James Paice (Shadow Minister (Agriculture), Environment, Food & Rural Affairs; South East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

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

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker)

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 (Shadow Minister (Agriculture), Environment, Food & Rural Affairs; South East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

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 (Whip, Whips; North West Norfolk, Conservative)

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 (Shadow Minister (Agriculture), Environment, Food & Rural Affairs; South East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

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.

Several hon. Members:

rose—

James Paice (Shadow Minister (Agriculture), Environment, Food & Rural Affairs; South East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

I am surrounded. I give way to Mr. Tipping.

Paddy Tipping (Sherwood, Labour)

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 (Shadow Minister (Agriculture), Environment, Food & Rural Affairs; South East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

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 (Shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Northern Ireland Affairs; Montgomeryshire, Liberal Democrat)

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 (Shadow Minister (Agriculture), Environment, Food & Rural Affairs; South East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

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 (Salisbury, Conservative)

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 (Shadow Minister (Agriculture), Environment, Food & Rural Affairs; South East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

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

John Redwood (Shadow Secretary of State for Deregulation, Deregulation; Wokingham, Conservative)

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 (Shadow Minister (Agriculture), Environment, Food & Rural Affairs; South East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

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 (Bassetlaw, Labour)

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 (Shadow Minister (Agriculture), Environment, Food & Rural Affairs; South East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

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 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 (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Rural Affairs, Landscape and Biodiversity), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; South Dorset, Labour)

indicated assent.

James Paice (Shadow Minister (Agriculture), Environment, Food & Rural Affairs; South East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

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 (Sherwood, Labour)

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 (Shadow Minister (Agriculture), Environment, Food & Rural Affairs; South East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

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 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 (Ludlow, Conservative)

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 (Shadow Minister (Agriculture), Environment, Food & Rural Affairs; South East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

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 (Deputy Chief Whip, Whips; West Derbyshire, Conservative)

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 (Shadow Minister (Agriculture), Environment, Food & Rural Affairs; South East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

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 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. 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 (Windsor, Conservative)

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 (Shadow Minister (Agriculture), Environment, Food & Rural Affairs; South East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

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 (Islington South & Finsbury, Labour)

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 Sir George Young, 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 (Deputy Chairman (Candidates), Conservative Party; Bracknell, Conservative)

I entirely endorse the remarks of 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 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 (Stroud, Labour)

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 (Deputy Chairman (Candidates), Conservative Party; Bracknell, Conservative)

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 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 (Sherwood, Labour)

I am pleased to follow 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 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 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 (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Rural Affairs, Landscape and Biodiversity), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; South Dorset, Labour)

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 (Sherwood, Labour)

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 (Brecon & Radnorshire, Liberal Democrat)

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 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 (Shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Northern Ireland Affairs; Montgomeryshire, Liberal Democrat)

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 (Brecon & Radnorshire, Liberal Democrat)

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 (Shadow Minister (Agriculture), Environment, Food & Rural Affairs; South East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

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 (Brecon & Radnorshire, Liberal Democrat)

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 (Wolverhampton South West, Labour)

It is the Green Lanes Protection Group.

Roger Williams (Brecon & Radnorshire, Liberal Democrat)

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 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 (York, City of, Labour)

I support my hon. Friend 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. 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 (Wolverhampton South West, Labour)

One can smell them.

Hugh Bayley (York, City of, Labour)

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 (North West Hampshire, Conservative)

It is a pleasure to follow Hugh Bayley—I expect that we will meet later by the Members' cycle rack before we pedal home. 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 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 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 (Bassetlaw, Labour)

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 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 (Whip, Whips; Hexham, Conservative)

I agree with something that 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 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 (South Swindon, Labour)

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 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 (Wolverhampton South West, Labour)

As a cyclist, I find new clause 21 attractive and congratulate my hon. Friend 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 (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Rural Affairs, Landscape and Biodiversity), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; South Dorset, Labour)

I commend my hon. Friend 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 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 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 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 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 (Shadow Secretary of State for Environment Food & Rural Affairs, Environment, Food & Rural Affairs; West Dorset, Conservative)

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

Jim Knight (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Rural Affairs, Landscape and Biodiversity), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; South Dorset, Labour)

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 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 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 (Sherwood, Labour)

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 (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Rural Affairs, Landscape and Biodiversity), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; South Dorset, Labour)

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 (Shadow Secretary of State for Environment Food & Rural Affairs, Environment, Food & Rural Affairs; West Dorset, Conservative)

rose—

Jim Knight (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Rural Affairs, Landscape and Biodiversity), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; South Dorset, Labour)

And even the right hon. Gentleman.

Oliver Letwin (Shadow Secretary of State for Environment Food & Rural Affairs, Environment, Food & Rural Affairs; West Dorset, Conservative)

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 (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Rural Affairs, Landscape and Biodiversity), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; South Dorset, Labour)

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 (Shadow Minister (Agriculture), Environment, Food & Rural Affairs; South East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

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 (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Rural Affairs, Landscape and Biodiversity), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; South Dorset, Labour)

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 (Shadow Minister (Agriculture), Environment, Food & Rural Affairs; South East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

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 (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Rural Affairs, Landscape and Biodiversity), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; South Dorset, Labour)

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 (Sherwood, Labour)

Will the Minister give way on that point?

Jim Knight (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Rural Affairs, Landscape and Biodiversity), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; South Dorset, Labour)

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 (Sherwood, Labour)

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: 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 (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Rural Affairs, Landscape and Biodiversity), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; South Dorset, Labour)

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 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 (Deputy Chairman (Candidates), Conservative Party; Bracknell, Conservative)

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 (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Rural Affairs, Landscape and Biodiversity), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; South Dorset, Labour)

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 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 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 (Brecon & Radnorshire, Liberal Democrat)

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 (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Rural Affairs, Landscape and Biodiversity), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; South Dorset, Labour)

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 (Shadow Minister (Agriculture), Environment, Food & Rural Affairs; South East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

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 Sir George Young referred to the hidden menace of 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 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 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.