently and certainly with far more detailed knowledge than I can.

I have studied all the papers that my right hon. Friend and his local authority have kindly provided to me, and I know that he has had meetings and discussions with the Minister. I am therefore convinced that there is a serious problem of access across byways. I remember that, when I was the chairman of a local authority, similar problems could cause huge issues. The Bill, supported as it is on both sides of the House, inadvertently makes the problem worse.

I know that my right hon. Friend will refer to cases in which people cannot sell their property because the new purchaser is at risk of being prosecuted for driving to their own home across a byway. I do not believe that the problem can be addressed by ministerial statement. I therefore strongly support the proposals that my right hon. Friend has enshrined in his new clauses and that he will speak to himself.

The second issue refers to cyclists, and I am sure that many hon. Members have received letters from constituents. I was astonished by the number of letters that I have received from people in my constituency who are very concerned that cyclists may be prevented from claiming a right of way once the Bill goes through. My office has been in contact with the Minister's office, and I have to say that I accept that that is not the Bill's intention and that it will not make any difference to the position. The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) has tabled a new clause on the issue and she will make her own case, but it is clear that there have been at least two cases—probably many more—in which inspectors have used current legislation to rule against the opportunity for cyclists to claim a byway.

Adam Afriyie (Conservative, Windsor)

We have some great parks, lakes, hills and dales in Berkshire and cycling is one of the healthy and environmentally friendly activities that people undertake. Like my hon. Friend, I have received many letters expressing concern about the issue. Given the vagaries of the current legislation, will he clarify the cases in which local inspectors have ordered against people having the 20-year right to ride a bicycle along some of these rights of way and urge the Minister to consider adding something to the Bill to deal with the problem?

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I will try to do so. I do not want to go into the detail of all the cases, because the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury may wish to do that. It would be wrong and unfair for me to do so. However, as this is my only opportunity to refer to the cases, I shall do so now.

There is clearly a problem of which the Minister is well aware. I understand that he and his officials believe that the inspectors have been wrong to rule as they have in the cases to which I have referred. He may well be about to say that and, if he does, that will be helpful. However, I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the House would concur with the point that although ministerial statements about the intention of new law can be taken into account by the courts in interpreting the law, ministerial statements about existing law are effectively of no significance. They cannot alter the meaning of the law particularly when test cases have already taken place. I am not a lawyer, but that is my layman's understanding. Ministers cannot simply by a statement in the House change the meaning of established law.

I think the Minister appreciates that we have a problem in the cases to which I have referred. A change in the law is therefore essential. I will be honest and say that the drafting of the particular new clause is probably flawed—I readily accept that—but I hope that he will give a commitment that the Government will table an amendment in another place that will address the real concerns of many tens of thousands of cyclists that their opportunity to claim a right of way is being restricted. I do not think that anybody wants that to happen, and the Bill is an opportunity to put the position right.

I apologise to the House for taking so long to introduce this group of amendments and new clauses, but it is by far the most important group that we shall discuss tonight. I look forward to the Minister's response to the many points that I have made.

Emily Thornberry (Labour, Islington South and Finsbury)

As chair of the all-party cycling group, may I take this opportunity to raise an issue that is of particular concern to the cycling community? I refer to rights of way for cyclists in the countryside, 2,000 of whom have contacted their Members of Parliament. That is reflected in cross-party concern, and I am grateful to the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) and my hon. Friends the Members for Llanelli (Nia Griffith), for Stroud (Mr. Drew) and for City of York (Hugh Bayley) for taking their place in the Chamber to show their concern. I am confident that the concern that the cycling world has expressed to the Department has struck a chord and that the Department appreciates that we all want to go in the same direction.

In short, the problem comes down to rights of way in the countryside. Horse riders have bridleways and walkers have footpaths, but it is unclear what cyclists have. I know that many discussions between DEFRA and cycling organisations took place during the recess, and it is clear that we want the same thing—proper access to the countryside for cyclists. It took the very invention of the bicycle to give many working people access to the countryside for the first time, and we want to ensure that their rights are instilled properly in law.

DEFRA's position has been that the law is already clear enough, but the cycling world's position is that it is not. When we go touring around the countryside, our panniers are already full of many other things and we would rather not have to arm ourselves with the number of documents that we might need to argue with landlords that we perhaps have the right of access to a particular piece of land. We do not have room for copies of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 and a number of inspectors' decisions. We do not want to have a working knowledge of Pepper v. Hart, some of the compelling reasons for the judgment in IRC v. Dowdall and O'Mahoney in 1952, or the appeal case on page 401, with particular reference to the judgment of Lord Radcliffe on page 426. We do not want all of that or to have to carry a copy of Hansard; we just want the law to be made clear.

We would therefore like an undertaking from the Minister that he will take a serious look at plugging the hole in the law, meet people from the cycling world and sort the matter out in another place. I ask for that so that my inner-city constituents can freely enjoy the delights of south Dorset on bicycle. How we get to south Dorset and ensure that the trains are more friendly towards carrying bicycles is another issue for another time and, I am sure that the Minister will be pleased to hear, for another Department. Let us take one spin of the wheel at a time.

Andrew MacKay (Conservative, Bracknell)

I entirely endorse the remarks of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry). We all have many constituents who are keen cyclists and it is important that an otherwise good Bill does not affect their access to the countryside. She and my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) were right to suggest to the Minister that the appropriate time to put the problem right would be by amendment in the other place. I hope that her eloquence will be heeded in the other place and that the matter will be satisfactorily resolved.

I have another problem in that several of my constituents have entirely inadvertently been caught up in the crossfire of the Bill and will be hugely damaged by it, if it is not amended. I refer, of course, to people who live on RUPPs—roads used as public paths. Many such people, especially those in the Finchampstead part of my constituency, have lived on RUPPs for many years and assumed that they had vehicular access. They are now all being told that they cannot sell their homes.

I know of an extreme example of an elderly couple in their 80s. All medical advice states that they should go into a residential home. Their only substantial asset is their house, which is potentially worth £500,000. Their family would like them to sell it so that they can move into a residential home, but the house is totally unsaleable, as is every single house in my constituency that is on a RUPP. Agents and solicitors tell the owners of such houses that it is not worth while even going to market.

I took up the matter with the Secretary of State, first on behalf of my constituent, Colin Macey OBE, who is chairman of the Heath Ride residents' association, which covers the area in which many of the RUPPs are situated. I wrote to the Secretary of State on 4 August and she kindly replied in some detail exactly a month later. With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall quote from her letter because it is relevant.

The Secretary of State set out the background to the case succinctly. She wrote:

"Mr Macey has motor vehicle access to his home along a . . . RUPP . . . The classification RUPP was created by the 1949 National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act, but it has never been clear in law whether RUPPs carry vehicular rights. Successive Acts of Parliament have tried to resolve this uncertainty by requiring local authorities to reclassify their RUPPs as footpaths, bridleways or 'byways open to all traffic' (BOATs). However, none of these attempts met with complete success and there are still many RUPPs in existence in certain local authorities."

The letter continued:

"Mr Macey, and there are others like him"—

I must say that that was the understatement of the month—

"has until now relied on this uncertainty (as to whether RUPPs carry vehicular rights) for motor vehicle access to his property."

The Secretary of State then said:

"Mr Macey has been able to rely on uncertainty . . . until now because it is not an offence to drive a mechanically propelled vehicle on a RUPP. However, the RUPP that Mr Macey uses to access his property will become a restricted byway under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act regulations. It will be an offence to drive a mechanically propelled vehicle on a restricted byway, just as it is already on a footpath or bridleway."

In other words, my constituents and their visitors will not be able to drive their vehicles to such houses, which will be effectively land-locked.

The letter continued:

"However, the key difficulty is that the proposed rights of way provisions in the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill—which are designed precisely to remove uncertainty about vehicular rights over rights of way—will extinguish any rights of way for mechanically propelled vehicles that may possibly exist and therefore there will be no longer any prospect of a defence for anyone in Mr Macey's circumstances."

That was another nail in the coffin. The Secretary of State then said:

"It should be pointed out at this stage that, in strict legal terms, Mr Macey, and others in his predicament, should have been advised at the time that they purchased their property that to rely solely on the uncertain status of a RUPP for access to a property is legally unsatisfactory. However, it seems that in certain areas, one in particular being Wokingham, it has been common practice among conveyancing solicitors to rely on the uncertainty over vehicular rights over RUPPs. The problem has been compounded by the fact that the local authority has failed in its statutory duty to reclassify all the RUPPs and in doing so clarify what rights exist over these routes."

It thus seemed to me that the fault might lie with one of my two local authorities—Wokingham unitary authority—so I took up the case with its chief executive, Doug Patterson. I shall again crave the House's indulgence for a few moments because important issues are contained in his response to me dated 26 September. He wrote:

"In the past it was quite common for sales of such properties along RUPPs, which will soon be restricted byways, to be concluded notwithstanding the lack of either an express legal right of way over the RUPP or the existence of a prescriptive right of way because it was not a criminal offence to drive over these roads. However, once the law changes, such properties will very probably be difficult to sell.

Awareness of the issue was highlighted last year in the Wokingham District when a house became unsaleable, and consequently land locked, because of the new legislation."

The chief executive went on to refer to the elderly couple whom I have already mentioned and then wrote:

"As with the previous property, they were unable to obtain defective title indemnity insurance to enable the sale to proceed because it is not possible to obtain indemnity insurance to protect against prosecution. The professional indemnity insurers for the solicitor acting on the purchase and the mortgage company involved were not willing to be involved in the transaction because of the impending changes to the law, even though the couple had lived in their property for over 30 years. It is anticipated that this issue will render houses adjacent to RUPPs unsaleable not only in Wokingham but also nationally.

You should be aware that in the district of Wokingham, there is estimated to be approximately £100 million worth of property built adjacent to 17 of our 23 Roads Used as Public Paths, which will become Restricted Byways, when the NERC Bill provisions come into force."

David Drew (Labour, Stroud)

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the whole area is becoming problematic? The Government's rights of way legislation has made the situation with regard to easements more complicated in many respects. Additionally, the Commons Bill has been introduced. Does he agree that we need to sit down to try to solve all the problems relating to access, and who owns the right to access, rationally? The easements seem to involve issues relating to the National Trust. I know that the problem affecting RUPPs is slightly different, but the issues are all interconnected and need to be examined properly.

Andrew MacKay (Conservative, Bracknell)

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. The situation has led to unintended consequences, although, as I hope my remarks about my poor constituents have illustrated, they are not trivial.

May I continue for a few more moments to quote from the letter from the chief executive? He wrote:

"Whilst the officers here at Wokingham have been in frequent contact with DEFRA about this issue on behalf of its residents, it is probable that there will be a significant numbers of other Authorities affected by the same issues across the country."

He continued by naming several of them, and then wrote:

"Authorities such as Hampshire and Oxfordshire (who I believe currently have over 300 RUPPs between them), similarly to Wokingham, gave re classification of RUPPs under the 1981 Wildlife and Countryside Act a low priority, deciding that maintenance and enforcement were more important in the Council's statutory Statement of Priorities for dealing with Public Rights of Way work. Even if Wokingham initiated a programme of re classification of the 17 RUPPs immediately, the process would take 2 or 3 years to complete, especially those modifications which were the subject of a public enquiry. This may mean millions of pounds worth of property could be unsaleable for this period of time."

That is the crux. No one is really to blame. I do not believe that the conveyancing solicitors and estate agents who sold those houses—often a long time ago—thought that there were any problems. My constituents who bought such properties have carried out due diligence and behaved responsibly. I do not believe that Wokingham unitary authority and other local authorities throughout the country should necessarily have changed their policy, because doing so would have been extremely expensive and thus costly to council tax payers. We all know that expenditure is a matter of priority for local authorities, as it is with the Government. It was thus reasonable that the situation was not a priority until now.

I do not think that the problem is especially the fault of the Government because like virtually every hon. Member, I am strongly in favour of what the Bill is trying to do. The points made by my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire and the behaviour of people who have been using such rights of way wrongly show that legislation is necessary. My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Robert Key) vividly illustrated what is happening in Wiltshire.

I am not in the business of blaming, but I am in the business of ensuring that my constituents have a right to live in the houses that they have purchased and that they can sell them without an unreasonable restriction suddenly being put on them. There is little more unreasonable restriction than being told that there is no vehicular access to a property for homeowners and anyone who legitimately wants to visit them, including tradesmen. It makes that property unliveable in and unsaleable. That cannot be right. It cannot be what the Secretary of State and the Minister wanted when they and their officials drafted the Bill. New clause 10, which I hope to put to a vote, would resolve the problem.

One or two people have contended that explanatory note 28 solves the problem. It states:

"There are property owners and others with an interest in land who rely on unrecorded . . . vehicular rights of way for access to that land. The Bill ensures that, if the public right of way for"

mechanically propelled vehicles

"is extinguished, those people are provided with a private right of way to access the land."

However, clause 62(1) does not apply to my constituents because they do not meet the requirement of clause 62(1)(b) that the rights are used mainly for the purpose for which restricted byways are used.

I estimate that 90 per cent. of the movements on RUPPs in my constituency are by MPV. Therefore, clause 62(3) does not apply and, presumably, nor does the explanatory note. I hope that the Minister does not hide behind explanatory note 28. If he does, I most certainly will want to press my new clause to a vote.

Paddy Tipping (Labour, Sherwood)

I am pleased to follow the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay). His important points reflect the haphazard nature of rights of way legislation, which has grown and been amended over the years. In many respects, there is confusion. His point is similar to that made by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry). I am unclear about how part 6 affects the rights of cyclists. I am pretty clear in my mind that it does not affect the established rights of cyclists, but what is more moot and questionable is whether they lose the right to claim new routes, which is how it appears. A separate category for cyclists in rights of way legislation is not clearly set out. I cycle, although I do not fill my panniers with the books and texts talked about. It is clearly right, however, that those of us who advocate a right to walk in the countryside should also secure the rights of people who want to cycle in the countryside.

I have looked closely at new clause 21. I do not think that it does the task that my hon. Friend anticipates, but she is versed in these matters and I am not. However, I back her request that we need to examine the matter closely during the Bill's remaining stages. I am confident that the Minister will do that. He and his officials have worked hard on part 6. There has been a great deal of movement. The Department accepted that there had been a flood of claims. That was dismissed early on, but as we examined the matter, the Minister accepted that there was a problem. As the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) said, the Minister was kind enough to publish—unusually, in many respects—the legal advice that he received. I am grateful to him for doing that.

I stress that concern is felt on both sides of the Chamber in both Houses, and it has substantial support from the organisations that have an interest. I know that the Minister is listening to that substantial lobby. I am grateful that he met me and representatives of the green lanes protection group in September, when we discussed the counsel's opinion that the GLPG had obtained from John Hobson, a leading expert in the subject. As the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire said, the Hobson opinion is clear that private rights and access, which give rise to human rights issues, are tackled in amendments Nos. 12 and 13. I support them and hope that the Minister will consider them carefully.

The essential issue is that of commencement. The Hobson opinion closely considers that, and it has been shared across the country with solicitors who have long experience in such matters. It is complicated, but in relative terms its core is straightforward. Part 6 extinguishes the right to use mechanically propelled vehicles on areas covered by new claims. All of us support that. It must be the case that if we are prepared to back that view—there is almost universal consensus for it across the country, with few exceptions—we should do it sooner rather than later.

There is no case for delay. Hobson clearly says that the legislation can be implemented immediately because the claims are just that—claims. They have not been established in law. By itself, a claim has no validity. However, the claims are stacking up, and the Minister would be wise to introduce an early commencement date. There are plenty of opportunities to do that. It could be on Royal Assent or 19 May, the day on which the Bill was published. It clearly is the case—it has been demonstrated thoroughly in the debate—that groups of people across the country are stacking up claims. What is more, they are being paid for it. That is a most unsatisfactory situation.

I am grateful for the movement on matters so far. Following our meeting on 22 September, the Minister kindly wrote to me. In a letter dated 3 October, he stated:

"I said that I would give you a very clear idea at the Commons Report Stage of how we intend to proceed on this issue."

I look forward to his statement. He will let us know of his decision, and an early intervention might help us. I promise him that we will look closely at what he has to say. I am delighted with part 6. If its provisions are right in the future, they should be right now.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

It is not up to me when I am called to speak in the debate. I am happy to hear all of the thoughts of hon. Members on both sides of the House in representing their constituents. Having done so, perhaps it is a good time for me to answer all of them.

Paddy Tipping (Labour, Sherwood)

I am grateful that the Minister will respond. We shall listen to him closely and make further representations to him tonight. Those representations will be nothing like those that will be made in another place. It may well be in my hon. Friend's interests to give way gracefully on this matter.

Roger Williams (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

Having listened to the debate on proposed rights of way legislation, I am confirmed in my opinion that we have rights of way legislation and a rights of way network relevant to the 18th and 19th centuries and not to the 21st century. In trying to amend a system that is fundamentally flawed, we make only minor improvements without getting to the basis of the problem.

New clause 23 stands in my name. Before I refer to it, I shall talk to new clause 4, which was moved by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice). I understand his reasons for introducing it. We are all concerned about those people who use motorised vehicles and in so doing abuse the countryside. At the same time, there are responsible people who enjoy motorised recreation in the countryside. The legislation should reflect their efforts to ensure that they do not damage the countryside and that, indeed, they promote it. I know that there is concern about those who abuse rights of way and cause environmental damage.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

As he shares representation of Powys with me, does my hon. Friend agree that much motorised off-road activity is organised responsibly? Some people will be concerned that legitimate and sustainable activity could be compromised if legislation were too tight. Those same people would agree that, if legislation works effectively, irresponsible individuals will be stopped without harming those who are innocent.

Roger Williams (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

I thank my hon. Friend. He and I share the responsibility of representing an area of mid-Wales that is used by motorised vehicles, by people on foot, by cyclists and by people who ride horses. The difficulty is to achieve a balance. So often the good intentions and the good efforts of responsible people are destroyed by those who are irresponsible.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

Nothing that I propose affects the existing network of BOATs, so all responsible users, who, I readily accept, are numerous, will still have the use of the existing network. They will still be able to use private land in the way in which I described in my opening remarks.

Roger Williams (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for pointing that out. Those involved in such activities sometimes forget that the existing uses are not affected either by the proposed legislation or by the hon. Gentleman's new clause.

I have been told by some members of the green lane preservation society—I do not know whether that is exactly the name of the society—

Rob Marris (Labour, Wolverhampton South West)

It is the Green Lanes Protection Group.

Roger Williams (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

I thank the hon. Gentleman.

The Government are considering some form of sustainability test for rights of way to use when deciding whether a RUPP could be reclassified as a BOAT. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that. It is late in the day to come forward with such suggestions and he may wish to reassure us or refer to discussions that he has had with relevant bodies.

I support new clause 21. There should be some certainty in legislation about rights of way and the byways that cyclists can use so as to enjoy their recreation. The increasing popularity of mountain biking has enabled cyclists to gain access to parts of the countryside that they have never reached before. It would be of great benefit to them and to cyclists in general if legislation were much more definitive and obvious in its interpretation. As the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) said, the last thing that we want when we are engaged in our activities, recreation and enjoyment is to be challenged by those who wish to dispute whether we have the right to use particular rights of way.

New clause 23 stands in my name. It is about the ability to use rights of way—byways in particular—for cycle races and time trials. It is an anomaly of the law that, while cyclists can use highways for races if they get appropriate authorisation from local authorities, with local authorities being able to place conditions on such use, there is no way in which cyclists can obtain permission to use restricted byways, including bridleways or footpaths on some occasions, for races or time trials.

The anomaly arises from the Road Traffic Act 1988. The new clause would allow organisations to apply to use rights of way for cycle races, including time trials. Local authorities or highway authorities would be able to put restrictions or conditions upon that authorisation.

That may appear a small issue to the Minister, but in Llanwrtyd Wells it is extremely important. Gordon Green has promoted the area over the past years. Llanwrtyd Wells claims to be the smallest town in England and Wales. It was the place where Sosban Fach was composed and has come to international importance through the world bog snorkelling championship. One of the other competitions that has been promoted there is the man versus horse race, an event that has been going on for 27 years and is sponsored by William Hill, which makes available £1,000 every year. The year before last, the man won. He beat the horse and won a prize of £27,000.

The real intention of the competition was that it should be man versus horse versus cyclist. As it is illegal to have races or time trials on byways, including bridleways, Gordon Green, being a man of complete integrity, was not prepared to promote such a competition if it was illegal.

The Minister, by a single stroke, could become popular in Llanwrtyd Wells and famous. I have no doubt that he would be invited to start the man versus horse versus cyclist race. He would join a sequence of famous people such as Lord Sutch and madam Cynthia Payne who have previously started it.

This is a serious matter. It is a small anomaly that can easily be rectified by the Minister. Mountain biking is increasing in popularity. The new clause could lead to more activity in rural areas and promote the rural and local economies. By a small token, he could undo an obvious anomaly. When he takes the matter back to the other place, he should know that many of their lordships would love to partake of cycle races on byways and bridleways. I am sure that there will be considerable support for the proposition. I hope that he can accommodate the wishes of Llanwrtyd Wells.

Hugh Bayley (Labour, City of York)

I support my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry). I am a regular cyclist and have made three trips by bicycle today. Unless the heavens open or a hurricane hits London, I will cycle back to my pad this evening.

I wish to elucidate two principles. First, cycling is good for one's health and for the environment, so the Government should do whatever they can to promote and encourage cycling, whether in the countryside or elsewhere. A number of hon. Members have talked about the importance of bridleways being open to cyclists to draw them into the countryside, but sometimes safety is an attraction. In countryside areas close to towns, it may well be safer for cyclists to cycle off-road than go on a busy road, especially as more and more roads are designed especially for motor vehicles, with dual carriageways, roundabouts and so on. Promoting cycling is therefore a good thing.

Secondly, our countryside is a valuable and precious resource. The spirits of town dwellers such as myself are lifted and our health improved when we walk or cycle in the countryside. That is partly because of the exercise and but also because of the peace and quiet that the countryside provides. A number of hon. Members talked about the environmental damage that motor vehicles can do to the countryside, mainly by chewing up paths. The hon. Member for Salisbury (Robert Key) discussed the damage that can be done to the archaeology below the surface when paths are used by motor vehicles. However, motor vehicles cause another environmental problem in the countryside, especially near high hills, with the noise that they make. If one goes to the hills for peace and quiet and one hears the drone of motor vehicles—

Rob Marris (Labour, Wolverhampton South West)

One can smell them.

Hugh Bayley (Labour, City of York)

Indeed. If one hears that drone the lift to one's spirits is not as high or as mighty as it would otherwise be. That is a particular problem in hills. Sound waves travel in straight lines in flat areas, so trees can reduce the noise. Such areas may be a suitable place to use off-road motor vehicles. Valleys, however, act as sound bowls, so once one is up in the hills one can hear everything that motor vehicles do in the valleys. That constitutes an environmental problem.

I hope that the Government will look closely at the legislation to ensure that it promotes cycling. On bridleways where cycling is permitted, motor vehicles should not be allowed. Those principles are important, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury on her new clause. I hope that the Minister will give Members a commitment to meet the Cyclists Touring Club and the cycling lobby to discuss their concerns and to make sure that the Bill, which is a very good piece of legislation, takes account of their needs and incorporates the two principles that I elucidated when it completes its passage through the other place.

George Young (Conservative, North West Hampshire)

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley)—I expect that we will meet later by the Members' cycle rack before we pedal home. The hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) delivered a knowledgeable speech, as is his wont, in a softly spoken manner, but I am sure that the Minister detected a hint of menace towards the end of his remarks.

I would like to speak briefly to new clause 21. It is a pleasure to follow in the slipstream of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), the chair of the all-party parliamentary cycling group, of which I am patron. I also speak as the honorary vice-president of the Cyclists Touring Club. As she and my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) said, there is an element of uncertainty about the rights of cyclists, and it is not clear whether they have a right of way. It has always been assumed that evidence of cycle use was sufficient to claim either a carriageway or a bridleway, but in two recent public inquiries to which my hon. Friend referred, the same inspector has ruled against attempts to claim either way on the grounds that there was no statutory or common law authority to do so. As the Bill is going through the House, it is appropriate to clarify the question, and I am sure that there will not be a great falling out over the issue.

Turning briefly to new clause 4, my hon. Friend mentioned the serious situation in Hampshire. Between January and May this year, 74 byway claims were received. I contacted the county council this morning to find out the position, and it said that it had

"not, in fact, received any byway claims since 17 May. This appears to be as a result of the moratorium subsequently placed on the making of such applications by the"

Trail Riders Fellowship and the Land Access and Recreation Association. It continues:

"We have no doubt that more claims are in the pipeline and ready to be submitted once the current embargo ends."

Like other hon. Members, I received a piece of propaganda from the Green Lane Association on behalf of people who want to extend rights of way. At the beginning, it says:

"We . . . do not risk damage to either our vehicles or to the countryside."

I am sure that its members do not risk damage to their vehicles, but it is simply not the case that they do not risk damage to the countryside. The document makes one interesting argument, about the position of disabled people, that needs to be addressed before it is dismissed. Towards the end, it says that, in the interests of access to the countryside, people who are less mobile should be allowed more rights of way. I tried that argument out yesterday on a constituent in a wheelchair who was visiting the Houses of Parliament. She was emphatic: she minded about the countryside and did not want roads to be churned up by four-wheeled vehicles or motorbikes. She would be deeply resentful if disabled people were used as an argument in favour of such action. Having raised that argument, I hope that too much account will not be made of it. I notice that it has not been made by groups representing disabled people, but only by the Green Lane Association, which has a small but vociferous membership. As we have heard throughout this debate, it is stacking up claims to create byways in the hope that they will be heard under the old rules. My hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire said that Wiltshire county council estimates that it has over 30 years' work to process the claims that it has received so far. While it does so, the damage to the routes in question will continue. I understand why notice was given for a period of exemption, but the evidence that we have heard in our debate suggests that that is not the best way to proceed.

To conclude with the position in Hampshire, the Minister generously held a meeting on 22 September with the CTC. Some photographs were left with him showing parts of tracks that were badly damaged, even though other parts of the route had been repaired. The cost of repairs this year has been estimated to be £10,000, including officer time. Further works have yet to be done, and complaints are being made to Hampshire county council about the fact that it has to spend ratepayers' money on repairs made necessary by a tiny minority of users, particularly motorbikes. When the council was asked to extend the traffic regulation order, the assistant head of the countryside service said:

"the legislation does not allow the highway authority to use or extend the scope of a Traffic Regulation Order as an alternative to undertaking repair works."

That raises important questions about how we stop the damage.

I hope that the Minister will deal with the Bassetlaw question. The relevant provision is prospective and applies only to new rights of way. We need to address the important issue of all the rights of way that have been established, even though activity may not be appropriate.

The Minister is a sensitive soul and he will have detected the mood of the House throughout the debate. I do not know what his officials have drafted for his winding-up speech, but he might be well advised to ad lib and go off track for a short time. If he wants to capture the mood of the House and build on the consensus that has featured in the debate so far, he should opt for the earliest possible date.

John Mann (Labour, Bassetlaw)

Last night, I looked at a booklet featuring Saxon and Roman routes through Bassetlaw, which is now no longer published. Those who were on the Standing Committee will probably be relieved to learn that I do not propose to illustrate my speech with numerous extracts from it, although doubtless other Members will be greatly disappointed. Anyway, I am sure that an opportunity for me to quote from it will arise at an appropriate point. I shall confine myself to saying that it is absurd that, as a result of an anomaly in the law that the Bill attempts to remove, 550 square miles of my constituency that are riddled with both Roman and Saxon through routes should be affected because quad bikers and other such sportspeople choose to give their business to the area, having discovered it through websites and links. Only recently, a group from south Wales who had spotted the routes on the internet decided to pay a day-long visit with the sole purpose of travelling along former bridleways.

Whether it is called the Bassetlaw question or not, the Minister must ensure that it is acted on. There is a legislative anomaly here. I am relaxed about the potential use of traffic regulation orders, on condition that the Government give clear direction to more reluctant authorities such as Nottinghamshire county council, which seems to think that the use of such orders in this context should be seen in a variety of wider contexts than that of what is wanted by the overwhelming majority of local people. The wide public consultations in which I have engaged suggest that 99 per cent. of local people do not want quad bikes, motor bikes or any other motorised vehicles to travel down the most sensitive lanes in our countryside. It is essential that the Government give the right guidance to rectify that anomaly.

I was perturbed by the triumphalist language that we heard at the beginning of the debate. There were references to U-turns and backing down on the Minister's part, as if he were a weak Minister forced into concessions. In fact, as those who served on the Committee will recall vividly, there was all-party debate and consensus on most of the issues that were raised then. The fact that the Minister felt able to go back to his drafters and return with his own amendments indicates strength. No doubt he feels able to go further. In any event, he has ensured that the common sense exhibited by all parties will become legislation. I see that as the action of a strong Minister, not a weak one, which the House should commend.

I intend to make three points about the new clauses. There is an important omission from new clause 4, which it is vital not to overlook. Subsection (2) contains paragraphs (a) and (b), but there ought to be a paragraph (c), dealing with crime and disorder. Paragraphs (a) and (b) deal essentially with the volume of motorised vehicles, but we should also consider the threat. Occasional use of such vehicles may not damage the environment to any great extent. It may not constitute a particular danger according to the definition. In terms of crime and disorder, however, it may be a problem. It may affect isolated properties, for instance. In my constituency, there is the potential for entrances and exits to be created to and from areas in which crimes could be committed.

I have received support from both the local crime and disorder partnership and the police in regard to the use of traffic regulation orders. The police believe that crime and disorder are critical to the need to row back the new rights. If it were just a question of the odd trail rider, we would all feel quite relaxed. It is, however, a question of the rights going to everyone else, and the impossibility of doing anything about it. There is no particular clash with trail riders in my area.

That is the weakness that I see in new clause 4, but I also see a strength in its meaning and intent. A problem for county councils is that each traffic regulation order causes a good deal of bureaucratic work. In a wider context than today's debate, it would be sensible for Government to allow authorities to impose such orders en bloc rather than individually. That might be done by means of a lowering of speed limits in villages, or the application of TROs to anomalies with which the Bill cannot deal. Such a move would save authorities time and costs, and I hope that the Minister will consider it. I feel that it is in the spirit of new clause 4.

New clause 10, tabled by the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay), deals with the law of unintended consequences. I shall make two points about it. First, the definition of "premises" needs to be tight. Secondly, there is the issue of definitions of "right of vehicular access". I can give two examples of attempts by property developers in Bassetlaw to create new rights of access to what they claim are existing properties. The properties have not, in fact, been built, but the developers are trying to secure initial planning permission. They have been found out, though. Their case is essentially this: "We want to convert an old ruin, and because we have been driving to and from it for many years—although no one has spotted us—we have vehicular rights." Wrongly and stupidly, in my view, planning permission may have been given for one property and then, lo and behold, new vehicular rights emerge in respect of neighbouring land.

The issue is not peculiar to the countryside. The most contentious example applies to an urbanised area of Worksop, in my constituency. That is, however, precisely the kind of unintended consequence that could result from the new clause, according to my reading of it. I hope that the right hon. Member for Bracknell will not push what appears to be a sensible proposal without allowing the Minister—I hope that he has not already accepted the new clause; if not, I urge caution on him—to take account of other unintended consequences. I am thinking especially of the creation of vehicular rights that could be used to enhance land values with the aim of securing new property developments that would not have been allowed if the initial vehicular right had not been granted. There is a problem with the new clause's wording and I will certainly vote against it if it is pressed to a vote, even though I wholly accept the logic behind it.

On new clause 21, which deals with cycling, I again urge caution, although not in respect of the principle behind it. Let me give another example from my own constituency, which concerns one right of way crossing another. A particular footpath to a school in my constituency is most definitely the safest route for children to take, because it keeps them away from dangerous main roads. However, attempts have been made to create an enhanced right of way across that footpath. We need to exercise caution in such clashing of rights of way. On the face of it, such a development could constitute an enhancement, but it could lead to the rights of the occasional cyclist at certain times endangering small children going to the nearby nursery school. Moreover, the school travel plan encourages slightly older children—those aged from five to eight years old—to travel on their own to school on that route, because doing so is considered safe. We need to look at this issue to ensure that we are not creating another unintended consequence by providing what is, on the face of it, a sensible enhancement of cyclists' rights.

Peter Atkinson (Conservative, Hexham)

I agree with something that the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) said, in that I hope that we will not need to push the new clause to a vote. I hope that the Minister will instead accept it, or at least accept most of its content. This is a very serious issue, and I slightly admonish my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) for not mentioning in his list of counties those of Northumberland and Durham.

The upland areas of the north Pennines are seriously afflicted by the problem of dozens and dozens of applications to open up old drove roads and track roads to vehicles. A particular problem in the upland commons is that when the enclosure Acts were passed in the 18th and 19th centuries, various track-ways were put down on the enclosure maps. Because some of the track-ways were for the use of drovers and local farmers, they were extremely wide, and their width is specified on the enclosure orders.

In my constituency, some of these track-ways are 30, 40 or even 60 yd wide, such measurements being the traditional widths. Of course, that causes enormous problems. In fact, some of the track-ways do not appear on the ground at all. A particular track-way in my constituency that is included on an enclosure map was never actually put in, so if it is turned into a byway, the farmer will have to demolish 60-yd stretches of old stone walls over a distance of about a mile. That is clearly ludicrous, and urgent action is needed from the Minister.

Some 60-yd wide drove roads now have houses built on them. In Stocksfield, in the Tyne valley, where development has taken place since the turn of the 20th century, houses have been built on part of those drove roads. They will remain virtually un-sellable until this matter is finally resolved. This is a very urgent issue, and if the Minister cannot accept new clause 4 in its entirety, I urge him at least to accept the spirit of it. Opening up these ways to motorised vehicles and trail riders has the potential to destroy a growing tourist industry in the Pennines. In building our tourist industry, we rely on people who enjoy quiet solitude and physical activity. Such activities will be utterly destroyed if these roads become common-use roads for four-wheel-drive vehicles and trail bikes.

Anne Snelgrove (Labour, South Swindon)

I want to thank the Minister for offering an open door to Members from all parts of the House. He has responded to letters, e-mails, phone calls, texts and face-to-face lobbying—and that is just from me; heaven knows what the sum total of such lobbying has been across the House. He has met all of this with courtesy and good humour, and I am sure that he will continue to do so, and to show the flexibility that he is known for, throughout the rest of our deliberations. This is an important Bill for the countryside, and I say that having experienced in the past week the lasting effect of 4x4s on one of the most important national trails in the English countryside. That is why I hope that the Minister will ensure that this Bill is enacted as soon as possible.

Last Friday, I had the pleasure of meeting representatives of the Ramblers Association, the Cyclists' Touring Club and the Friends of the Ridgeway at Barbury castle, in my constituency. All of them agreed that this Bill is important to the Ridgeway national trail. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) that it is important for cyclists as well, and I pay tribute to her eloquence. I will not repeat her arguments, but I totally agree with them.

I have the honour of being vice-president of the Friends of the Ridgeway—one that I share with other Members. They know, as Members throughout the House know, the damage that 4x4s have done to some of the most delicate country lanes and paths on that route. Indeed, some two years after 4x4s were banned from the paths that I visited on Friday, there are still deep ruts in the ground, which is why this Bill must be enacted as soon as possible. This is not a sustainable state of affairs for the countryside that my South Swindon constituents and the people of the surrounding villages enjoy so much.

In response to one of my letters, the Minister wrote to me on 31 July, saying that he had

"met representatives from a number of motor vehicle user groups and invited them to exercise voluntary restraint in submitting byway claims. I called on them to come up with, and put into practice, a protocol whereby motor vehicle users will only put in claims for routes that are suitable for motor vehicle use."

He said that this would be

"an opportunity for those groups to show that they will be responsible and submit only claims that are for sustainable routes."

He further said that he had made it clear to them

"that if they do not, I will commence the proposed legislation at the earliest possible date."

We have heard today from all parts of the House that a responsible attitude has not been shown.

I thank the Minister for listening, and I hope that he will enact this legislation as soon as possible.

Rob Marris (Labour, Wolverhampton South West)

As a cyclist, I find new clause 21 attractive and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) on tabling it. I urge the Government to ensure that by the time this Bill becomes an Act—preferably sooner, rather than later—it will enable byways to be clearly open to bicycles, but not to noxious trucks, cars, motor bikes and quad bikes.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) on his succinct speech, given how much more we still have to cover this evening. This has been a lengthy debate, but it has enabled great constituency champions such as my hon. Friends the Members for South Swindon (Anne Snelgrove) and for Wolverhampton, South-West to represent their constituents, as we have heard. I reiterate the point made by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice). However we resolve this issue—I intend to resolve it robustly—an existing network of rights of way is available to motorised vehicles that is subject to traffic regulation orders. We heard earlier that, with the agreement of the House, national parks authorities will have the power to make traffic regulation orders in order partially to deal with this problem. I hope that that means that responsible riders such as those referred to by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik)—he is no longer in his place—can pursue their pastime responsibly. I regret that those irresponsible drivers and riders of motorised vehicles have in many ways made it necessary for the Government to act quickly and effectively in this matter.

I am grateful to hon. Members for tabling the amendments on an important issue. In dealing with them, let me set out clearly what we have done, what we are going to do and why we are doing it. I will then discuss the detail of the amendments as briefly as I can.

In Committee, I explained that there were human rights issues surrounding the commencement of the legislation that led us to believe that it would be appropriate to give a period of statutory notice before commencement of these provisions. I undertook to make publicly available, for others to comment upon, a summary of the legal advice that we received on the human rights aspects of commencement. At the same time, I made it clear that if motor vehicle users were able to exercise restraint in submitting byway claims, there might be no pressing need to commence the legislation straight away.

In light of comments we have received on the human rights aspects, and after careful consideration, we have concluded that, provided the provisions in clause 62(3), which provide for private rights where public rights are extinguished, are strengthened sufficiently, it will not be necessary to allow a period of statutory notice before the legislation can be commenced. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] I am glad that the House approves.

The motorised user groups have been engaged in developing a protocol for managing byway claims, on which they consulted other rights of way users and stakeholders. In addition, as a gesture of good faith, they have instigated a self-imposed moratorium on claims until such time as a protocol could be agreed.

My officials—I pay tribute to them for their assiduous work, particularly in the last few months—have been in touch with local authorities to monitor the numbers of new byway claims. In certain counties, the moratorium has been effective. In others, there have been considerable increases in the numbers of applications to have routes recorded as byways on the definitive map and statement. I see that the hon. Member for Salisbury (Robert Key) is in his place and we heard from him earlier. Wiltshire county council has received over 70 applications for new byways within the last few weeks.

Clearly, these voluntary measures, however well intended, are not having the desired effect. We cannot tolerate local authorities being deluged with applications in an attempt to thwart the aims of the Bill. In delivering the package of measures that we promised in the Government's "Framework for Action" on mechanically propelled vehicles, we are proposing legislation to curtail applications for byways open to all traffic based on historic vehicular use, such as the Saxon and Roman routes in Bassetlaw, and extinguishing any unrecorded vehicular rights; in rights of way terms, this is a radical measure and not to be underestimated by the House. I should clarify that the Bill does not affect the rights of users of wheelchairs and invalid carriages to use restricted byways.

I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) is listening closely to this point. I have decided to commence these provisions as soon as possible after Royal Assent and, if legally possible, at Royal Assent. That leaves us with the measures that we should take to deal with any new byway applications made between now and commencement and how to treat existing, outstanding applications in a way that is fair and appropriate.

Oliver Letwin (Conservative, West Dorset)

Will the Minister clarify that he is talking about all those applications that have been made since consultation and up to commencement?

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

Yes, I am talking about outstanding applications.

I intend to make a clear and explicit announcement about this while the Bill is in the other place, once I have received sufficient legal advice about how we can deal with it. To those listening outside this House, I say that if there is the flood that we fear as a result of my announcement about commencement, I will seek to take as aggressive a stance as I possibly can from that legal advice on how outstanding claims are to be dealt with.

We will shortly be publishing an updated version of "Making the Best of Byways", a practical guide to managing the use of mechanically propelled vehicles on routes where there are established rights for such vehicles. That will help with what the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) described as "the Bassetlaw question." We are also introducing guidance on the better use of traffic regulation orders—including pre-emptive traffic regulation orders—and other regulatory and enforcement measures on which my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw is so keen.

Because of the interest expressed by the Welsh Assembly Government in this guidance, we have decided—I am sure that the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) will be pleased with this—to simultaneously launch a Welsh language version. This means that it will take a little longer to publish than I had hoped, but it will be ready—along with "Making the Best of Byways"—certainly by the time this Bill has Royal Assent and, if I can have anything to do with it, a little bit sooner.

Paddy Tipping (Labour, Sherwood)

I am grateful for the commitments that my hon. Friend the Minister has made and I am delighted that commencement will proceed at as early a stage as possible after Royal Assent. Clearly there will be further discussions on that. However, this House and the other place will want to discuss the outstanding applications. In Hampshire, and other parts of the country, there are a great many. In many cases, those applications have been made to the local authority, which is the highway authority, but no order has been made by the local authority. Those cases must be dealt with by the new legislation, so those applications will fail on Royal Assent if commencement is at the same time. Have I understood this correctly? I hope I have.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

As ever, I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Following our identifying the wider problem and announcing that we would curtail historic rights, there was a muted celebration from hon. Members, who then focused on commencement. Having now made an announcement on commencement, we received a muted "Hear, hear" from Members, who then moved to the next problem, the outstanding applications. I will make an announcement on that when the Bill goes to the Lords and I hope to be able to satisfy my hon. Friend—

Oliver Letwin (Conservative, West Dorset)

rose—

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

And even the right hon. Gentleman.

Oliver Letwin (Conservative, West Dorset)

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again; he has been very generous. I want to press him on this question, which is important from the point of view of our planning in the Lords. When he says that he will make an announcement, does he mean that he will announce amendments that will be tabled in the Lords and will have the force of law, or does he mean that he will make some clarificatory statement? If the former, hallelujah; we will look at the amendments with great delight. If the latter, I must warn him that it will not satisfy.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I hope it will be "Hallelujah." It would be my intention to clarify this matter in law in the Bill. That is subject to the legal advice that I need to receive and the discussions that I need to have with officials, but that is my intention.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I am sorry if the Minister thinks that there is a pincer movement; it is not intentional. But may I press him a bit more? I accept that he must take more legal advice and will not want to be too tied down at this moment, but is it his intention to put it into law that, basically, these outstanding applications will be dealt with under the new law or in some other way that will restrict the use of mechanised vehicles? That is what we are trying to prevent: these 2,000-odd applications all becoming BOATs.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

We all agree that, as far as possible, we want an end to this abuse of the countryside and to prevent local authorities from being deluged with applications and not being able to process them; in Wiltshire's case, as some have said, for 30 years. That is my intention and the announcement will be based around trying to resolve that problem. In addition, we are providing national park authorities with powers to make traffic regulation orders on unsurfaced routes and rights of way.

I hope that the House will agree that this is a significant package that will deliver much of what hon. Members on both sides are seeking in their amendments. I hope that, on that basis, they will feel able to withdraw their amendments. If so, I will not go through the long rebuttal that I have prepared on some of the detail of the amendments. If the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire is willing to nod to that, I will not need to go down that road.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

Not quite a nod, Mr. Deputy Speaker; or even a wink, which might be misconstrued. The Minister said in his opening comments that he accepted that if he put right the issue of public versus private rights, the Human Rights Act would not come into play. We have tabled amendments based on the advice of counsel, to which several hon. Members have referred, that would do just that. Is the Minister saying that he is not accepting the amending provisions on that issue? I am not talking about the separate issue of existing claims, but we need to know whether the Minister is refusing to accept the amending provisions drafted by counsel and, if so, why. Secondly, if it is not the way forward, I want an explanation of what is wrong with the approach devised in new clause 4.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

In that case, I shall go through the detail as quickly as I can.

Under new clause 4, a sort of suitability test would be applied by the Secretary of State. The letter from the Secretary of State has been read out and it refers to the similar approach taken in the reclassification of roads used as public paths in the Countryside Act 1968. Disputes about some of the reclassifications are still ongoing. I heard what was said about the present task being more restricted than that, but the proposals in new clause 4 would require local knowledge and a local presence on the ground to enforce the orders—neither of which requirements could be fulfilled by the Secretary of State. For the Secretary of State to make traffic regulation orders that would have to be enforced at the local level would impose significant new burdens on local authorities. By commencing the part 6 provisions as early as possible and by looking at ways of dealing with existing byway claims, I believe that we can deliver what the new clause seeks more effectively.

Paddy Tipping (Labour, Sherwood)

Will the Minister give way on that point?

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I will give way one last time, particularly as it is to my hon. Friend, but I really want to make some progress.

Paddy Tipping (Labour, Sherwood)

We all want to make progress on this issue and the line of progress has been laid out clearly to the Minister. New clause 4 is not at issue: the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) was referring to amendments Nos. 12 and 13. I cannot speak for the Opposition or anyone but myself, but if the Minister is saying that those amendments are acceptable in principle and that he will introduce them in some form at a later date, we can make some progress.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

By way of making progress, I am seeking to table amendments in the other place that will satisfy the points that have been raised. I will continue my discussions with hon. Members in order to achieve that.

It is important to deal with new clause 10, because the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay) made some significant points. I recognise that many people living on roads used as public paths have until now relied on the uncertainty as to whether RUPPs carry vehicular rights for motor vehicle access to their property. Under the combined effect of this part of the Bill and the restrictive byway provisions of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, those routes will become restricted byways and any motor vehicular rights will be extinguished. It will then become an offence, as the right hon. Gentleman said, to drive a mechanically propelled vehicle over them.

In strict legal terms, anyone with a property on a RUPP should have been advised at the time of purchase or construction of their property that to rely solely on the uncertain status of a RUPP for access to a property is legally unsatisfactory; but I accept what the right hon. Gentleman says—that it has become standard practice in certain areas. It seems that in some parts of the country it has been common practice to rely on the uncertainty and the Government recognise that there is a problem that needs to be addressed. With that in mind, we introduced a clause to ensure that anyone in those circumstances is not left landlocked—subject to one condition, to which I shall refer.

The present clause provides for a private right for those who have a reasonable need to access their property and were doing so by relying on a public vehicular right prior to the commencement of the rights of way provisions in the Bill. However, those people will have to prove that a public vehicular right existed before they can establish a private right. I appreciate that that may be difficult in the sorts of circumstances that the right hon. Gentleman described. Accepting the urgency of the problem for the right hon. Gentleman's constituents, it does not seem unreasonable to exempt people who wish only to access their property from committing a criminal offence. I am therefore prepared to consider the issue further with a view to introducing improved wording in the other place. We have some difficulty with the concept of reasonable occupation—wording in the right hon. Gentleman's new clause that would be new to law. I hope that he will allow us to resolve the matter as I have suggested.

Andrew MacKay (Conservative, Bracknell)

If the Minister is saying that he accepts the new clause in principle, but that his drafters and lawyers are unhappy with the term "reasonable", I confirm that—providing that something better is devised in the other place and that all my constituents who have been dispossessed of their right to sell their property will no longer be so dispossessed, and providing that conveyancing solicitors and others can advise purchasers that there is no difficulty in purchasing the property in that respect—I will withdraw the new clause today. I wait with eager anticipation a more satisfactory amendment in the other place.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I am grateful and I undertake to meet the right hon. Gentleman to ensure that he is happy, before any amendment is introduced, that it represents the interests of his constituents.

I greatly enjoyed the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), who spoke to new clause 21. I am also a cyclist and I have struggled with my own bike on the train down to Dorset, South. When my hon. Friend chooses to come with her inner city comrades, I would be delighted to ride some of the routes of south Dorset with them. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend who, as chairman of the all-party group, has emerged as a champion for cyclists in such a short time.

I recognise the concern that it is uncertain under the new provisions whether a qualifying period of use by a bicycle would give rise to a right of way for bicycles and I appreciate that the amendment is intended to achieve that by ensuring that a bicycle falls within the definition of a non-mechanically propelled vehicle. It has always been our view that a bicycle falls within that definition. However, it may be possible to improve the drafting and my officials will enter discussions with the relevant cycling interests with a view to addressing their concerns. I will happily meet my hon. Friend to agree with her how best to resolve the matter.

That leaves me with new clause 23. Current legislation provides for trials and races on all highways except footpaths and bridleways, so cyclists can use BOATs and restricted byways under the existing terms of section 31 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The amendment is designed to extend the possibility of authorising cycle racing on footpaths and bridleways, particularly in the town whose name I have temporarily forgotten. If I recall the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) correctly, it is a small town in his constituency.

The proposal goes well beyond what we are trying to achieve in the rights of way part of the Bill. In many ways, I fear that it has come too late for me to be able to make much progress on the matter. I presume that there is a good reason why existing legislation specifically prevents cycle racing on bridleways and footpaths. The rights of way are generally much narrower than for other categories of highway and such uses may well conflict with the interests of other rights of way users and have implications for their safety. I fear that insufficient time is left to achieve the aim properly in the remaining passage of the Bill. I would be happy to meet the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire to discuss whether progress can be made on this particular issue, but I cannot be too optimistic.

Roger Williams (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

I thank the Minister for that offer. Bridleways are used by cyclists who have rights to use them. Indeed, bridleways can also be used for races and time trials by horses, so I do not follow the logic whereby cyclists are denied the right to use the same facilities.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

As I say, I shall have a chat with the hon. Gentleman to see whether anything can be done, but I advise him not to hold his breath.

As to amendments Nos. 6 and 7 and 11 to 13, clause 62 provides for the extinguishing of certain mechanically propelled vehicular rights from the date on which the provision is commenced. Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 would make the provision retrospective so that the rights would be extinguished from 19 May 2005. I have already explained that, as part of package of measures, I intend to commence the rights of way provisions as soon as possible after Royal Assent.

I hope that I have said enough to satisfy the House on this group of amendments. In the light of my assurance that, having listened to the overwhelming view of the House, we will act robustly, I hope that hon. Gentlemen will feel able to withdraw the amendments.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) implied that in my reply to the debates on some of the earlier groups I had suggested that the Minister was weak. Far from it; I genuinely congratulate the Minister on his wisdom. He has addressed the Bill constructively and helpfully, as we have seen on this group of amendments, and I do not resile from those comments.

As I said in my opening remarks, the Minister has been extremely helpful, met various special interest groups and bent over backwards to find a voluntary way forward, through the sustainable assessment process. I congratulate him on his efforts, but as I tried to explain, and as the Minister has now conceded, clearly that approach will not work. I therefore congratulate him on taking the robust stance that he has now adopted.

So many Members have spoken—Members on both sides of the House, and from constituencies in all parts of the country—that the Minister cannot be in any doubt about the strength of feeling on this issue. My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) referred to the hidden menace of the hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping). I too noticed that, but I still pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for the tremendous work that he has done on this issue.

As the Minister has rightly said, the problem is that a minority—but still quite a large number—of people who use four-wheel drives and motor cycles are destroying many of our byways and making them impassable for pedestrians and horse riders. They cause all kinds of nuisance and, as the hon. Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) said, they also cause serious noise intrusion. Would that it had been possible to find a voluntary way forward.

I tabled a variety of amendments and new clauses that we believed would address the issues. We based them largely on the advice of counsel. Clearly the Minister is not convinced, although I suspect that he has taken the legal opinion into account, because he said that if clause 62(3) could be strengthened, the Human Rights Act 1998 would not come into play. He has not explained precisely what is wrong with the wording of my amendments Nos. 12 and 13, but I accept that he intends to table something along the same lines to deal with the same issue. That is welcome.

The Minister said that he would try to ensure that commencement would be on Royal Assent or as soon as possible thereafter—and as he also said, that met with a genuinely enthusiastic response in the House. That is as it should be, because it is a considerable step forward from the position in Committee. Ideally, I would have liked commencement earlier rather than later, despite what I said before about retrospection, and our legal advice.

I am not wedded to the precise wording of new clause 4. The Minister feels that using traffic regulation orders is in some way wrong. Perhaps it is, and I look forward to what I believe he described as the aggressive statement that he proposes to make—or rather, to get someone else to make on his behalf, unless he knows something that we do not about a very quick forthcoming promotion—in the other place. If that statement does not involve TROs, there will have to be some other mechanism to deal with the 2000 or so outstanding claims; the Minister referred to the huge increase in some counties, despite the moratorium.

The Opposition are satisfied with the way in which the debate has gone. The Minister has responded, at least in rhetoric—I do not mean that as a pejorative term—in the robust way that we would wish to see. We look forward to that attitude producing amendments to the Bill. Robust statements in another place alone will not be adequate; we shall need to see chapter and verse in the Bill. I am interested to see that some Labour Members are nodding, so the Minister knows the problem that he faces. We need amendments to the Bill to deal with the 2000-odd applications. Subject to that—and we willingly accept the Minister's commitment to it—we do not wish to press the amendments at this time. Obviously, that is the outcome that the Minister desires.

Before I formally withdraw the new clause, however, as this will be my last speech on this group I want to refer to the Minister's remarks about the other two issues. I cannot speak for my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay)—he has made his own remarks—but on behalf of the official Opposition, I welcome the Minister's commitment to address my right hon. Friend's concerns too. I also welcome his understanding that it is not right that somebody driving to their own house should thereby commit a criminal offence. His words seemed eminently sensible, and I accept them.

I also welcome the Minister's commitment to meet the Cyclists' Touring Club and hear about their concerns. As my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire made clear in his capacity as patron of the all-party group, there is a real problem, and whatever the Government think that the law says, there is at least one inspector who thinks that it says something else. That is the existing law, so it needs to be addressed. The Minister is right, and I congratulate him on the way in which he has addressed the whole issue of rights of way. It is what we would have expected from a sensible Minister—[Hon. Members: "And a sensible Government."] I would not go that far. I meant a sensible Minister who represents a constituency that is obviously affected by those problems. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 5 — Import of Exotic Birds

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

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

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

No. 5, in clause 46, page 17, line 7, at end insert

'if there is evidence that the nest was constructed or used within the preceding 5 years,'.

No. 35, in page 17, line 14, at end insert—

'Owl, Barn | Tyto alba

Chough, Red-billed | Pyrrhocorax pyrrhocorax

Falcon, Peregrine | Falco pregrinus.'.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I am sorry that I was rather slow to rise to speak, Madam Deputy Speaker; I was getting carried away with my own success on the last group. We now move on to another issue. I welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw) to his place; I presume that he will respond to this group of amendments, as it falls within his responsibilities.

The Government are rightly addressing several wildlife protection issues—[Interruption.] The Under-Secretary is looking at me somewhat askance. Clearly he will not be responding to this group; at least, if he is it will be a very interesting response, because he has just asked his fellow Minister what this group is about.

New clause 5 is about the serious issue of the import of exotic bird species. In the context of an earlier debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) said that he was with the birds. With this group of amendments, so am I, and so are the Opposition. I was astonished when I looked at some of the statistics, not for all types of birds but just for the species listed in CITES—the convention on international trade in endangered species. In 2001, 28,500 such exotic birds were imported into the United Kingdom, but by 2003, that figure had increased to 83,000—a threefold increase. In that year, more than 10,000 parrots were imported—a 50 per cent. increase on the previous year.

Many of those species are under threat in their natural environment, and the CITES arrangements go out of their way to protect them and require special permits for their import. That is not enough. Neither the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals nor the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds believes that it is. The World Parrot Trust, a very authoritative organisation, is not against the keeping of parrots in captivity, but it believes that we need to limit imports, and strongly condemns that trade. The RSPCA estimates that the mortality rates among imported wild-caught birds could be as high as 60 per cent.

By contrast, in the UK, we do not allow commercial exploitation of our native birds. All bar a few species are protected entirely and it is an offence to catch a finch, for example. The time was when most households had a finch in a cage, but these days no native finch could be captured and kept in a cage. However, we happily allow wild-caught parrots to be imported and kept in cages. It is also clear that a huge illegal trade exists in the importation of wild-caught birds, although by its very nature exact numbers cannot be determined. I do not decry the efforts made by Revenue and Customs—as we must now call it—but seizures of such imported birds have been low. In 2001, 5,000 CITES-listed animals and birds were seized. By 2002, the number had increased to 8,600, but in 2003 it dropped to just under 3,000. I suggest that the fall does not reflect a reduction in the overall number of illegal imports.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I concur with the point that the hon. Gentleman makes about the seizures. I am concerned that the authorities do not have sufficient enforcement powers. The fines may have increased, but that is no deterrent if there is no proper enforcement. Has the hon. Gentleman noticed the increase in examples on the internet of trade in exotic birds and endangered species and does he agree that the Government should pay more attention to that issue?

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

Yes, and that is why I have tabled the new clause.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I support what the hon. Gentleman seeks to achieve, but I am puzzled by one point. I am not an ornithologist, but the exclusions in subsection (4) appear to include large families of birds, such as the pheasants, turkeys, ducks, ostriches, rheas and cranes. Why has he chosen to exclude all those birds, some of which are undoubtedly exotic birds in the UK context and not all of which are game birds?

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I hope to address that issue, not least by pointing out that one would not keep an ostrich in a cage—at least, not in one's front room. That is a light-hearted point, but I will try to address the issue in a moment.

Many organisations want to see an end to this trade and most reasonable people would agree with that. Many of the species are at real risk in their native habitat. The latest World Conservation Union red list, published by BirdLife International, says that one in eight of all bird species are at real risk of becoming extinct. Of those species, 113 are directly threatened by exploitation for the caged bird trade and 57 per cent. of threatened parrot species are trapped for the trade. Those are significant figures.

The World Parrot Trust says that there are already enough individuals of each parrot species in this country to provide a viable breeding population. If people want to keep parrots—and this debate is not about the rights and wrongs of doing so—supply is available from captive-bred birds, without the need to catch more in the wild. Indeed, it can be hard to re-home parrots when owners wish to give the birds up because they cannot cope with them. Birds can change hands on average every six years and, given that they can live for 45 years, they may have several owners in that time.

I suspect that the Minister will say that the issue is a matter for the European Union. I understand that, and this is not a debate about the rights and wrongs of Europe. It is about whether we should address the very real problem of imported exotic birds, many of which come from threatened species. We have examined the experience of the United States. Its Wild Bird Conservation Act 1992 has had a dramatic effect and caused a massive drop in the volume of birds imported to the US. Through the 1980s, the US imported an average of 700,000 birds annually, of which captive-bred birds accounted for only 9 to 13 per cent. The other 90 or so per cent. were taken from the wild. By 1994, the total had fallen to 80,000, of which almost half were captive-bred. So the number of wild-caught birds legally imported into the US as a result of the 1992 Act fell from more than 600,000 to some 45,000—a huge drop in anybody's language.

Importantly, the 1992 US Act benefited legitimate bird dealers, by stemming the flood of wild-caught birds on to the American pet market. Virtually all the commercially popular exotic bird species could be bred in captivity, and the Act encouraged that. However, wild-caught birds generally cost less, because captive breeding is an expensive and labour-intensive process. By preventing the importation of the wild-caught birds, the Act shifted the demand to professional bird breeders.

Perhaps even more important than the reduction in the legal trade was the huge reduction in the illegal trade, which may come as a surprise to many hon. Members. The 1992 Act effectively banned the importation of any CITES-listed bird species, with exceptions for scientific research, zoological breeding or display, approved co-operative breeding programmes and a "clean" list of species for which trade was known to consist entirely of captive-bred birds. In other words, and in answer to the question from the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), the excluded species are not normally wild-caught birds, but captive-bred ones. Therefore, their importation does not risk the species' survival in the wild.

The new clause is not a direct copy of the US Act, but gains its basic points from it. The US Act is a good example of what can be achieved and I therefore strongly commend the new clause to the Minister.

Amendment No. 5 addresses a question that we discussed in Committee. The Minister is rightly extending protection to the nests of three species of birds. I would say native birds, but the sea eagle is not native to England at the moment. We have no pairs in this country, although we hope that they will come in from Scotland.

In Committee, we discussed the issue of how long a nest is a nest. I expressed then my concern that the in perpetuity nature of the clause, which the Minister admitted, was too long. We know that those bird species return to nests. Indeed, they may have three or four nest sites to which they return every few years or so, for sensible reasons—zoologists believe—of parasite control. However, given that it will be an offence to interfere with a nest, it is stretching a point to say that once a nest is there it should not be interfered with in perpetuity—for 10 years, 15 years or even 100 years.

If one stick remains that was once part of an eagle's nest, the Bill will mean that it should never be interfered with. I think that that goes too far. In Committee, I proposed an amendment that would have limited the period to three years, but the Minister said that that was not satisfactory. After further discussions with interested bodies, I suggest in amendment No. 5 that the period should be five years, and I hope that the Minister will reconsider. It is too much to propose that a nest should be protected in perpetuity. The Minister may disagree with my proposal of five years, but there needs to be a limit.

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

I rise to speak briefly to this group of amendments, and especially to my amendment No. 35. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) for bringing new clause 5 forward, but with all due respect to him I confess that I am not sure that this Bill is the most appropriate place for it. It is possible that his proposals would be more suited to the Animal Welfare Bill. However, this is an important matter, and there are many arguments to be made.

I agree entirely with what my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire said about the CITES species, but we must be very careful, as there are more factors than he may appreciate. It may not be appropriate to discuss those factors in this debate, as other matters need to be considered before the 9 o'clock guillotine but, as an ornithologist, I take slight issue with the families of birds included in new clause 5(4)(ii). I used to lead bird tours abroad in a professional capacity, and am therefore acquainted with many of the species listed in the new clause. For example, the Cracidae family includes curassows and guans, which could be caught in the forests of central and southern America. In addition, the term "turkey" covers much more than the birds with which most people are familiar, as among the wild species of turkey is the ocellated turkey of central America. Moreover, the Megapodiidae family covers the fascinating group of birds that build mounds in which to incubate their eggs. Such birds include the mallee fowl and the brush turkey.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

Ah, the brush turkey.

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

Indeed.

I am not sure that the model proposed in new clause 5 is the best way to approach this matter, but the question is worth discussing. However, quoting the American example, my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire said that there had been a fall in the illegal trade in birds. I am worried that the huge amounts of money involved in the existing illegal import of CITES species of birds mean that the trade will go further undercover. The trade is not conducted by enthusiasts, as all wildlife crime is part of organised crime. Again, that may be a matter for debate at another time.

I turn now to amendment No. 5. I think that the period proposed could be a little longer than five years, and I shall be interested to hear the Minister's comments. I shall come to the list of birds contained in amendment No. 35 in a moment, but I want to take the example of the golden eagle. Those birds often have several eyries that are used intermittently—in other words, birds may return to an eyrie after a period of years. My hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire is right that those nests cannot be preserved in perpetuity. In the highlands and elsewhere, one is always being shown places where birds used to breed. Thankfully, some of those places are being recolonised, but it would be a mistake to keep a nest for too long a period. I do not know whether it would be better to preserve them for seven or 10 years; five years might be too short a time, but the matter is worth serious consideration.

I come now to the Bill's list of species whose nests are to be protected. As my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire said, the white-tailed eagle was reintroduced into Britain but currently breeds only in Scotland, which is not covered by these proposals. I am glad that the white-tailed eagle has returned to these islands, but I do not know how soon the bird will colonise further south. As I recall, there is normally only one golden eagle nest somewhere in the Lake District, although that may vary from year to year. Osprey numbers have been increasing, and I am pleased to say that that bird is a little less uncommon than used to be the case, but none of the species that I have mentioned reflects the specifically English and Welsh nature of the Bill.

In amendment No. 35, I put forward three species that could really use protection. First of all, though, I have to point out that the amendment as printed contains an error, perhaps caused by my handwriting when I submitted my proposal. However, the scientific name of the peregrine falcon is falco peregrinus, and not falco pregrinus as printed. If the Minister rejects my amendment, it will be for that reason alone, and I will happily undertake to submit a correct version later.

The peregrine falcon is a classic example of a bird that sometimes suffers at the hands of rogue elements in the pigeon-fancying fraternity. It has been known for some people to put stones on those birds' breeding ledges, or to block them up in some way. However, the numbers of peregrine falcons have been increasing—the birds are now reported to be breeding in central London—and that caused me to wonder what would happen if protection were to be extended to those birds and then a pair were to breed on a disused building. I think that licensing by the Department, for reasons of health and safety, or for other good reasons, could then be used to allow that nest site to be dismantled.

Even people who are not ornithologists know the very popular and beautiful barn owl, which is unfortunately becoming increasingly uncommon. Barn owls sometimes nest in disused buildings, and again there may be good health and safety reasons why the owner of such a building—a farmer, for instance—might want to get rid of that building. Licences issued by the Department would have a part to play in that process, with the proviso that alternative nest sites must be provided.

The problem is that if we are not careful we could be in danger of getting rid of established nest sites. As the Minister is aware—and I think most people are aware, as is apparent when people come to me to discuss planning issues—bats are afforded some of the best protection, whether at roost sites or hibernation sites, or where they are breeding, and we should be considering giving these three species similar protection.

The third and final species on my list is the red-billed chough, which may not be well known to Members. It is a crow with a red bill and red feet. It used to be much more widespread; it is on the coat of arms of Canterbury, and Thomas Becket had it on his coat of arms. Currently its stronghold is in Wales. It is the county bird of Cornwall, although until quite recently it had not been there for a long time, but I believe that pairs have started to come back. It is an absolutely wonderful bird. It is scarce, and that is why it would be a very good thing to add it to the list.

I believe that it is the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight)—

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

indicated dissent.

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

No, it is not. Well, I was going to say that both Ministers present are generally reckoned to be very good friends of biodiversity. The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw), has just one small Achilles heel in the shape of cormorants, but I will leave that for another day and time. I urge the Government to look very seriously at the need to add these birds to the list, and I shall be very interested to hear their reply.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

Let me clarify from the outset that I am the first ever UK Minister for biodiversity, international and national, so I am very much responsible for this area; that is why I am wearing my Countdown 2010 badge in respect of the European biodiversity target.

I very much share the intention behind new clause 5 in respect of the preservation of bird species and concern about the trade in exotic birds. Powers are already available under existing EU legislation to enable the Secretary of State to protect exotic species from the consequences of unsustainable trade and to ensure that their welfare needs are properly addressed during transportation. It is a case not of needing new legislation, but of working with Europe and other countries to better implement the convention on international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora, and the European regulations that flow from that.

This proposal would insert a series of additional measures that at best overlap with and at worst contradict existing measures to regulate the trade in exotic species. In our view, adoption of the proposals would insert additional complexity that would confuse traders and administrators alike, thereby undermining the effectiveness of the existing controls on the trade in exotic birds.

I appreciate that the capture and transportation of live birds in some countries leads to undue suffering, but ultimately it is for the Government of the exporting country to take the necessary corrective measures to regulate those activities. I shall look at what more we can do to encourage such action, partly to assist with curtailing the damaging illegal trade in birds, which I know is very active and which the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) talked about. I could have gone on at length, but I hope that with that brief explanation he will withdraw his amendment.

Amendment No. 5 seeks to limit the protection of nests that are reused by a limited number of birds to a period of five years from when the nest was constructed or last used. On the face of it, that appears sensible—what use is there in protecting a nest that has been abandoned and will never be used again?—but as we have heard from the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall), some birds, such as golden eagles, can use several nests and may return to a nest even if it looks as though it has been abandoned for some time. It is important to remember in this context that it is possible, as he said, to apply for a licence under section 16 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 if there are good reasons for removing a nest that appears to be abandoned. Each application is considered on its merits, but it allows for development if it can be demonstrated that it is necessary to remove the nest.

There is also a practical difficulty in accepting the amendment, or indeed any amendment that seeks to restrict protection to a particular period: how is it possible for an enforcement authority to know how long a particular nest has been abandoned? How do we know when to start counting? Not all nests of the birds protected by this new offence are observed all year round. I accept that there is a limited number of nests, for the reason that the hon. Member for Uxbridge gave, but not all of them are monitored all year round and there may be some difficulty in obtaining information to start the clock ticking.

Finally, amendment No. 35 seeks to add three species to the three already listed. The three species are amber listed according to the World Conservation Union guidelines and they can all be spotted in my constituency; the choughs are pretty tricky but they have been spotted in recent years. The fact that they are amber listed means that they have unfavourable conservation status within Europe. However, there are signs that their populations in England and Wales are slowly increasing—including the barn owl; in my constituency, farmers are reporting seeing more of them around, as I am sure the hon. Member for Uxbridge will be pleased to hear.

The three species proposed in the amendment return to the same nest, and will use it if it is still available. However, if it has been damaged or destroyed, they will build a nest nearby just as readily—more readily than the other three species, I am advised. As I explained in Committee, they are important species and they deserve to be protected, which is why it is already an offence to disturb them during the breeding season. I know that there are rogue elements who seek to disturb peregrine falcons, in particular, but I do not believe that it is appropriate to protect the nests of the species in the amendment all year round. To do so would require the monitoring of more than 6,000 sites, which is not realistic.

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

The Minister said that if the nest were destroyed, the bird would build another. The nature of the sites of their nests means that suitable habitat is often not available nearby. Breeding then fails, and the increasing populations to which the Minister referred unfortunately diminish again.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

Certainly, these are species that we care deeply about; we want to preserve and enhance their habitats. That is something that we will seek to do, but I am afraid that I cannot support the amendment.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

As the Minister and my hon. Friend realise, I was not expecting the Minister to grab new clause 5 with both hands, unlike earlier new clauses and amendments, but it is an important issue. I am grateful for the way in which the Minister has addressed it.

Although I hear what the Minister says about believing that the new clause would work against the interests that he and I share—certainly that is not my intention—he misses the key point. The trade would basically be banned, and at present it is not banned. The purpose of new clause 5 is to ban it, with a few exceptions, which I described.

I would dread to cross swords with my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) on anything ornithological. We share a concern about the illegal trade, but I urge him to look at what has happened in America. All the advice that I have received from eminent bodies such as the RSPB and the RSPCA is that the American Act, which has dramatically reduced the legal trade by effectively banning it, with a few exceptions, has also reduced dramatically the illegal trade. We share the objective and perhaps I would have shared my hon. Friend's doubts or scepticism about it had I not seen the evidence for myself.

On the length of time that a nest is classified as a nest, I do not dispute my hon. Friend's point that perhaps seven or 10 years would be better. He agreed with me that to protect a nest in perpetuity, which is the position at present, is perhaps wrong. I still believe that. I am sorry that the Minister seems to believe that that should be the case. I accept that one could argue that no one knows how long a nest has been in existence. I agree that the problem would get far worse if the Minister accepted my hon. Friend's amendment and that 6,000 sites would have to be monitored, but the numbers of the three birds listed in clause 46 can be counted on one or two hands. All the ornithological bodies will know when a nest was last used because every nesting site is well known, mapped, recorded and monitored, so it would not have been a huge issue to protect the sites for a specific period. Perhaps the Minister will reflect on that in another place.

I am conscious that there are other issues to debate, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 6 — Control of Harmful, Non-Native Species

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

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

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 8—Restoration Of Habitat—

'After section 21 of the 1981 Act, insert—

"21A Restoration order where offence under section 14 is committed

(1) In addition to the penalties in section 21(4), where the operation in respect of which a person is convicted of an offence under section 14 has destroyed or damaged any flora, fauna or physiographical feature, the court by which he is convicted, in addition to dealing with him in any way, may make an order requiring him to carry out, within such period as may be specified in the order, such operations for the purpose of restoring the habitat to its former condition as may be so specified.

(2) An order under this section made on conviction on indictment shall be treated for the purposes of sections 30 and 42(1) and (2) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 (effect of appeals on orders for the restitution of property) as an order for the restitution of property; and where by reason of the quashing by the Court of Appeal of a person's conviction any such order does not take effect, and on appeal to the House of Lords the conviction is restored by that House, the House may make an order under this section which could be made on his conviction by the court which convicted him.

(3) In the case of an order under this section made by a magistrates' court, the period specified in the order shall not begin to run—

(a) in any case until the expiration of the period for the time being prescribed by law for the giving of notice of appeal against a decision of a magistrates' court; or

(b) where notice of appeal is given within the period so prescribed, until determination of the appeal.

(4) At any time before an order under this section has been complied with or fully complied with, the court by which it was made may, on the application of whom it was made, discharge or vary the order if it appears to the court that a change in circumstances has made compliance or full compliance with the order impracticable or unnecessary.

(5) If, within the period specified in an order under this section, the person against whom it was made fails, without reasonable excuse, to comply with it, he shall be liable on summary conviction—

(a) to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale; and

(b) in the case of a continuing offence, to a further fine not exceeding £1000 for each day during which the offence continues after conviction.

(6) If, within the period specified in an order under this section, any operations specified in the order have not been carried out, the authorised body may enter the land and carry out those operations and recover from the person against whom the order was made any expenses reasonably incurred by them in doing so.".'.

New clause 9—Harmful, Non-Native Species (Supplementary Provisions)—

'(1) In section 14(1)(b) of the 1981 Act (introduction of new species etc) insert "or Part III" after "Part I".

(2) In section 14(2) of the 1981 Act (introduction of new species etc) insert "or Part III" after "Part II".

(3) After Part II of Schedule 9 of the 1981 Act (animals and plants to which section 14 applies, insert—

"PART III Potentially invasive or damaging animals and plants not native to Great Britain to which section 14ZC applies

Duck, Ruddy | Oxyura jamaicensis

Fern, Water | Azolla filiculoides

Hogweed, Giant | Heracleum mantegazzianum

Knotweed, Japanese | Fallopia japonica

Parrot's-feather | Myriophyllum aquaticum

Pennywort, Floating | Hydrocotyle ranunculoides

Stonecrop, Australian swamp | Crassula helmsii".'.

Amendment No. 15, in clause 49, page 18, line 37, leave out from 'is' to end of line 38 and insert

'included in Part III of Schedule 9.'.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I shall try to deal briefly with new clause 6. We addressed a similar issue in Committee—or to be more precise, the Liberal Democrats did so—and it is right that it should be considered a little further. New clause 6 deals with the need to control invasive non-native species. Of course, not all non-native species are bad. I can cite species such as the rabbit, the fallow deer and the pheasant, none of which are native to this country. They have been here for hundreds of years, but they are not native and, with the possible exception of the rabbit, no one would argue that they were bad. There are many other examples.

New clause 6(2) relates to situations where there

"is an actual or potential threat to the conservation of flora or fauna".

There are certain examples where that is clearly an issue. Interestingly and very topically, the ruddy duck has been mentioned in today's paper. The north American ruddy duck, which was originally introduced to Britain, is now to be culled in Spain because it has flown there and mated with a local species, producing a hybrid that threatens the original. That is a clear example of an invasive non-native species causing a problem.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I wish to advise the hon. Gentleman and the House that, if there is time for me to contribute to the debate, I should like to make an announcement on the ruddy duck.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I look forward to that announcement, and I certainly do not intend to take many minutes. I want to hear the Minister's announcement.

Other species are listed in new clause 9, to which I could add the signal crayfish, which is destroying our native crayfish in many of our waterways, including those in south Dorset, and, of course, the grey squirrel.

Ben Bradshaw (Labour, Exeter)

Tree rats.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

The Minister is right: they are rats with fluffy tails. I am sure that, if we spoke to people walking across St. James's park or Green park, they would all think that they were lovely animals, but they cause immense damage to our trees, our forestry and, most importantly, to our beloved red squirrel. They are an immense problem. I shall not detain the House by quoting all the accounts of the problems that they cause, such as the damage to woodland, the competition with bats for roost sites and with birds for resources—food and nesting sites—the predation of birds' nests and, most importantly, the competition with the red squirrel. There is a belief that they may well spread disease to the red squirrel, and there has not yet been enough research into whether the grey squirrel is spreading the squirrel pox virus to our red squirrels.

The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw) said quite clearly in July last year that the Forestry Commission is engaged in the preparation of a policy statement on grey squirrels. I am told that that policy statement is due by the end of 2005. I hope that that is the case, but that is still a very long time. The Minister is looking somewhat doubtful about whether it will be produced even then. I hope that he will not delay it further.

New clause 6 would require the Secretary of State to tell Parliament how such an action plan would be implemented. We need more than simply an action plan. It is all very well to talk, as I am doing now, about the seriousness of the problems caused by the grey squirrel and those other species to our natural flora and fauna and the threat that they represent to red squirrels and other aspects of our natural environment, but we must do something about it. There is a common belief in the country that the Forestry Commission is dragging its heels. By its nature, the commission has a huge impact on the grey squirrel because it owns so much of our woodland and forestry. So whatever action it takes is central to controlling that species. If the commission is dragging its heels, as is widely believed and often reported in a number of different professional journals, that is not good news.

My purpose in speaking to new clause 6 is to encourage the Government to look again at what is going on with invasive species that can damage native flora and fauna. In particular, how will the Government turn policy and proposals into action? I remind them that 30 or 40 years ago we had an excellent rabbit clearance policy—although now we might say that it has not worked. More recently, we eliminated the coypu, which was doing huge damage to parts of the country. It is probably unrealistic to expect us to eradicate the grey squirrel, unfortunately. I agree entirely with the Minister about that. I suspect that if we advocated such a course we should bring the wrath of some members of the community down on our heads. However, the grey squirrel needs to be seriously controlled, especially outside urban areas where it does so much damage. New clause 6 would address that problem and turn policy into action. I commend it to the House.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I shall be brief, as I am keen that we should have at least a couple of minutes on new clause 22.

As the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) said, my colleagues raised the issue of invasive non-native species in Committee and I raised it privately with the Minister before the Bill was produced. I welcome the steps that the Government have taken to try to close the stable door, although I should be keener if they had tried to catch some of the horses that escaped before they undertook that move. That is my concern.

The Government have expressed worry about the matter over many years. Indeed, my colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), reminded me that the Government made a pledge, or at least something akin to a pledge, during the passage of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, that they would deal with non-native invasive species, but we have not heard much about that since then. We are looking for progress, but we have not yet seen it.

In Committee, the Minister made a point that I hope he will be able to pick up. He said that his colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw), intended to establish

"a programme board to oversee the implementation of non-native species policy across Government. The Department has allocated funds for the purpose and I expect the board to meet for the first time in the late summer."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 28 June 2005; c. 213.]

I presume that the board has met and that we can hear about its achievements so far. We want the Government to put into action what they believe, as we do—that non-native invasive species need to be dealt with.

The matter is urgent. For example, Japanese knotweed is not only deeply invasive and spreading rapidly but, as the Minister knows, when it is flailed it spreads even more quickly. People do not know that and many highways authorities are merrily causing Japanese knotweed to spread across the country. It is important to deal with species that are already present, but I see no action from the Government to do that, so I hope that the Minister can say something tonight to give us confidence that the issue will be dealt with once and for all.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

As the amendments have a common purpose, I shall address them together. I share the desire expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House to deal effectively with non-native invasive species. However, the amendments would result in considerable changes both to provisions in the Bill and to those already set out in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

New clause 8 would deal with one of the problems caused by invasive non-native species to secure restoration of habitat to its former condition where damage has been caused by the release of a non-native species. Amendment No. 15 would restrict application and we have already heard what new clauses 6 and 9 would do.

The amendments are almost identical to a package of amendments that the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) introduced in Committee and then withdrew. My response is similar. I am of the opinion that a comprehensive package of legislation on policy on non-native species is necessary. We consulted on some of the essential elements and have received a range of constructive responses, which we shall need to consider and develop over the coming months, but as a matter of urgency. However, it would be wrong to rush into legislation simply because an apparently convenient vehicle presents itself. We have to assess overall needs properly and take full account of implications and concerns, including resource needs. Equally, it would be wrong to think that we are not taking seriously the problems caused by non-native species. I assure the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) that we recently established the programme board, which is responsible for ensuring that action across Government and their agencies is joined up effectively.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

The Minister does not want to use this vehicle, which he regards as convenient, because it may not be the right one. I understand that as a principle, but the trouble is that another vehicle may not come along for some time. He may reach conclusions in the spring, but the Bill will have been passed and we shall wait a long time for another DEFRA Bill that can deal with the issue. That is the urgency.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I understand the urgency but, equally, we must get things right. The first meeting of the programme board was held on 12 September, and it was attended by senior policy officials representing a range of Government agencies. I look forward to working with them on this issue. We have also published on our website a report of the risk assessment research and we are actively engaged in ensuring that it is rigorously tested by peer review to enable us to identify at an early stage new species that are likely to become problematic.

As regards some of the species mentioned by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), the EU recently confirmed that it is offering funding to help to support a programme of work to help to eradicate the ruddy duck from the UK. I can confirm to the House that DEFRA will provide the match funding and that the programme to deal with the species will proceed. This programme of work has been developed on the basis of extensive research and a cost-benefit analysis, unlike the case for some of the other species listed in the new clause.

For example, I know that Japanese knotweed is of great concern, and DEFRA is co-funding a five-year research project led by Cornwall county council into a natural method of control. I have to advise Liberal Democrat Members that removing Japanese knotweed from the UK using conventional methods would cost £1.56 million, a disproportionate amount of public expenditure. In fact, I believe that the real figure is £1.56 billion. Happily, I am sufficiently awake to correct even my own notes. We should not overlook the enhanced capacity of Natural England to manage non-native species in a co-ordinated way.

I take seriously the problems caused by grey squirrels, and I am considering the issue. The Forestry Commission is doing good work to protect red squirrels and one can come to Brownsea island in my constituency to see them there.

There are a number of other measures arising from the consultation on the review of the 1981 Act that we will want to take forward, using primary or secondary legislation as appropriate. I can make that commitment to the hon. Member for Lewes. This measure should be part of that further work.

I hope that hon. Members will regard that as an indication that we are making progress and not as simply an attempt to shelve this important subject. I ask them to withdraw the motion and support us when we introduce the legislation to which I have just referred.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

Again, I did not really expect the Minister to change the stance that he took in Committee. He clearly understands the import of what the new clauses and amendments are trying to achieve and far be it for me to suggest that a more complicated set of arrangements is desirable. We want to simplify government, not complicate it.

There are real issues, however. I am pleased to hear what the Minister said about the ruddy duck, and I am pleased that I gave him the opportunity to make that announcement to the House. I am not sure that it would have justified a full statement at 3.30 pm, but he has made the announcement on Report and I am glad that we gave him the chance to do so.

I was also interested in the Minister's comments on the grey squirrel. There is a real problem. Even though I know that the red squirrel has a small nucleus on Brownsea island—long may that continue—I would like to see it spread beyond there, but he is aware that there are not many other such nuclei. There is one in Thetford forest, but most of the rest are in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) or perhaps in Cumbria.

The Minister referred to the EU's role in respect of the ruddy duck, but I am sure that he is aware that there is also an EU squirrel initiative. There is widespread concern in many countries in Europe about the damage that the grey squirrel causes and I hope that he will use his role as the Minister responsible for biodiversity to look into the issue more carefully and into the help that the EU can give us to reduce the damage that the grey squirrel causes.

In the light of those remarks, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 22 — Review of Continued Existence of Commission for Rural Communities

Colin Breed (Liberal Democrat, South East Cornwall)

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

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 3, in clause 19, page 7, line 29, after 'making', insert 'and publishing'.

Colin Breed (Liberal Democrat, South East Cornwall)

The new clause seeks to readdress the situation that we spent some time considering in Committee. The Commission for Rural Communities is another example of the invasive species known as quango, the numbers of which we would very much like to reduce if not eradicate totally. I do not wish to go through all the arguments that we advanced in Committee, save to say that they all still stand up.

I am grateful to the Commission for Rural Communities for providing us with a very glossy document. One might have assumed that the commission had not yet been set up, given that we are still discussing the Bill, but the front cover of the document neatly states that the commission is currently a division of the Countryside Agency. I am grateful to the person who sent me the document because it demonstrates that there is no necessity for a CRC in the first place.

The document's foreword says:

"There has been an enthusiastic response from organisations across the country to our . . . major thematic study".

One could thus conclude that a huge number of responses was received. However, we then find out that only 60 responses by e-mail and post to this major survey were received from all the stakeholders—national and regional organisations, local authorities and interest and consumer groups—who were contacted. Such widespread support for the organisation demonstrates why we do not think that it is entirely necessary. Nearly a third of the responses were from local authorities, which we believe are the most relevant organisations to deal with the roles and responsibilities of the CRC, so only about 35 or 40 other organisations bothered to respond.

What were the commission's astonishing conclusions? It identified several policy initiatives that would benefit from examination—they may astound us all. It said that an important issue was access and service provision—well, we would not have thought that in rural areas. It found that planning and housing were a problem, which I suspect will be a revelation to every council in the country. It concluded that identifying and targeting dispersed rural disadvantage would benefit from examination, but I would be amazed if we did not all accept that. Apparently, funding is a real problem for rural areas.

If the CRC had any relevance at all, it would not have put the document in our hands at this time because it adequately demonstrates that the commission can undertake no role that could not be performed by local authorities. It is the rump of the Countryside Agency, and Lord Haskins pointed out in his report that the Countryside Agency was not required and could easily be abolished, with its roles and responsibilities divided between DEFRA and local authorities.

Oliver Letwin (Conservative, West Dorset)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Colin Breed (Liberal Democrat, South East Cornwall)

I am sorry, but I want to give the Minister at least one minute to respond. [Hon. Members: "Go on."] I shall give way in a moment.

New clause 22 would give the commission five years, but I hope that such a provision will not be needed. I hope that the commission will fail completely and thus not last five years or that, in the unlikely event that it is an astounding success, we will not need to review the situation.

Oliver Letwin (Conservative, West Dorset)

I merely wanted to tell the hon. Gentleman that everything that he said was music to our ears.

Colin Breed (Liberal Democrat, South East Cornwall)

I hope that hon. Members will support new clause 22.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I am familiar with disappointing yellow documents, but the CRC is doing a fantastic job as a rural champion. Anyone who has read the state of the countryside report will know that important work is going on in terms of the evidence base. In particular, I pay tribute to the rural advocate, Stuart Burgess, who needs to continue his work. I find it astonishing that parties with reasonable representation in rural areas do not want an independent rural advocate for England.

I ask the House to reject the amendments. They do not add anything. There is a confusion in the mind of the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed), who seems to believe that the CRC is a delivery body. It is a watchdog, and it is important that a watchdog looks over rural and semi-rural local authorities to ensure that they act in the best interests of sparsely populated areas, such as the one that he represents.

Clause 15 — Guidance

Clause 38 — Directions

Clause 70 — Agreement Between a Minister and a Designated Body

Clause 71 — Agreement Between The Secretary of State and Non-Designated Body

Clause 72 — Agreement Between Designated Body and Another Body

Clause 73 — Eligible Functions

Clause 74 — Maximum Duration of Agreement

Clause 75 — Powers of Bodies Authorised to Perform Functions

Clause 76 — Supplementary Provisions With Respect to Agreements

Clause 77 — Interpretation

Clause 89 — Financial Assistance

Schedule 4 — Joint Nature Conservation Committee

Schedule 5 — Enforcement Powers in Connections With Wildlife

Schedule 7 — Designated Bodies

Schedule 11 — Minor and Consequential Amendments

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

It has given me great pleasure to introduce the Bill and take it through the House. It lays the foundations for a more holistic and, I believe, more effective approach aimed at ensuring a high-quality natural environment and thriving rural communities. It has had an interesting and fairly rapid journey from its publication in draft in February this year to its Third Reading today. For the most part, it has been a fairly smooth process, for which I thank Members on both sides of the House, particularly the hon. Members for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) and for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed), who led for the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats respectively. I enjoyed working with them on a constructive basis. We engaged in extensive pre-legislative scrutiny, debate and dialogue, which has helped to shape our approach to the Bill. I am grateful, not least to Lord Haskins, who undertook much public consultation and dialogue before producing the report on which we drew in framing the Bill, and the previous Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, which carried out formal pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill, as well as scrutiny of the rural strategy itself. I must also give special mention to Lord Whitty, the former Bill Minister, from whom I took over the lead on the Bill in May.

I confess to being daunted by the prospect of taking such an important Bill through the Commons so early in my ministerial career. In fact, the Bill was the first Bill to receive a Second Reading in this Parliament. I was, however, pleasantly surprised by the constructive cross-party spirit in which the Bill was scrutinised, and impressed by the probing questions posed by members of all parties, all of whom had clearly given much thought to the issues.

On Second Reading, we heard a number of maiden speeches. I am delighted that some of those who made them stayed with us in Committee, even if they have been unable to stay until Third Reading. [Interruption.] I beg the pardon of the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Goodwill), who I recall made a very good maiden speech on Second Reading and who is here now.

Having faced a Standing Committee for the first time as a Minister, I have great respect for the rigour of the process. The amendments that I have moved today reflect points raised in Committee, and, as I have said today, I am still considering some of the points raised then. I will listen carefully to the arguments advanced in the other place, while also reflecting on those advanced this evening, and expect the Government to table Lords amendments.

I especially thank the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Janet Anderson) for chairing our Committee proceedings so ably. I also thank all who have spoken today.

The context of the Bill is the vision of rural England set out less than a year ago in the Government's rural strategy. It is a vision of a better quality of life for all, with particular emphasis on improving the quality of life for the most disadvantaged; a vision of a conserved and enhanced environment that everyone can enjoy and from which everyone can benefit; a vision at whose heart is the pursuit of sustainable development, so that social, economic and environmental issues are taken into account in the shaping of policy.

The Bill will establish Natural England, a new agency that will act as an independent and powerful guardian of our natural environment. For people in rural areas, it will establish the commission for rural communities, a strong, independent rural advocate, adviser and watchdog. It will also implement a number of important improvements to wildlife, national parks and rights of way legislation, all of which follow lengthy consultation. Let me give just a few examples. There is a package of amendments to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, intended to improve protection for native animal and plant species, and a new provision on the possession of pesticides designed to help prevent their abuse for the killing of wild birds and animals.

The main public interest, of course, has related to the rights of way provisions. The Bill places important limits on the establishment of rights of way for mechanically propelled vehicles by limiting vehicular rights that can be recorded on local authorities' definitive maps and statements. The package curtailing historic rights, clarifying the use of TROs and extending powers to national parks authorities, and the commencement of the provisions as soon as possible, will—I hope—resolve the difficult and growing problem of damage to our historic trails.

I commend the Bill. It is better for land managers, good for rural communities, and great for the environment.

Oliver Letwin (Conservative, West Dorset)

I echo the Minister's thanks on behalf of the Opposition. I thank him for the constructive spirit in which he has approached the Bill. I also thank our Liberal Democrat colleagues, and above all I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), who has borne the heat of the day for the official Opposition.

What we have seen today represents the House at its best. As I said on Second Reading, we embarked on the Bill with severe reservations about the creation of Natural England without an adequate understanding of the relationship between it and the Environment Agency. While those doubts remain in our minds—we shall see whether they prove justified; I hope that they will not—we also approached the Bill with great concerns about some detailed points. Many were cleared up in Committee, which is indeed the work of Committees, but some remained. The principal ones related to byways open to all traffic—BOATs—which we debated this evening.

The Minister has done a fine job in doing what Ministers are meant to do when Parliament, across parties, raises a set of serious, practical issues following inspection of a Bill. He has offered to amend the Bill. We shall obviously hold him to that. We shall see whether the Lords amendments are adequate to the task, and I assure him that if we think they are not, we shall produce our own. I have every confidence that their Lordships would then pass what they would need to pass to ensure that what the Minister seeks to achieve, and what we seek to achieve, is achieved. But it may well be that the Minister's own amendments will achieve those aims—I hope that they do—and if so, I repeat my comment: Hallelujah!

Before I close, I want briefly to mention two very important amendments that we did not have time to debate this evening, despite the fact that—in keeping with the arcana of parliamentary procedure—they are labelled amendments Nos. 1 and 2. The first amendment deals with the need for Natural England to work with local organisations and businesses. I hope that the House of Lords will have time to investigate that issue in considerably greater depth, and to ensure that such co-operation takes place. But the more important amendment is amendment No. 2, which would ensure that

"where there is irreconcilable conflict between aspects of"

Natural England's

"functions priority is given to the conservation of the natural environment."

That is a point about which we feel very strongly. We continue to believe that there is a significant risk that a body known as Natural England will not focus exclusively—or even with absolute priority—on the preservation of natural England. That would be not only an irony but to the great detriment of the preservation of our countryside.

The Minister will recognise that the point we are making in the amendment has a long genesis, and that many of the most serious, careful and powerful of this country's environmental lobby groups share our view that such a provision is needed in the Bill. I am sure that—

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

Order. I wonder whether I might remind the right hon. Gentleman that on Third Reading, we should not be discussing amendments that were not reached.

Oliver Letwin (Conservative, West Dorset)

I was astonished as I proceeded, Madam Deputy Speaker, at the generosity of your attitude to my remarks. I of course accept your point, and I merely mention that this issue will come up in the other place, and that we shall see where we get to.

I am sure that this Bill is a better Bill as a result of the work of the House of Commons. I say at the end what I said at the beginning: that this has been a good example of a competent Minister working hard, listening to the House and responding constructively. I thank him for that.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I am happy to concur with those remarks and I begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed), who did the brunt of the work for my party in Committee. Even though I have been at some distance from the Bill, I recognise that it has improved, and it has improved because the Minister and his colleagues have been prepared to listen to reason and to amend it accordingly. He began that process before the Bill was even discussed on Second Reading by inviting me and others to discuss matters with him and to raise points of concern. He listened to those concerns, and it is clear that he has been prepared to move when presented with logical arguments.

That process continues today, and I say to the Minister genuinely that when a Minister is prepared to listen and to amend legislation, it is the sign of a strong Minister, not a weak one. Such behaviour is of great credit to him, and it reflects better on his Government and his party than does insisting that everything is all right and ruling all amendments out of court, as unfortunately happens with some other Bills and Ministers. Some of his colleagues would do well to reflect on the way in which he has conducted himself during this Bill's passage, because it has meant a better Bill, more respect for the House of Commons and more credit to his Government. I leave him with that tribute, and I hope that other Ministers will reflect on his style and see whether it can be rolled out elsewhere. In fact, I look forward to its being emulated by the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw) when we discuss the Bill on animal welfare shortly. [Interruption.] I am sure that our discussions will be easy, given good will.

We have always been content with the Bill in principle, and the idea of creating Natural England is reasonably non-contentious. Issues have arisen, as the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) rightly said, and some remain. But the Bill is undoubtedly better now, and it is right to deal with issues such as native non-invasive species and pesticide abuse. The Minister has a blind spot about the rather pointless Commission for Rural Communities, but we will leave that to one side in the spirit of co-operation. We look forward to the Bill going into the Lords, where we will work constructively with both sides to try to ensure that further improvements are made. I am confident that with goodwill on all sides that will be achieved. I thank all those who have taken part in the process including other Lib Dem colleagues who participated and all the Clerks and officials.

Paddy Tipping (Labour, Sherwood)

I had intended to make some short comments, but those who must be obeyed have suggested that I talk for rather longer than I had anticipated. The Minister will soon perceive that that is to be the case.

Gerald Howarth (Conservative, Aldershot)

May I remind the hon. Gentleman that as I have the Adjournment debate it would be kind if he left me a smidgeon longer than I might otherwise have had?

Paddy Tipping (Labour, Sherwood)

I was hoping to offer the hon. Gentleman the opportunity of having a Minister to listen to his debate and respond to it. I am sure that the Minister's appearance is keenly awaited as we speak.

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

Order. I remind right hon. and hon. Members that we are now on the Third Reading of the Bill.

Paddy Tipping (Labour, Sherwood)

Let me come directly to the points that I wished to make. The Bill has been improved in a number of ways. First, as the Minister said, it has had the benefit of pre-legislative scrutiny and the Government's rural delivery strategy. The Bill went before the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and the opportunity to tease out those issues in a pre-legislative Committee has proved extremely valuable. Interestingly, part 6—the rights of way legislation—was not subject to such scrutiny; perhaps there is a lesson to be learned there.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

For fear of this becoming a love-in, let me take the opportunity of paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood for his extraordinary role and the stamp that he has put on the Bill, not only through the pre-legislative process, but on part 6, in which he has taken a leading role in Committee and this evening. I genuinely thank him for that.

Paddy Tipping (Labour, Sherwood)

Let me continue the love-in. The second way in which the Bill has been improved is by the Minister and his team of officials. There were good debates in Committee that ranged across the parties and there has been a lot of consensus. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) said, it is a strong Minister who can make changes. I have been impressed with the willingness of the Minister to put his stamp on the Bill, to take further advice, to have discussions with officials and to bring forward new proposals. I am grateful to him for doing that and for meeting a range of outside organisations who clearly have seen the importance of the Bill and wanted to contribute to it. We ought to thank them for their contribution.

I also want to thank another group of people who have not been mentioned. The Bill changes the way in which the Government work in rural areas. I have a great deal of admiration for the staff at English Heritage, the Countryside Agency and the Rural Development Service who have faced major changes and difficulties and have had to keep working while the organisations have been moving around them. We need to thank them. Natural England has a new base in Sheffield and I understand that interviews have taken place for its chairman. I do not think that an announcement has been made, but one is anticipated fairly soon. Although there are reservations about the new bodies, I am sure that we would all wish them well. What we all want across the House is to see a way of government working with rural communities that looks after and enhances the environment, creates economic development and brings about beneficial social change. Those are hard tasks to meet, but I believe that the Bill's infrastructure provides us with the opportunity to do just that.

Roger Williams (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

It has been a great pleasure to be involved with the Bill. We have a duty to preserve and protect the environment, particularly the rural environment that we inherited from our forefathers. Some of us who have had the benefit of holidaying in foreign climes have been impressed by what we saw: we enjoyed the experience, but coming back and driving through England and Wales, as I did last Friday in lovely autumn weather, allows us to appreciate the real jewel that we possess. We have a duty to preserve it and should devote our energies to doing so.

I want to make a point about devolution. The environment is certainly something that cannot be put into separate compartments. My strong aspiration is for devolution, not separation and isolation. People need to devise good solutions that are appropriate to their particular area. They should then be generous in sharing and extending good practice. The environment cannot be separated in any way and we cannot do good work unless we co-operate. Some Government amendments encourage me to believe that the necessary work can take place. Consultation with the devolved assemblies in respect of policy and the appointment of members will help to accomplish that.

I wish that all Ministers were as understanding of devolution issues as the present Minister has proved to be. He needed a little bit of encouragement and prompting from time to time, but he has helped us to produce a Bill that is a lot better than it was initially, and I thank the Minister for that.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not believe that I have much more to add, except to say that I intended to thank my team of officials, who have proved invaluable as the Bill proceeded, at the end of the Committee stage. I intended to thank them at the start of Third Reading, but I take the opportunity now to thank them very much for their support. Perhaps some refreshment will follow shortly.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.