Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

House of Commons, 29 March 2006.

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

I draw the House's attention to the fact that privilege is involved in Lords amendment No. 19. If the House agrees to the Lords amendment, I shall ensure that the appropriate entry is made in the Journal.

Clause 2 — General Purpose

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 2, 3, 6, 19, 34 and 64.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

Before I speak to the first group of amendments, I would like to thank peers in the other place, particularly Baronesses Byford and Miller and my colleague, Lord Bach, for their hard work on the Bill since it left the House. They have continued to take a constructive and collaborative approach during the Bill's passage and it has been significantly improved through their scrutiny and hard work.

I am happy to accept all the Lords amendments today, as they were all Government amendments, and I look forward to Royal Assent shortly. That will pave the way for establishing Natural England later this year, with the benefits that that will bring, ending a period of uncertainty for the staff in the affected organisations.

Amendment No. 1 responds to issues raised in the other place and makes it clear that Natural England may work with local communities, both urban and rural, to secure social and economic benefits through management of the natural environment. Amendments Nos. 2 and 34 remove the powers of the Secretary of State to enable Natural England to use compulsory purchase powers to acquire land for experimental schemes as currently available to the Countryside Agency. We are convinced that this power and the similar power in clause 94 are not needed. Amendment No. 3 clarifies the circumstances in which it would be permissible for Natural England, with the consent of the Secretary of State, to charge for providing advice.

The other place debated at length the role that the Commission for Rural Communities should play in rural proofing, ending up with amendment No. 6 to clause 19(c). This makes explicit the CRC's role in monitoring progress against the Government's rural proofing commitment.

Philip Hollobone (Conservative, Kettering)

The Minister mentioned that the compulsory purchase powers did not need to be included in the Bill. Is that because he can access those powers through other legislation, or because he does not envisage compulsory purchase by the agency involved?

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

The powers have never been used by the Countryside Agency. We have been convinced that it is not necessary for Natural England to take them forward.

Amendment No. 19 and the consequential amendments Nos. 34 and 64 add national park authorities to the list of authorities eligible for financial support under the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's so-called Bellwin scheme for emergency assistance. Amendments No. 34 and 64, which is a minor consequential repeal of a word in the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, will remove this anomaly, in effect restoring the pre-1997 position in respect of the Bellwin scheme.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I endorse the Minister's remarks about the work done in the other place. That is a first class example of the value of the other House, and the knowledge and diligence that peers apply to our legislative process. The Bill is considerably improved since it left this place, largely through the power of persuasion, rather than votes in the other place. That is good.

I am delighted that, as the Minister said, virtually every amendment that we are considering is a Government amendment. I am also delighted that almost all of them were tabled in response to arguments advanced by my noble Friends, and in many cases by my colleagues and me when the Bill was before this House. Perhaps with slightly less power of persuasion, or dare I say less power behind us, we were less successful here than in the other place, but I am grateful that the Minister and his noble Friend have agreed with them.

Amendment No. 1 is an example of the point that I made a moment ago. I argued strongly in Committee for Natural England to work closely with local businesses and communities. I am grateful to the Minister for conceding the point. Amendment No. 1 is a sensible step forward. On compulsory purchase, my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson), whom I am pleased to see in his place, argued that it was not necessary. The Minister resisted, but I am delighted that he has conceded the point.

I will not go through all the amendments. Suffice to say that we believe that they are sensible changes to the legislation. Some of them are extremely minor and need not detain the House.

We remain of the view that Natural England, which is a very large new organisation, has a lot to do to prove its merit, and many concerns have been expressed in this House and the other place about different aspects of it. An amendment has not been tabled on the issue of conflict. The Sandford principle was widely debated in both Houses, and we have discussed it with the Minister. I wish that such an amendment had been tabled, but I recognise reality when I face it and understand that such an amendment would not have been successful. Nevertheless Natural England has a vital role to play, and I think it fair to say that we will all watch it closely, because, bar a nod and a wink from Buckingham palace, the provision will become law once this group of amendments is agreed, which will allow Natural England to go ahead according to its original timetable. We are taking a major step forward by agreeing this group of amendments.

On the Commission for Rural Communities, to which the Minister also referred in his opening remarks, our concern is whether that organisation really will have the ability to rural proof. Again, we will watch with interest to see how it develops over the first year or two and whether it has the authority to hold the Government to account and to challenge any Department on whether it is really delivering a service that is powerful enough and important enough for our rural communities. The role of the Commission for Rural Communities will be central, and we shall watch it carefully.

I am happy to agree with the Minister on the importance of the amendments. I am also happy to agree with the Lords on those amendments, not least because most of them include proposals that we introduced in this place.

Christopher Huhne (Liberal Democrat, Eastleigh)

Liberal Democrat Members also support the amendments—consensus is clearly breaking out—and I join the Minister and the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) in stating that the Lords have done an excellent job.

Lords amendment No. 1 is particularly welcome, because it brings consultation with local communities into the general purpose of the Bill. We would have liked climate change to have been included, too, but we understand that the commitment to consultation is worthwhile. Similarly, we agree on the issue of the elimination of compulsory purchase.

As we said on Second Reading and on Report, the provision on cross-departmental rural proofing is a welcome addition. I echo the view expressed on those occasions and by my noble Friends in the Lords that the abolition of Post Office card accounts by the Department for Work and Pensions is a classic example of a failure to rural proof policy, and the provision may help to rectify such errors. We certainly want the commission for rural communities to perform that role across the spectrum of legislation that may affect rural communities. The licensing laws provide another obvious such example, because they may require small shops that trade the occasional bottle of sherry as a convenience for elderly villagers to acquire a department to fill in new paperwork, so that is another example in which a little bit of rural proofing might have come in handy.

In general, we feel comfortable about the amendments, and we propose to support them.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 2 and 3 agreed to.

Clause 15 — Guidance

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 5, 7 to 10, 28, 32, 38, 39 and 56 to 63.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

During the Lords Committee, we were asked to consider whether any guidance that is published by the Secretary of State should be published "contemporaneously" with the issuing of it. We could not accept that wording, but could not argue with the principle. We believe that there should be a degree of consistency in the Bill and once we decided that it was right to publish such decisions as soon as practicable, we thought it sensible to apply it to any decisions made by the Secretary of State under this Bill. Therefore, this group of Government amendments adds various requirements that the Secretary of State should publish directions, guidance and lists that she may issue under this Bill as soon as reasonably practical after their issue.

Amendment No. 38 to paragraph 16(1) of schedule 1 and the identical amendment No. 39 to paragraph 16(1) of schedule 2 are purely grammatical. They have no effect on the Bill's text other than to improve the grammar, and I am sure that all hon. Members will approve of that. Amendments Nos. 56 to 63 are minor amendments to schedule 11 and address two technical issues. The first three amendments of that group are small clarifications to three paragraphs in schedule 11 of minor and consequential amendments. They will ensure that there is consistency of application within the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, clarifying whether particular provisions apply to the 12-mile territorial waters around England and Wales.

The remaining five amendments contain small consequential amendments in the schedule 11 paragraphs that make minor amendments to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 in relation to the protection of limestone pavements. The National Assembly for Wales has relatively recently confirmed that it wishes to benefit from the existing alteration to subsection (1) of section 34 of the 1981 Act so that Wales will benefit equally from the enhanced protection for limestone pavements. The substituted subsection (1) will enable pavements to be more easily protected both in England and Wales.

Amendment No. 28 is designed to reflect the fact that the new Inland Waterways Advisory Council will be an advisory rather than an executive non-departmental public body and ensure that it can be appropriately supported. The amendment substitutes wording customarily used to authorise Ministers to support advisory NDPBs.

I commend this group of amendments to the House.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 5 to 10 agreed to.

Clause 44 — Enforcement powers in connection with pesticides

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 12 to 14, 40 and 41.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

Clause 44 contains the powers available to inspectors authorised by the Secretary of State in England, and the National Assembly in Wales, to investigate an offence under section 43 of the possession of a prescribed pesticide. During the Committee stage in the other place, suites of amendments were introduced in response to concerns raised about the apparent wide-ranging nature of these powers. A further two amendments were introduced on Report, to require inspectors to have regard to the codes of practice under which they will be operating. I will deal briefly with each of the amendments in turn.

Amendment No. 11 rules out on the face of the Bill the possibility of speculative visits, an issue about which the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) was especially concerned in Committee. Much effort was expended in finding a form of words that achieved the right balance between protecting the rights of the individual while not constraining inspectors to such a degree that they could not enter unless they believed that a prescribed pesticide would be found on a particular premises. For example, we do not wish to prevent inspectors from entering where a poisoned bait has been found at or near several properties where pesticides are likely to be used and where it is not certain on which of these properties the pesticide would be found. The form of words adopted will allow entry in those circumstances while allowing inspectors to be challenged to justify what the grounds for suspicion are. We also looked closely at all the powers that are available to an inspector once he or she is on the premises to see whether any should be disapplied in respect of the pesticide offence in clause 43.

Amendment No. 12 removes the ability to require a statement of truth when questioning people about substances found on their premises. That power was considered unnecessary in view of the power to require information already contained in clause 44(1)(b).

Amendment No. 13 introduces three new subsections that clarify the rights of the person in the event that the substance is seized from their premises as evidence of an offence under clause 43 by setting out the procedure relating to its retention. That will ensure that property rights are not eroded by the investigation process. A person may make a claim to have the seized substance returned, for example by providing evidence that they have a defence under clause 43(3).

During the course of the Bill's passage, we have made it clear that my Department intends to issue codes of practice to inspectors exercising their powers in relation to the possession of prescribed pesticides and to wildlife inspectors exercising their powers as set out in schedule 5. It is appropriate that inspectors must have regard to such codes. Amendments Nos. 14 and 40 therefore not only provide the mechanism by which the Secretary of State can issue codes of practice relevant to the duties of inspectors, but place an obligation on inspectors to have regard to any provision of such codes when discharging their functions.

Amendment No. 41 extends current powers of constables to obtain warrants under section 19(3) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to four other Acts where police currently have only very limited powers of entry: the Destructive Imported Animals Act 1932, the Conservation of Seals Act 1970, the Deer Act 1991 and the Protection of Badgers Act 1992. The powers would allow constables, under a warrant issued by a justice of the peace, to enter and search premises for evidence where there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that an offence has been committed and that evidence may be found on those premises. Those extended powers would ensure that wildlife protection legislation is complied with and that wildlife crime can be more effectively investigated. They also provide greater consistency across the main wildlife legislation.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I am grateful to the Minister for explaining the issues behind the amendments, which I welcome. As he kindly said, the lead amendment concerns an issue that we debated at considerable length in Committee: the possibility of what the Minister described in Committee as a fishing expedition—he just used the word "speculative"—by inspectors. I am grateful to him for accepting that and tabling, as he undertook to do, amendment No. 11.

As he said, we also debated in Committee several other aspects of the powers that are being given to inspectors. On Report, we again debated the possibility that they were being given more powers than the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw) has given them in the Animal Welfare Bill. I remain of the view that there is a distinction between the two pieces of legislation that I do not fully understand. I should have thought that it would be easier for the public to understand the legislation if it gave inspectors the same powers.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

Just to assist the hon. Gentleman and others, we have put some guidance on this in the Library to help people to interpret what is, I agree, extremely complicated legislation.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I am grateful to the Minister for saying that he has put the guidance in the Library. I hope that he will put it elsewhere as well; otherwise it will not be much use to most people. I understand and appreciate his point, but it does not detract from my question: why is it necessary to have two pieces of legislation, bearing in mind that, in its widest context, it is all to do with animal welfare issues? We are concerned about the matter.

Amendment No. 14 about the codes of practice is welcome. It is sensible that the code could be admissible in court proceedings. Obviously we shall observe carefully to ascertain whether the powers are used and whether the fact that the inspector "must have regard" to the code is sufficient in practice.

Amendment No. 41 deals with extending the search warrant to "certain other Acts". That is a new idea, which we did not consider here, from the other place. I shall not claim that it was our idea—it was Government inspired and I can understand its logic. It underlines my point about having separate legislation. Most people would argue that the protection of badgers or the conservation of seals, although perhaps not the Deer Act 1991, are to do with animal welfare, and that to have a Bill on that subject with one set of powers for inspectors and another measure with similar provisions can only add to the confusion. I do not argue that inspectors do not need the powers but we have added to confusion through the Government's approach.

Nevertheless, overall, the group of amendments is welcome and I am happy to support it.

Christopher Huhne (Liberal Democrat, Eastleigh)

I am also happy to support the amendments, with which we broadly agree. There is a contrast between the provisions for the inspectors' powers and the Government's previous stubbornness on what is now the Animal Welfare Act. They resisted the cause of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) to allow witnesses to intervene in the case of cruelty when it is clearly visible, for example, in a garden or an open yard.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

The Animal Welfare Bill is not yet an Act because it has not been before the other place, which will consider it after Easter. Perhaps the power of my argument and that of the hon. Gentleman will persuade the Government to amend that measure to match this one.

Christopher Huhne (Liberal Democrat, Eastleigh)

The hon. Gentleman is right to correct me. I hope that we can prevail on Ministers to do as he suggests.

The amendments show clear proportionality in examining the code of practice, which we greatly welcome, and limiting the ground for entry to property to search for proscribed pesticides in situations of reasonable suspicion. We are therefore happy to support them.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments 12 to 14 agreed to.

New Clause

Denotification

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

With this we may discuss Lords amendment No. 16.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

The amendments do two important things. The first is a small facilitating measure that will benefit landowners and occupiers, especially by removing the implication that the power to denotify SSSI land should be available only if it was previously of special interest. In essence, and without detracting from the main purpose of the provision, it provides for a simple remedy for any landowner or occupier who discovers that a part of his land has been mistakenly included in the boundary of an SSSI, for example, because of a cartographical discrepancy between paper and digitised maps.

The second amendment benefits the public interest. By the strong will of Parliament, shown in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, the conservation bodies have been required to serve SSSI notifications on every owner or occupier of the land in question. Despite their best efforts, that can be a tall order, given the paucity of comprehensive sources of land tenure information. The amendment introduces a saving to ensure that, provided that all reasonable steps have been taken to discharge the notification duty, SSSIs, present or future, will not be rendered invalid by reason of it later being discovered that some relevant party's interests were not identified when the notification was served.

Importantly, the provision protects any such missed party from any liability for things that happened before commencement, and they become fully liable as a notified owner or occupier only after they have come to light and the notification papers have been served on them by the relevant conservation body.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

When the Minister talks about cartographical discrepancies, I hope to God that he is not talking about the Rural Payments Agency; otherwise there would be so many denotifications and renotifications that we would be here for ever. That organisation seems to be completely incapable of getting its digital mapping correct. Nevertheless, I understand the point of Lords amendment No. 15, and I support it.

On Lords amendment No. 16, I understand completely what the Minister is trying to achieve. The inability to serve a notice because an owner cannot be traced should not result in an SSSI being rendered invalid. However, I want to challenge the Minister on a couple of aspects of the provision. The first involves the use of the word "failure" in the phrase

"failure to serve certain notices in connection with SSSIs".

It seems an odd word to use when we are really talking about an inability to serve the notices because a particular owner or occupier cannot be traced. I wonder why the word "failure" has been used.

The second, more important, aspect relates to the use of the term "reasonable steps". Who is to make a judgment on that? Am I right to assume from what the Minister has said, and from the way in which this provision is drafted, that the only form of appeal would be by judicial review? If an owner came forward and said, "Well, this is all very well, but I wasn't notified, and I've been at home for the last six months", who would decide whether the conservation body had taken all reasonable steps to ensure that every owner and occupier had been notified? I do not want to suggest that anyone would intentionally set out to fail in that task, but the practicalities might dictate that the notice could not be served. I can well understand that, in some parts of the country, a small parcel of land could be overlooked. An organisation might think that it has covered all the owners involved, when along comes an owner who has a bit of land in the middle of an area. He might then say, "There is no reason why they should not have been able to serve the notification on me. I haven't been anywhere. I haven't disappeared."

I am worried that the provision is too open-ended and that the conservation body could still serve the notice, and do whatever it wanted to do under the provisions in subsection (2), without necessarily having been as diligent as we might wish in ensuring that every owner or occupier had been notified. While I accept that nothing will happen until after the commencement of this section, that is a relatively minor point. What is important is what will happen in future. Before we concede to this amendment, I would be grateful if the Minister could explain how he envisages it operating in practice. What grounds for appeal will be open to an individual who feels that he should have, and could have, been served a copy of the notification but did not get one?

Christopher Huhne (Liberal Democrat, Eastleigh)

I, too, would be interested to hear the Minister's reply to the points raised by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice). Generally, we support these amendments, which we find helpful, but I wonder whether they will cover the thousands of sites and notices already in existence before the Bill is enacted. That would certainly be welcomed by Natural England, as it would ensure proper protection of all the sites that, as we have heard in the House, the Government have been struggling to bring up to scratch.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

With the leave of the House, I should like to respond as best I can to the points that hon. Members have raised.

In response to the question from the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), the use of the word "failure" is technically right. If a conservation body has not managed to notify the owner or occupier, technically it has failed to fulfil its duty under the law as it is written. We are therefore dealing with failure, and we might as well call it what it is.

On the second question about who will determine ultimately whether reasonable steps have been taken, the hon. Gentleman is right. If representations to the conservation bodies are not successful, it will ultimately be for the courts to determine. As an independent body, English Nature—or, later, Natural England—will need to make its own judgments and decisions. A range of inquiries and searches are possible, however, in order to discover ownership or occupancy information. Clearly, it is reasonable that all those possible routes should be pursued. If representations made to those conservation bodies—which, one hopes, would identify whether something in the public domain had been missed—fail, the courts would decide the matter.

The final question from the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne) was whether existing triple SIs would be covered. The short answer is yes.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 16 agreed to.

New Clause

Criteria for designation National Parks

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I beg to move amendment (a) to the Lords amendment.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I presume that it is in order for me to address the whole group, as all the amendments in it relate to national parks.

One of the reasons that I wanted to table an amendment, apart from on its own merits—to which I will return in a moment—was that most of this section is completely new to the House. The reason for that, as I am sure that the Minister would tell us, is that the Meyrick judgment handed down by the courts came after we dealt with the Bill in the House. The Government took the decision that the Bill was a suitable vehicle to revert, as they intend, the law to what it was prior to the Meyrick judgment.

I understand that the noble Lord Bach told the other place on Monday night that the Government have been granted leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal in the Meyrick case. Lord Justice Keene was quoted at column 50 in House of Lords Hansard on 20 March:

"The grounds are properly arguable and, in any event, raise issues of importance which ought to be considered by the Court of Appeal".

We are considering these amendments in the absence of knowing the final outcome of the Meyrick judgment.

Nevertheless, I agree with the Government that the Meyrick judgment, as it stands at the moment, is anomalous. It goes way beyond what any of us has previously understood as being the criteria for national parks, and refers to this high degree of "naturalness". The judge in the case, again quoted at column 50, said that,

"well-maintained historic parkland providing the setting for a grade 1 listed building, and well-ordered dairy fields of dairy farms would seem to be the antithesis of naturalness".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 March 2006; Vol. 680, c. 50.]

Arguably he is right, but if we accept that as the criteria for national parks, there probably would not be any. We all know that the British landscape has been affected by mankind since time immemorial. Certainly, all the evidence suggests that since 12000 BC, when mesolithic man first invaded the wild woods and started cutting them down, the British landscape has been in a state of change and affected by mankind. To refer to naturalness seems a bit odd in that context.

Having said that I entirely agree that Meyrick goes too far, I also believe that the amendments go too far in the other direction. I accept that the Government's intention is simply to return the law to where it was before the Meyrick judgment—although if they won the appeal such action would not be necessary, because that would emphasise that the pre-Meyrick legislation stood, or that the interpretation of it stood. In many ways, I hope that the Government do win the appeal, but they tabled the amendments using the Bill as a vehicle, so it is therefore right for this House to have an opportunity to debate them.

Lords amendment No. 17, which would insert a new clause on criteria for designating national parks, suggests measures that I believe would extend the criteria for designation beyond where they were before Meyrick. Indeed, I think they could almost be seen to be opening the whole of rural England to such designation, which goes too far in the opposite direction. I believe passionately in national parks, but they need to have specific attributes—to which I shall return—that identify them as being areas of particular importance. If we allow the criteria to be too lax and end up being able to designate much larger swathes of rural England in the coming years, the designation of national parks as a whole will be brought into disrepute, and will not be treated with the respect to which it is entitled. That would be a great sadness, which is why I tabled amendments (a) and (b).

Lords amendment No. 17 proposes that Natural England may,

"when applying subsection (2)(a) in relation to an area, take into account its wildlife and cultural heritage".

I think that most of us would accept that it is sensible to include wildlife in a provision relating to national parks, for obvious reasons. It is the term "cultural heritage" that I find more difficult to understand. I am sure that the Minister, who has briefing papers, will point out that it was the last Conservative Government who first introduced the phrase to national parks legislation. He nods—he was going to throw that at me, so I am glad that I got in first. That is perfectly true, but anyone who reads Lord Bach's speeches and the briefing that we have all received from the Council for National Parks will observe that the terms "cultural heritage" and "landscape" appear to be interchangeable. It seems to me that the Government mean "landscape", and I would therefore prefer that word to be used in the Bill.

We all understand what "landscape" means. It deals with the issue of naturalness, because we all know that the landscape of England is affected, has been affected and will be maintained by mankind. There can thus be no dispute about the interpretation of the word, whereas I believe that the phrase "cultural heritage" is open to much more question.

New subsection 2A(b) provides that Natural England may

"take into account the extent to which it is possible to promote opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of its special qualities by the public."

Of course, we want the public to be able to enjoy the special qualities of a national park, but that ability has always been there. I do not understand why the Government want to open it up to that extent. The issue of enjoyment of those special qualities was clearly included in the criteria specified in the Countryside Act 1949. There have been various reports on national parks: the Addison, Dower and Hobhouse reports, and more recently the Sandford and Edwards reports. There seems to be a common theme in all that work, namely, the importance of special areas with an element of wildness, beautiful and suitable for public access at the time of designation.

That is very important point and a constant theme, so we are forced to ask what it is that the Government are changing, given that such a provision already exists in legislation. It seems that, in using the phrase

"take into account the extent to which it is possible to promote opportunities",

the Government are implying that in future the public enjoyment of such special qualities could be opened up considerably. That, in turn, raises the possibility of damaging the special qualities that caused an area's designation in the first place.

Amendment No. 17 widens the criteria too far the other way, although I readily except that Meyrick needs to be redressed if the appeal is lost. Of course, if the Government win the appeal, this whole debate could become irrelevant. Indeed, the Minister may wish to tell the House this afternoon how he sees the legislation working. If we pass all this and the Government then win the Meyrick appeal, what impact will that have? In a sense, two different pieces of legislation would apply to national parks.

Amendment No. 33 would insert a new clause defining:

"Natural beauty in the countryside."

As I understand it—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—this, too, is part of the Government's desire to rebalance the Meyrick judgment, with which I wholly agree. Indeed, I do not disagree with any aspect of the new clause's definition of natural beauty. That is fine, but why, having included that new clause, is amendment No. 17 still necessary? I appreciate that I have spoken first and that the Minister has not had a chance to respond, but I hope that he will indeed explain why amendment No. 17 is necessary, given that amendment No. 33 defines natural beauty, and that such a definition is fundamental to the criteria for designating national parks.

We do not oppose the idea of correcting Meyrick or of national parks, but if national parks are to retain the value and esteem that people attach to them, they should remain areas with special qualities. My concern is that the Government, in their desire to rebalance the legislation following Meyrick, have gone too far the other way. In future years, attempts could be made to designate areas that perhaps do not have the special quality that we attribute to existing national parks. I look forward to hearing the Minister explain why it is necessary for the Government to go as far as they are going with their amendments.

Christopher Huhne (Liberal Democrat, Eastleigh)

I shall, if I may, address some of the issues arising from other provisions that have already been approved by the Lords.

The new clauses relating to the criteria for designating national parks have allowed for a satisfactory definition that gives us back the standard that had been established in this country for almost 60 years. The Liberal Democrats' only disappointment is that we are not discussing an amendment enabling local people to be elected to the boards of national parks, as an alternative to the Secretary of State making appointments. It is regrettable that neither the Government nor, it appears, the Conservatives could support such an amendment. However, in essence, as the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) has rightly said, the new clauses re-establish the status quo before the Meyrick High Court judgment, which ruled that the Hinton estate in the New Forest need not form part of the South Downs national park on the ground that it was not sufficiently natural.

Amendment (a) would not allow a return to the status quo before Meyrick. Substituting "landscape" for "cultural heritage" would mean that national parks would be designated on the same basis as in the past. English Heritage estimates that the historical designation includes 11,000 listed buildings, 4,000 scheduled monuments and 30 registered parks and gardens. Although the parks and gardens might reasonably be regarded as landscape, I do not see how the monuments and listed buildings could be. Therefore, the amendment would be unduly restrictive, and inconsistent with the criteria used for the designation of national parks in the past. It would be regrettable to introduce that inconsistency now.

Amendment (b) is also unnecessary, as it would remove Natural England's ability to take account of the extent to which it is possible to promote opportunities for people to understand and enjoy a national park's special qualities. National parks are not wildernesses. The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire made an interesting and perhaps Freudian slip when he suggested that wildness was involved. For example, the landscape around Chatsworth is outstanding and beautiful, but it could not be called wild.

National parks are designed to be resources for the enjoyment of all, and it seems odd for the Conservatives to attempt to deny it. That is why we support the Lords amendments.

Nick Herbert (Conservative, Arundel and South Downs)

I rise to support the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice). I shall not get involved in the somewhat arcane discussion about what is natural and what is wild, as that has been discussed enough already. However, I want to explore the practical implications of changing how we designate national parks.

First, I emphasise that the amendments made in the other place do not affect existing national parks or areas of outstanding natural beauty. The Council for National Parks sent us a briefing that was helpful—although I disagree with much of it—in which it said that the amendments were "common sense" and designed to "protect our existing network" of national parks and areas of outstanding national beauty. However, that is not so: the amendments would change the rules of the game after the inquiry into the proposed South Downs national park has ended, but they do not affect existing national parks at all.

The retrospective nature of the provision, and the way in which it has been introduced, is to be deplored. It is the result of a court case, and although we may agree or disagree with the decision, the Government have determined, rapidly, to amend the application of the law. They have done that in the other place, without much debate. I was a member of the Standing Committee considering this Bill, and the issue did not arise, yet it has profound implications for the future designation of national parks.

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government seem to be rushing? An appeal has been lodged, so would it not be better to see what the outcome is?

Nick Herbert (Conservative, Arundel and South Downs)

I agree precisely with my hon. Friend. An appeal is under way, and my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire made the point very well that the amendment sits oddly with that fact. We should wait for the result of the appeal, and the amendment would throw the designation of the proposed South Downs national park into chaos and confusion.

I disagree with the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne) in his interpretation of what the Government are trying to do. The amendment does not restore the previous designation of national parks; it introduces a new form of designation. Areas of outstanding natural beauty and national parks have always been seen as distinct. National parks were wilder and more remote areas, while areas of outstanding natural beauty were equally attractive, but more managed, landscapes.

This matter is of great importance to my constituency, as more than half of it lies within the South Downs area of natural beauty and well over half will lie within the proposed national park. The practical effect of the amendments is that a redesignation of the national park boundaries will be possible, after a long inquiry—91 sitting days and 23 visits—has already completed its business. If, as a consequence of the amendments, the national park boundary is moved south of Arundel, it may prevent the completion of the long-awaited Arundel bypass, with a profound impact on downland villages, which will continue to suffer a large amount of displaced traffic that cannot bypass Arundel on a proper coastal highway. The point is that local residents had the opportunity to make representations to the inquiry, based on their understanding of the law at the time, but that is now being changed, after the fact, with little debate in this place. That is wrong.

My hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire is right: the problem is that cultural heritage is not defined in the Bill. The concept is vague and we do not know what it means. Although his amendment would not remove wildlife from the new criteria that Natural England will have to take into account, it would nevertheless introduce a new confusion. Traditionally, wildlife has been dealt with by different instruments—through sites of special scientific interest—and not according to national park designations. Inclusion of the proposed criteria would further muddy the water.

There are good reasons, to which the Minister will not be able to respond, why a South Downs national park is not the appropriate status for the area. It was already well managed by a joint conservation board and there have been three attempts to designate it as a national park. All failed due to the special nature of the downs, which are different from some other national parks. There is only limited open access; slightly less than 3 per cent. of the downs is open, compared with between 30 and 60 per cent. in other national parks. I fear that an attempt is being made to allow a designation of national park status that would not have been permitted under previous legislation, because the downs have always been regarded as unsuitable for that.

I yield to no one in my desire to ensure that the south downs landscape is protected. It is important and superb, described by Arthur Mee in his famous "The King's England" series of inter-war county books as

"the natural glory of our island".

Everybody would agree with that. The problem is the basis for the protection of the downs, and there are long-standing arguments about the democratic deficit that will be caused by designating it as a national park. For instance, it will involve a large number of planning decisions—far more than in any other national park. Despite my commitment to the downs landscape, it is not appropriate to designate the area as a national park.

Local opinion is divided, but people are entitled to certainty. If they make representations to an inquiry they should know what the law is, and the House should not attempt to change the law retrospectively after the inquiry has been completed. That is important. If the amendment is accepted, the Minister should do the right thing and reopen the inquiry, especially if the area's status is changed as proposed. If there are new criteria, local authorities and local people should be able to make representations based on them. The Minister should then make his decision. It is wrong to make such changes so late, on the back of this Bill, simply because the Government disagree with the result of a court case that will sit uncomfortably with the decision that they want to make about national park status.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

Order. The Minister is supposed to be speaking to amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 17.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

Thank you for that helpful guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I oppose amendment (a). The effect of amendments (a) and (b)—if I make take them together, Madam Deputy Speaker—would be to exclude "cultural heritage" and promoting

"opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of its special qualities by the public"

from the considerations that can inform the designation criteria for national parks.

To turn first to amendment (a), I hope to persuade the House that cultural heritage has been at the core of our concept of national parks in England since the 1940s. It was recognised by the founding fathers of the national parks movement that England and Wales have nothing that approaches the wilderness areas that were being designated in the United States at the time. In England and Wales, it was always recognised that the most exceptional landscapes demonstrate a harmony between man and nature. That encompasses cultural heritage, which, as was rightly pointed out by the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne), includes the built heritage produced by working the land.

For example, hon. Members would agree that the Yorkshire Dales national park is outstanding. I would invite members to pause and reflect for a moment, as I speak, and imagine the quintessential Yorkshire dales landscape. I am sure that their thoughts would include a pattern of stone walls, field barns and farm houses—all part of the cultural heritage of the Yorkshire dales, which we should include as part of our purpose in designating national parks.

John Mann (Labour, Bassetlaw)

Does the Minister agree that the designation of the Yorkshire Dales national park also ought to include a good youth hostel? Will he consider giving some assistance to the youth hostels in the Yorkshire dales that are about to close?

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

As ever, my hon. Friend is ingenious in finding ways to make representations on important causes, and the future of youth hostels is certainly one of them. I will bear his comments in mind.

Patrick McLoughlin (Conservative, West Derbyshire)

The Minister was unable to help the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann), but he recently visited my constituency and Backdale quarry, and he was incredibly helpful in assisting the Peak district by issuing a stop notice. So I was very disappointed yesterday to receive a press statement that said:

"A public inquiry into quarrying at Backdale on Longstone Edge—due to resume next week—has been cancelled after"

the Deputy Prime Minister

"declared the Peak District National Park Authority's enforcement action to be null and void."

How can anyone take any reassurance from the Government's word on the national parks, when a junior Minister gives the go-ahead and approval for an action that is then cancelled and overridden by the Deputy Prime Minister? If the Minister cannot give me an answer today, will he ensure that he makes a statement before the House rises tomorrow?

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I will certainly look into the point that the right hon. Gentleman makes and find a suitable opportunity to respond fully; I am certainly unable to do so now.

These Lords amendments are intended to clarify the interpretation of the statutory criteria for the designation of national parks under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, in line with how they have been generally understood and applied for the past 56 years. As we have heard, they are being introduced in response to a judgment on a High Court challenge to the New Forest national park designation order of 2005. The amendments return the situation to one in which we have what were generally understood, prior to the judgment, to be the relevant criteria, but with greater clarity.

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

rose—

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

Let me just make a little more progress, and then I will give way.

The Court found that the interpretation of the designation criteria should not be informed by national park purposes and appeared to favour a more restrictive interpretation of what could be considered to be "natural" in the context of "natural beauty". During the past 56 years, the criteria for designation have been understood and read in the light of the purposes of national parks. In 1991 a report by the national parks review panel, "Fit for the Future", reviewed the criteria and the purposes and recommended that there should be more explicit references to the wildlife and cultural heritage of the parks in the first purpose.

The Government accepted that recommendation, as the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) pointed out, and used the Environment Act 1995 to amend the preservation and conservation purpose in section 5(1) of the 1949 Act. No changes were made to the designation criteria because it was thought to be generally understood at the time that the criteria were informed by the purposes. However, that assumed link was broken by the Meyrick judgment handed down last November. Therefore, the Government believe that we should now take explicit steps to make sure, in statute, that the 1995 Act changes do indeed apply to the designation criteria as well as to the purposes.

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

Will the Minister deal with the point about the appeal that has been lodged? Why do we need to have legislation now, before the appeal has been dealt with?

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I was going to deal with that question when I responded to some of the points made by the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert). There are a number of reasons why we need to act now. A degree of uncertainty would otherwise be created in respect of other issues relating to national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty. I am not referring specifically to the south downs. The Countryside Agency is considering other issues in relation to extensions to some national parks, for example. We need to be able to offer certainty for that work to be continued. The opportunity to revise the 1949 Act in the future would be very uncertain. It could be many years before Parliament has another opportunity to restore what we believe is the status quo. That is why we would like to act now. If the Bill achieves Royal Assent, as I hope it will in the next day or so, I will have to consider what our position should be on the appeal, in the light of having made those changes.

The main amendment, Lords amendment No. 17, adapts the criteria by incorporating the terminology of the purposes to make it clear that national park purposes are behind the criteria. As I have explained, we believe that that approach is what was intended by the original legislation. I have already talked about amendment (a). I think from what has been said that amendment (b) is an objection to the forward-looking nature of promoting

"opportunities for . . . understanding and enjoyment".

By that I mean that in deciding whether a piece of land should be designated, one can consider whether, through the actions of the national park authority, or someone else, its values for understanding and enjoyment could be increased. I must point out that that was fully explored in the New Forest inquiry and the Meyrick judgment.

The second criterion for designation in the 1949 Act, which amendment (b) does not alter, refers to opportunities for open air recreation. It is inherent in the word "opportunities" that an appropriate degree of looking to the future was intended; that point was even accepted by both the claimants and the judge in the Meyrick judgment. In response to the point about potential damage to the very environment and landscape that we are seeking to protect through national park status, the Sandford principle applies to national park authorities, so in the last resort their decisions would have to come down in favour of the environment. I could go on, but I suspect that some of my hon. Friends would not find that to their taste.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

Lords amendment No. 33 reaches the heart of the Meyrick judgment on what natural beauty is by defining it in a way that I—and the whole House, I am sure—am more than happy with. Perhaps the Minister will explain why that is not sufficient, and why Lords amendment No. 17 is necessary on top of it.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

Lords amendment No. 17 specifically and only deals with national parks. Lords amendment No. 33 addresses the degree of naturalness that is needed to meet the natural beauty criteria for areas of outstanding natural beauty and thus clarifies matters for all definitions of natural beauty in statute. It is important to make that distinction. Lords amendment No. 17 deals with purpose, and we have a balance between purpose and criteria.

Lords amendments Nos. 35 to 37 provide for the commencement of the provisions two months after the Act has passed. I commend the Lords amendments to the House.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

May I first pick up a point—

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

Order. Technically, the hon. Gentleman needs the leave of the House.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

My sincere apologies, Mr. Deputy Speaker. With the leave of the House—I was told to say that, but I usually forget what I am told.

May I first pick up on the point made by the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne) when he suggested that I made a Freudian slip by using the word "wild"? I did not. My use of the word was intentional, not Freudian, and the word was taken directly from the very Hobhouse report that set the criteria for the 1949 Act, which referred to wild areas and wild moorland. I did not use the word "wilderness", as he suggested.

The principal issue is obviously a matter of interpretation. There is a question of whether Lords amendments Nos. 17 and 33 take the criteria further than simply reverting back to those in the 1949 Act, as subsequently amended—in other words, before the Meyrick judgment. My hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) rightly referred to the south downs, and it is widely believed that the purpose of the Government amendments is to reopen the south downs issue. That is a matter for my hon. Friend and others who represent the area to debate another time, but as my hon. Friends have said, it is worrying that the Government are acting in a bit of a rush.

I do not know whether the Minister can shed any light on when the appeal will be heard, but it would be perfectly sensible to wait for its outcome. I am worried to hear the Minister say that if the Lords amendments are passed and the Bill gets Royal Assent in the next few days, he will have to think again about the appeal. He implies—I am putting words in his mouth, but I think that most people understood this—that the appeal may then be dropped. That would be a serious judgment to make. The matter should go to appeal because I do not think that the conclusions of Lord Justice Keene in the Meyrick case should be allowed to stand, regardless of what we might do to the Bill tonight, for the reasons that we have described.

The Government are going a little further than they need to. I want the criteria for national park designation to be as they were prior to the Meyrick judgment. I am worried that the Lords amendments, especially Lords amendment No. 17, could open the criteria wider than that and give scope for applications for the designation of areas that most of us would not describe as having the special qualities that a national park should have. For those reasons, I will press amendment (a) to a Division.

Clause 62 — Ending of certain existing unrecorded public rights of way

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

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

With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 21 to 26, Lords amendment No. 27 and amendments (a) and (b) thereto.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

Amendment No. 20 removes—

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

Order. Conversations are breaking out in the House. Hon. Members should listen to the Minister.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Amendment No. 20 removes clause 62(1)(b), the aim of which is to ensure that public motor vehicular rights are only extinguished over routes that, immediately before commencement, are used less by motor vehicles than by other users, which relates to the burden of proof on those who want to prove their vehicular rights.

Amendment No. 21 replaces clause 62(1)(b) with a similar provision under clause 62(2), which will exempt from extinguishment any route where it can be shown that, for five years before commencement, the public use had been mainly by motor vehicles. That will ensure that, in such cases, the burden of proof is placed on those using a motor vehicle to show that, because the route had been used mainly by motor vehicles for a significant period, the rights have not been extinguished. The effect of the two amendments is to reverse where the burden of proof will lie.

Amendment No. 22 clarifies that those routes recorded on the list of streets and not recorded on the definitive map and statement are exempted from extinguishment only where they are recorded on the list of streets immediately before commencement.

David Drew (Labour, Stroud)

Will the Minister clarify the issue of easements, particularly where it involves a public body such as the National Trust, which could be part of the problem? The problem is that when the National Trust attempts to clarify the ownership of common land, it causes individuals who require access over that common land considerable problems, which is the case in my area at least.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

Some of the amendments that we are making will enable people who need to access their property to continue to do so. The right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay) raised that anomaly on Report. I shall discuss that issue again later, but if I do not resolve my hon. Friend's point, perhaps he will write to me or even raise the matter on the Second Reading of the Commons Bill, which will take place shortly after the Easter recess.

Amendment No. 23 introduces arrangements to deal with existing, outstanding claims for rights of way that carry rights for mechanically propelled vehicles—byways open to all traffic or BOATs. It provides that what is now clause 67 does not apply to any claims for BOATs made before the Government made clear, on 20 January 2005, their intention to legislate following public consultation. The Welsh Assembly Government have chosen to make that date 19 May 2005, the date on which the Bill was published.

Paddy Tipping (Labour, Sherwood)

May I take this opportunity to thank my hon. Friend for all the listening that he has done on this point during consideration of the Bill? Tremendous movement has been achieved and he has come to a good and sensible decision in choosing the date of 20 January 2005. I thank him and his officials for all the work that they have done.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments, especially those relating to my officials who have done an excellent job in dealing with what is a complicated issue and with much correspondence from many hon. Members and others.

The effect is that BOAT claims made before those two dates will be processed under the terms of the existing legislation, and therefore any rights for mechanically propelled vehicles that they seek to establish will not be extinguished, provided the claim proves successful. However, any BOAT claims made after those dates will be dealt with under the terms of the new legislation, subject to two limited exemptions. The first is when local authorities have already reached the stage of determining the claim and the other is when they are made by property owners, as raised on Report by the right hon. Member for Bracknell.

Peter Atkinson (Conservative, Hexham)

If a claim was made for a BOAT before 20 January 2005 and it fails, can the Minister confirm that any future claims for the same right of way will be caught by the cut-off?

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

That is certainly my understanding. If the situation is any different, I will write to the hon. Gentleman and copy the letter to Opposition Front Benchers and place a copy in the Library.

The transitional arrangements have been drafted in such a way as to ensure that only those definitive map modification order applications for BOATs made before 20 January 2005, or 19 May 2005 in Wales, that are made correctly and in accordance with the statutory requirements, will be preserved by the transitional arrangements in clause 62(3).

Amendment No. 23 also amends the provisions that provide for private rights of access for property owners. That is necessary to ensure that there are no human rights issues created by commencement of the rights of way provisions shortly after Royal Assent without a period of statutory notice. Amendment No. 24 is a procedural amendment that refers to certain transitional provisions set out in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. The provisions provide that, where a local authority has made a definitive map modification order under section 53 or 54 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 reclassifying a road used as a public path, or RUPP, as a footpath, bridleway or byway open to all traffic, that order must be processed to its conclusion. However, the amendment will ensure that those transitional arrangements are subject to part 6 of this Bill in the normal way, so that unless they fulfil the criteria for any of the exemptions set out in the Bill's transitional arrangements, any vehicular rights in such claims will be extinguished.

Amendment No. 25 addresses cyclists' concerns about whether a qualifying period of past, or future, cycle use may give rise to a restricted byway. The view of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is that a normal pedal-powered cycle is a non-mechanically propelled vehicle and therefore may give rise to restricted byway rights. This amendment introduces a clause that will make that clear on the face of the Bill.

Amendment No. 26 clarifies that a definitive map modification order or DMMO application is, of itself, capable of bringing a route into question for the purposes of section 31 of the 1980 Act.

Amendment No. 27 is in two parts. The first amends an existing provision, which provides that a restricted byway may be created through an application for a definitive map modification order. This amendment clarifies that a restricted byway can be created on the basis of both user and historic evidence. The second part will ensure that anyone driving on a restricted byway, which was a road used as a public path prior to reclassification, to access their property would not be committing a criminal offence under section 34 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.

Amendments (a) and (b), tabled by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), would amend Lords amendment No. 27. They concern subsection (7) of what is now clause 70. This subsection closes a possible loophole, which may have enabled those driving illegally over former RUPPs, to visit land that is designated for public access, to claim immunity from prosecution under section 34 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. Subsection (7) specifically excludes such people from the exemption from prosecution, so that it is only available to those accessing their own property over former RUPPs, and their lawful visitors. The amendments seek to further close the possible loophole, by extending the categories of land specified in subsection (7) to include

"any land which is treated as being accessible to the public"

so that it would include any rights of way and town or village greens.

We considered similar amendments very carefully when they were tabled in the other place. We have concluded that the exemption from prosecution works properly without the amendments. We are satisfied that the Government amendment that has been incorporated into clause 70 closed any potential loophole and that no further amendments to the clause are necessary. Amendments (a) and (b) as drafted cannot be accepted because they would introduce uncertainties into the definition of visitor. For example, if they were accepted, they would not mention section 15(1) of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. We recognise that there is some concern that people using a right of way could be regarded as a "visitor to the land". However, we do not share that concern. We have considered this issue very carefully and have concluded that those using a right of way could not be regarded as a visitor to one of the parts of land which the right of way may cross. The right of way may cross several fields in the ownership of several different landowners. The user of the right of way is not visiting those fields, he is using the right of way. I appreciate that this is a complex area of the law. We intend to issue guidance to the police, local authorities and others about the rights of way provisions in this Bill. That will include guidance to assist with the understanding and enforcement of this new legislation on rights of way. I hope that in light of that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendments and that the House will accept the Lords amendments.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I am grateful to the Minister for his comments and we mostly welcome this group of amendments. The Minister, and other hon. Members who have taken an interest in this part of the Bill, will know that it has probably caused the most angst, especially the issue of the date of commencement. I am the first to admit to an element of confusion earlier in the proceedings. Having read and reread the Committee and Report proceedings, my confusion appears to have been shared by everybody else, including the Minister. The hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) would probably agree. We were all saying the same thing based on what appears to have been a misunderstanding of the import of the Bill and the impact that it would have on what we believed to be some 2,000 outstanding applications for the creation of BOATs.

Subsequently, I tabled a written question and I am grateful to the Minister for taking a great deal of care in answering it. He has surveyed all the highways authorities to find out how many applications were outstanding on three dates—the date on which the Government published their consultation in December 2003, the date on which they announced the conclusions of their consultation in January 2005 and the date on which the Bill was presented in May 2005. That elicited the fact that the number of applications outstanding was not 2,000, as we had been led to believe, but fractionally fewer than 1,000, of which almost exactly half predated the original consultation. Some 288 were lodged in the consultation period between December 2003 and January 2005, and another 200 or so were lodged between January and May. That demonstrates an increasing rate of applications, but the situation was not as bad as we thought it would be.

The concern shared by hon. Members on both sides of the House was that the Bill would allow a long period in which those 2,000 applications could proceed. If that happened, the intention of closing off the loophole of previous use of byways by vehicles in BOAT applications would have been defeated. I am glad to say, for reasons that I will come to in a moment, that that possibility has been significantly diminished.

John Mann (Labour, Bassetlaw)

Do the hon. Gentleman's figures relate to applications or to the number of routes? For example, in my area one application might cover six or 12 different routes. For the various people affected, a route is a route, whether it is dealt with as a separate application or as part of a group put in as one application. May we have a clarification of his clarification so that we are clear about the scale of the problem?

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He is absolutely right and I am happy to agree with him. We can both blame the Minister, because his figures were not sufficiently explanatory. We do not know how many of those applications were multiple, but it is probable that more than 997 routes were requested.

John Mann (Labour, Bassetlaw)

I can only give detailed illustrations from my own constituency, where the scale of the problem is related to the number of routes rather than the number of applications. For example, residents, farmers, dog-walkers, horse riders and so on might be affected by any one component of a circuit rather than by the entire circuit, which is an additional problem.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

The hon. Gentleman is right. It may well be that the number of applications for individual routes is nearer to 2,000—we simply do not know. I said in jest that it is all the Minister's fault, but I suppose that it is partly mine. I did not ask him the right question, so he did not ask the Highways Authority the right question. I am happy to share the responsibility, but I will not go further than that.

The other interesting piece of information that came out of the Minister's survey—this is directly relevant to the point made by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann)—is that there are tremendous variations around the country. The problem is concentrated on certain counties, including the Minister's own county, where there is a particular issue with a large number of applications. Several highway authorities reported few or no applications, so the situation is very patchy. When we debated this before, I was not aware—the hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) may have been—that trail riders were offering a "byway bonus" for applications. The Trail Riders Fellowship said:

"For every Byway claimed by YOU the TRF will give the applicant £10.00

If that application is successful then the TRF will give the applicant £250."

That partly explains the surge in numbers.

The question is what was done about the large number of applications. The Government's original intention, clearly based on the expectation that they would all have to be resolved, was that commencement would be in a year or so. I remember that the Minister was concerned to give time for all that to take place. We persuaded him, following advice that we received, that it could be brought back to the date on which the legislation was enacted. The debate in the other House has concerned making the date even earlier.

I was never persuaded by the arguments that we should seek to eliminate all the outstanding applications. I took the view that those made prior to the Government's consultation in December 2003 were made in good faith and that they should be allowed to proceed under the rules that then pertained. I felt that December 2003 was the right date to go for, and that was the subject of amendments in the other place. I am happy to endorse the comments made by the hon. Member for Sherwood about the Minister's willingness to discuss the issue. It became clear in those discussions that the Government were advised that they could not accept such an early date. I am sorry that they could not do that, and we might continue to wish to dispute it, but nevertheless I face the reality. What we have achieved through the mutual pressure from both sides of the House is the bringing back of the date from a year or so hence to January 2005.

That makes a great deal of difference to the number of applications that will be dealt with under the existing rules. All bar 700 or so applications—those going up to January—will be dealt with under the old rules. The rest will be dealt with under the new criteria, which means that use of a byway by a vehicle, whether it is a Roman chariot or anything else from some distant point in history, would not be a basis for a claim for a byway open to all traffic.

Peter Atkinson (Conservative, Hexham)

I want to express my thanks to the Minister for listening to the representations from my constituents, who are badly affected by this.

On the legacy of the 300 or 400 outstanding claims that are not caught by the new rules, does my hon. Friend agree that it is most important that the Government give advice to the police and the Crown Prosecution Service? We have discovered that if these claims are undetermined, there is virtually no chance of the CPS agreeing to prosecute those arrested for trespassing on these byways.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I think that the Minister said that he is going to issue guidance. That is terribly important. As we have all found in dealing with this legislation, it is a minefield—some of us might wish that some of these tracks were a minefield, because it might stop their being used—and it causes immense difficulty and confusion among users, as well as prosecutors. I look forward to seeing the guidance to local authorities and to the police.

I would add to that an exhortation to highway authorities, notwithstanding other pressures, to act quickly to resolve the outstanding applications. The sooner they are resolved and the map is definitive, the better for everybody.

David Drew (Labour, Stroud)

In Gloucestershire, we have not had this problem because there is a degree of amicable arrangement between the different parties. It is therefore somewhat strange to find out what is happening in other parts of the country. The biggest source of complaint is that there is no resolution because those tasked with trying to come up with one delay it because they say that they do not have enough resources. That is not acceptable, is it?

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

Far be it from me perennially to refer to the fact that local authorities are deprived of resources by the present Government, but that seems to be what the hon. Gentleman is saying. So be it—I am happy to accept his point. Yes, of course proceeding more quickly will take up more local authority resources, but in the long term it is in everybody's interests.

I wish finally to refer to the amendments that stand in my name. They refer to the amendments that the Government have tabled in response to the concerns expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay). The Minister has listened and acted, and we are grateful for that. As he said, there is some concern that the term, "visitor to the land", creates a loophole, and it was put to us that that could be closed by these amendments. I heard the Minister explain why he feels that they are inappropriate. I think that he could probably add to that the fact that he is anxious that the Bill becomes law as soon as possible. We all agree, but that does not negate the need to get it right. He asked me to withdraw them, but I cannot withdraw what I have not moved. Nevertheless, I was interested in what he said. He clearly put on the record, for everybody to see, the Government's belief that the loophole does not exist and that the phrase that they have employed does not give people a means of using a byway for other purposes. Concerns were expressed that it would be used as a means of accessing another byway, on the basis that all byways connect one highway to another highway. If the Under-Secretary is convinced that the amendment would be unnecessary, I am prepared to take his word for it, especially as he is prepared to make relevant provision in the Bill.

Paddy Tipping (Labour, Sherwood)

The Under-Secretary has also promised to issue guidance. It is clear that we need to have a firm view about the point.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

The hon. Gentleman is right that we need clear guidance. I shall not pursue my amendment but we have raised the matter and the Under-Secretary has put his position on it on record.

We welcome the group of amendments, which has taken us a long way from where we started. It means that we can look forward to the protection of many of our byways that were under threat of being torn up by motorised vehicles. That will be widely accepted, perhaps with the exception of those who wish to use them. Some of them are reasonable and law-abiding and do not want to chew up the byways—we should not tar everybody with the same brush. However, we should be aware that some people abuse byways. With proper guidance, the Government can ensure that the law is enforced and that those who continue to abuse our byways can be properly prosecuted.

I welcome the amendments and thank the Under-Secretary for the way in which he has handled the matter.

Natascha Engel (Labour, North East Derbyshire)

I am especially pleased to follow the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) because I would like to pursue some of the issues that he raised.

Rights of way affect many of my constituents. North-East Derbyshire sits at the foot of the Peak district and boasts some of the most beautiful rural villages in the country, for example Ashover. People have moved from far and wide to live in a peaceful rural idyll. Tourists travel hundreds of miles to visit, but their quality of life is being ruined and their nerves are shattered.

As the Under-Secretary knows, the proposed legislation led to a flood of applications for modification orders to the definitive map to upgrade bridleways to byways to allow the sort of motorised vehicles that we have discussed today—trial bikes, quad bikes and four-wheel-drive vehicles—on to the bridleways. Many of those paths existed in the same state for centuries until motorised vehicles started to use them relatively recently.

Visitors to the countryside who want to enjoy peaceful surroundings, wild flowers and birds or get some safe outdoor exercise in a beautiful historic environment have all that ruined by noisy trial bikes. They have caused great damage to land and paths, making them unuseable for those, such as walkers and horse riders, who want to use them legitimately. Horse riders can no longer use the paths, and it cannot be right that legitimate users are effectively prevented from using them so that trial bikers can ride around at high speed, not even looking at scenery or seeing what they drive over and often destroy.

What does the Under-Secretary propose to do about applications for modification orders that have already been made but have not been determined? Is there a timetable for determining them?

Christopher Huhne (Liberal Democrat, Eastleigh)

I am mindful of the hour and I shall therefore be brief. We were minded to support the Conservative amendments and I am therefore delighted with the Under-Secretary's assurances, especially about guidance. We are pleased that a sensible compromise was reached. That means that green lanes can be protected and the integrity of the countryside maintained. It was essential, in a Bill aimed at safeguarding the natural environment, to reach such an outcome to allow local authorities to deal with the backlog of claims and to prosecute the minority, who wilfully flout the laws and ride or drive where they should not, while allowing those who have established rights to continue to exercise them. We are therefore happy to support the compromise.

Andrew MacKay (Conservative, Bracknell)

I thank the Under-Secretary sincerely for the Lords amendments, which were similar to those that I withdrew on Report but are doubtless better drafted. They will make a huge difference to many of my constituents who would have been unable to sell their properties without them. In one or two cases, significant distress has been caused. I hope that Royal Assent happens quickly because, in at least one case, people are desperately waiting to proceed. Again, I place on record my thanks to the Under-Secretary and his officials, who were so helpful when I went to see him at the Department.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 21 to 28 agreed to.

Clause 74 — Reserved functions

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

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

With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 30 to 31, and 42 to 55.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

Amendment No. 29 responds to a small but important point picked up by the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee in its helpful report. It noticed that, in clause 74, which deals with reserved functions, we had excluded from delegation various legislative or quasi-legislative functions but had not mentioned codes of practice. We agree that that should be done because codes of practice are often indistinguishable from guidance. We are happy, therefore, to make that small change.

Amendments Nos. 30 and 31 have the sole purpose of improving the clarity of the wording of the Bill.

Amendment No. 42 adds to the list of designated bodies in schedule 7 the joint committees of local authorities that discharge functions in relation to areas of outstanding natural beauty.

Amendments Nos. 43 to 55 relate to schedules 9 and 10. Those schedules list detailed provisions for part 8, chapter 2, which relates to agricultural levy bodies. The purpose is to put in place an explicit means of implementing the recommendations of the November 2005 Radcliffe report, which reviewed the position of the main agricultural and horticultural levy bodies. A public consultation on the report's findings was completed on 3 February and we expect to announce our decisions on the future levy board structure around Easter. The amendments set up a structure that would allow us to proceed after that consultation.

I ask hon. Members to accept the Lords amendments.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Remaining Lords amendments agreed to.