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

With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 8.

I am grateful to be turning to the House with my Bill for its concluding stage today. It is a little more than five months since the House approved the Bill's principles when it granted it a Second Reading. I hope that I shall be permitted to detain hon. Members a little longer than I was able to do on that previous, brief occasion. Having thanked colleagues and other hon. Members previously for their help with this measure, I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Brougham and Vaux, who so kindly took up the measure and steered it expertly through another place.

The amendments deal with unfinished business which we did not have time to complete during the earlier stages of the Bill. They can be debated as single group because they are consequential upon one another and result from the undertakings that we gave in this place to interested parties: the Ramblers Association, the British Horse Society and others. Naturally they were concerned about the impact that the Bill might have, unamended, on walkers, riders and other non-motorised traffic.

The House will recall the misunderstanding on Report, on 27 April, and the limited time that we had for Third Reading, on 4 May. That meant that we were unable to deliver our promises before the Bill went to their Lordships' House. The House accepted that we would table suitable amendments to meet the criticism and concern. The other place was clearly satisfied with our proposals, and had seen and accepted the correspondence with interested organisations, which are also satisfied with what we have proposed and with what their Lordships have done.

I hope that the amendments will be accepted by the House, since they satisfy the promises that we made, although I am more than happy to provide a little detail so that colleagues on both sides of the House may feel satisfied.

All the amendments refer to the schedules. The first five refer to schedule 1, paragraph 15. Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 insert a new paragraph, (4A), which makes effective provision for the shorter order time of six months, which we accepted was reasonable in the circumstances. We have tried to solve that problem while preserving the main thrust of the Bill which was to create an 18-month temporary traffic order. Notices are of much shorter duration.

Amendment No. 3 describes when such different provision will apply and meets concerns that I outlined earlier and on Report. Amendment No. 4 means that the 18-month order will not apply when the temporary prohibition or restricton is made for reasons mentioned in paragraph 14 (1)(a) and that it will take longer.

Amendment No. 5 defines the process by which the Secretary of State can extend an 18-month order. Amendment No. 6 inserts two new paragraphs, (4A) and (4B), to respond to the two new order times of six and 18 months, and to how and in what circumstances the six months order can be extended. The amendment also clarifies what must happen if the Secretary of State refuses an extension.

Amendment No. 7 recognises the two new paragraphs by inserting them in paragraph 6 of the main schedule. Amendment No. 8 seeks to define a footpath, cycle track and byway. I am pleased that we have tried to ensure that the words will have the same meaning north of the border.

The law outside Greater London imposes a three-month limit only on temporary traffic orders, and the Secretary of State has the power to consent to longer periods on request. The major objective of the Bill was to relax that requirement and to create an 18-month order.

The proposed period in the Bill was understood to be consistent with the extensions of the time limit that was acceptable to the Secretary of State in the past. It matched the 18-month period allowed for experimental orders under section 9 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, and it seems to represent a reasonable step towards deregulation as it removes the need for many orders to be subjected to the unnecessary bureaucratic process of approval. Consent requirements have been progressively relaxed since the early days, when a Minister for Transport approved all traffic regulation orders. So, the time is ripe for a modest further move away from central decision-making.

The proposal in the Bill is among a number of ideas on which the Department of Transport consulted widely in 1987, following the report of the traffic and parking working group, which involved representatives of local authorities; and the proposal received majority support from consultees.

The Bill caused the Ramblers Association and other groups to make fresh representations on the issue, which were well received; we were sympathetic to their concerns. It is fair to say that they had always been a little cautious about the relaxation proposals and they felt that a shorter period would be appropriate for temporary orders affecting paths, bridleways, cycle tracks and bridleways that are open to all traffic. I understand and share their view.

Temporary orders can be used only to restrict or prohibit traffic. For the purpose of the 1984 Act, traffic includes pedestrians and any

"person driving, riding or leading a horse or other animal of draught or burden."

The result is that a temporary traffic order can be used temporarily to restrict the passage of all traffic, including walkers and riders—hence the concern that was expressed. I acknowledge that the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) is in his place, as he particularly wished to raise these matters early in proceedings on the Bill.

The powers can be used only for the purposes set out in the Bill—because of works or proposed works on or near a road, or because of the likelihood of danger to the public or of serious damage to the road. The Bill makes no significant change to the present law in this respect, but it is clearly right that the authorities should be able to restrict or prohibit all traffic on the grounds of public safety, until the problem—a temporary danger caused perhaps by subsidence from quarrying, an unsafe building or fallen trees—can be dealt with.

I have spent a little time giving the background to the Bill in some detail to explain the need for the Lords amendments. I have accepted, as the Government have accepted, that the restoration of footpaths and bridleways ought generally to be less problematical, and to take less time, than the restoration of vehicular use where that has had to be restricted or temporarily suspended for more substantial remedial work.

Diversions are more likely to be disruptive for users on foot or on horseback than for motorised traffic, which may be back on its intended route fairly quickly. A detour of a mile is perhaps insignificant when travelling by car, but it is a rather different matter for walkers. For those reasons, a shorter period for such orders seems to be wholly reasonable. The amendments propose a period of six months, which has been accepted as a reasonable compromise by all concerned parties.

When necessary, an authority can, before the six months perod is up, seek the Secretary of State's consent to a longer period of closure or restriction. That follows the present law.

My hon. Friend is on an important matter. Some years ago, I used to go horse riding in Heston farm, and when the M4 was being built, the bridlepaths that I used were closed for about two years. The building of major motorways and railways is important, but they can take two or three years to complete. Is it right that the local authority should be able to apply to the Secretary of State to close the appropriate footpaths or bridleways for that period?

If the footpath, bridlepath or cycle track is in integral part of a road, road restrictions will apply and people will not be able to treat the footpath or bridlepath as a separate entity. We could not have allowed a coach and horses to be driven through the arrangements for the building of the M25 simply because a foothpath ran across the route. We could not have a six-month rule for one bit and an 18-month rule for the other. If a footpath or bridle path is an integral part of a projected road, we are dealing with a highway and not with a footpath in the accepted sense of the word.

If the Secretary of State refuses consent, another order may not be brought forward until three months have elapsed. I do not think that the consent procedure will be used very often, but it is a sensible arrangement where circumstances warrant it or necessity dictates. The Bill gives the Secretary of State power to prescribe by regulations the procedure to be followed in connection with temporary restrictions by order or notice. Those powers are contained in clause 1(2), which is a substitute for section 16(2) of the 1984 Act. The regulations will be made by statutory instrument after consultation with the relevant bodies. I understand that my hon. Friend the Minister has given such assurances to the organisations that will be consulted about draft regulations.

For the purposes of illustration, I have concentrated on footpaths and bridleways, but the amendments apply equally to cycle tracks and byways that are open to all traffic. That is for the reasons that I have outlined and is subject to the explanation that I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes). Definitions are provided in the final amendment by reference to existing statutory definitions. Surprisingly, they differ north and south of the border, so reference is made respectively to the position in England and Wales and in Scotland to which my Bill also extends.

We are working from Bill HL 76 which was printed on 9 May and the amendments refer to that document. The Bill was reprinted on 21 June after their Lordships' deliberations as Bill HL 99, and it contained some printing errors. They have been noted and I am assured that they will be rectified in the Act if the Bill is successful. The errors relate simply to cross-references consequential upon the insertion of the new amendments to section 15 where it appears in the schedule. In the wrongly printed Bill, in page 4, line 40, the reference to subsection 2 should be to subsection 3. In page 5, line 15 the reference to subsection 4 should be to subsection 5. In line 21 on the same page, the reference to subsection 3 should be to subsection 4. On page 15, line 48, the reference to subsection 2, should be to subsection 3. I would not like the House to think that I had been careless and had not noticed those errors. That is why I am drawing them to the attention of the House.

When I introduced my Bill, I scarcely thought that it would in any way promote the green image. Its primary objective is to rationalise and enhance the powers of highway authorities in dealing with temporary restrictions on roads where by far their most challenging problems must arise. I respect the interests of walkers, riders and cyclists, and I am glad to be able to meet their concerns by these amendments.

I shall be brief. The last time that I spoke on a Friday, I was upbraided by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who accused me of speaking for 77 minutes. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, said that you found that difficult to tolerate. It is amusing to note that, just 12 hours ago, the hon. Member for Linlithgow spoke for even longer. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) for drawing my attention to that and contrasting it with my 77–minute speech two months ago.

The Bill is a good one and deserves a speedy passage after consideration of the Lords amendments. I am delighted to support the amendment which the Lord Brougham and Vaux proposed and which my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) has drawn to our attention. The amendment is necessary because, when the Bill left this House, some voluntary organisations, especially the British Horse Society and the Ramblers Association, were worried about it. I am grateful to those organisations for allowing me to have copies of the correspondence between them and my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic.

The British Horse Society wrote to my hon. Friend on 2 May and said that it supported the amendment as a strengthening of the Bill in the context of footpaths and bridleways. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South said, the amendment also covers cycle tracks, so that restrictions should not be subject to 18 months but to a much more acceptable period of six months.

The British Horse Society asked my hon. Friend the Minister to consider the issue of appropriate guidance by his Department on the exercise of these powers by highway authorities, and the society would like to see consultations about the preparation of such guidance.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on the way in which he has responded to the British Horse Society, the Ramblers Association, and amendment No. 1. The Department of Transport consulted interested parties to ensure that the amended legislation meets with their approval. That shows the Department at its best. That is why it will be possible to incorporate the amendment in the Bill.

I see that the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish is present. He has taken a great interest in footpaths, bridleways and rambling for many years. He will agree that the way in which consultations have taken place on Lords amendment No. 1 before it was put to the House, are a great assurance to the people outside the House whom he represents. It is on the record that there have been exchanges of correspondence between the organisations and the Department.

I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is starting a long filibuster, with several of his hon. Friends, to stop us reaching the Protection of Badger Setts Bill. I warn him that Opposition Members will be tempted to call Divisions if the filibuster continues on this amendment, which could have been moved formally. We have been through all the matters which the hon. Gentleman is discussing. Divisions had a disastrous effect on the Bill on a previous occasion. I suggest to him that, in trying to prevent us from reaching the Protection of Badger Setts Bill, he should not tempt Opposition Members too far.

I would be prepared to have the charge of filibustering levelled by you, Mr. Deputy Speaker or by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), if I had been speaking for 77 minutes. However, I resent it utterly when I have given you, the House and now the hon. Gentleman, a commitment that I have no intention whatever of filibustering. My speech will probably now last six or seven minutes instead of four or five minutes. It will have been prolonged not by me but by that intervention.

When I have given an absolute assurance that I do not intend to filibuster and shall speak for only six or seven minutes, I am not prepared to have that charge levelled at me. I have spoken for less than four minutes. I spoke for 77 minutes two months before the hon. Member for Linlithgow spoke for 80 minutes. If I had spoken for a similar length of time today I would accept a charge of filibustering from the hon. Member for Linlithgow.

I now wish to make progress. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish would know right from the beginning of my speech if I intended to filibuster. The signs are not there today. Those who have had the good fortune to listen to some of my slightly more lengthy speeches can tell from the tone and style of my speech and the speaking voice that I use whether I am filibustering. This morning I am not filibustering.

Representations were made in the House from various quarters. Therefore, it was agreed that a shorter period, of 18 months, would be appropriate where temporary orders would affect walkers, horse riders or cyclists, who may be rather more inconvenienced than motorised traffic by temporary closures and diversions. The effect of the amendment is simply to introduce a six-month time limit for such orders instead of an 18-month limit.

The amendment provides that the Secretary of State may extend the six-month period at the request of the authorities which issues the order.

That is an important fallback for the authorities. One cannot guarantee that everything will always be in apple-pie order within the six-month period. Equally, I understand worries about the original period of 18 months. That allows, as now, for some flexibility where circumstances justify a longer restriction. If my hon. Friend the Minister refuses the request, the authorities may not frustrate it and bring forward a further order until a period of three months has elapsed. Again, that formulation already exists in section 15.

Definitions are also provided for footpaths, bridleways, cycle tracks and byways open to all traffic by reference to existing statute, including those in Scotland where appropriate. The objective behind the amendment was agreed by the parties who intially expressed anxiety about long restrictions.

I bring my remarks to a close approximately two minutes later than would otherwise have been the case if the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish had not intervened.

It is a great pleasure to speak on the amendment. This most important Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) was a good Bill from the outset but, because of the examination that it received in another place and, indeed, its examination by organisations such as the British Horse Society and the Ramblers Association, it is now a better Bill. None of us can doubt that, after the work that the organisations have done, and the generous response which they and members of another place received from my hon. Friend the Minister, the Bill has been improved.

I was a local councillor and then a member of the Greater London council, so my local government experience is confined to London. I must confess that I had not realised what a mess this aspect of the law is outside London. I am pleased to note that London can teach the rest of the country something in that respect. There is no doubt that the law was a mess. We may well have cause to be extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South for sorting out the law on the matter.

Road users stand to gain from the presence of an adaptable and comprehensive measure to regulate traffic where necessary. The relaxation of the period for temporary orders will be widely welcomed as a useful step towards deregulation. The 18-month rule and the six-month rule created by the amendment will almost certainly simplify and reduce much of the bureaucracy. I am led to speculate on why the Bill and the amendment are necessary. The answer is that people do not get the efficiency they want from local authorities. Neither is it satisfactory from other statutory undertakers. When a sewer is replaced, or gas, or electricity or British Telecom works take place, promises are made about how long the work will take. We have all experienced that and we know that the promises never come true: the works go on and on. If one is really lucky, when the gas board finishes, the water authority immediately starts work.

The hon. Gentleman's remarks on that matter should be directed to the Minister. It is well within the power of the Government to bring in legislation in a new street works Bill to deal with the problem that the hon. Gentleman outlines. That is not the purpose of this Bill.

The Labour party thinks that it is possible to legislate for everything. I recognise that the Labour party takes the magic wand approach to policy.

I am sorry, but that remark is not worthy of the hon. Gentleman. He will be aware that the Department of Transport has held long sessions with working parties and that there is a consensus on the need for a new street works Bill. It is not a Labour party matter, although we support the proposal. There is a consensus across local authorities and the Departments involved.

I am suitably admonished. I accept that that remark was not worthy of me. There again, it was an accurate description of Labour policy.

I wish to examine the matter in detail. Local authorities probably have a responsibility. Undoubtedly people who use footpaths, bridlepaths and cycle tracks have been frustrated about the amount of time that the paths have been obstructed. The main procedural difference is that orders require local publicity in advance of restrictions, whereas notices can introduce restrictions with immediate effect. The more summary notice procedure is therefore strictly time-limited. The Bill clarifies the need in both instances to have regard to alternative routes. It will allow procedures to be prescribed that will ensure adequate signing.

What are the incentives for speedy completion of works? We all know that footpaths and bridleways are highways. One would not think so from the way in which they are abused at times. Authorities are under a general duty under section 130 of the Highways Act 1980 to

"assert and protect the rights of the public to the use and enjoyment of any highway"

and

"prevent…as far as possible, the stopping up or obstruction of the highways".

Authorities must still have regard to that duty when satisfying themselves of the need for a temporary restriction. Such restrictions will not be allowed to continue indefinitely, and those who wish to protect the right of people to use highways, bridleways, footpaths and cycleways will have the law on their side when they seek to ensure that that does not happen.

I was grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) when he responded to my intervention about major roadworks. Everybody wants major public works in principle, and everyone demands that the Government should pay for them. No one, however, wants them built on his doorstep. We may have an interesting example of that when we come to debate private business next Thursday. We shall learn whether hon. Members think it more important to build a new tube line in London than to have life disrupted just outside their front door. It will be interesting to hear the reaction of hon. Members. No one wants disruption, but it must take place if we are to have the infrastructure that we require.

My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South flattered me unintentionally. He thought, when I was talking about riding horses in my youth, that I was referring to the building of the M25. I am rather older than he thinks. I was talking about the construction of the M4, which cut across the footpaths and bridleways that I was accustomed to using when on horseback. I am grateful for the clarification that the Bill will not stop that usage.

My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) spoke about the British Horse Society and the consultation with it. He posed a question, and I am uncertain about the answer that he received. I know that the society, in a letter of 2 May to my hon. Friend the Minister, asked to be included

"among the interested bodies to be consulted on procedure regulations to be made under Clause I."

What was the answer to that request? I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to clarify the position when he replies to the debate. The society and other organisations should be included in consultation.

Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman to direct his remarks to the amendments that are before the House.

I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your intervention. I recall that the subject of consultation, and participation in it, was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South. I was seeking clarification. It is important that the British Horse Society and other organisations should be consulted and that their views should be known in detail, and not only in terms of the Bill, the provisions of which will be set in concrete when we enact it.

Lords Amendment No. 8 is important because of definitions. We always think that we know what we are talking about, and before I considered the Bill I thought that I knew what a footpath was. It is sometimes said, "I don't know what it is but I know it when I see it." When the Bill becomes law, it will be abundantly clear how a footpath, a cycle track or a bridleway is defined. The amendment redefines these facilities in a commonsense way that will be helpful to everyone.

When others come to determine tricky problems of protecting the countryside, including footpaths and bridleways, I believe that they will congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South on accepting Lords amendment No. 8 and on introducing the Bill to the statute book. I say that in a wider sense than footpaths and bridleways, because I consider the Bill to be an important measure, if a limited one. In times to come, people may want to name footpaths and bridleways after my hon. Friend; instead of Grimsdyke, which runs through part of my constituency, we shall have Brandon-Bravo footpaths and cycleways. I congratulate my hon. Friend on his Bill.

My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) is to be congratulated on having successfully piloted his Bill through to this stage. It has not always been easy. I recall that there was one occasion earlier in the proceedings when it almost seemed that the Bill had been lost. But he rescued it from the brink, and has seen to it that we are taking our final opportunity today to wish the Bill well.

It was perhaps a mark of the astuteness of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South that he should choose a measure whose general principles had already received a favourable response when they were the subject of wide consultation with interested bodies back in 1987. I refer to the TAPWORK report—the report of the traffic and parking working group—which my Department produced following discussion with local authority associations.

I understand that this group continues to provide a forum for discussion on a range of traffic and parking issues of mutual concern to the Department and authorities. I welcome that. The issues at stake in this area are as much of local relevance as they are nationally, and can only benefit from the mutual discussion and exchange of views which such a forum provides.

Other recommendations in the report have also found their way into law, notably in the Parking Act 1989, which was sponsored by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope). We are indebted to hon. Members on both sides of the House who bring forward worthwhile measures of this sort. Sponsoring a private Member's Bill can be a bit of a thankless task, but those who persevere, like my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South, have their reward, if only in terms of personal satisfaction.

The proposal to relax the existing consent requirements on temporary orders was included among a number of other proposals for improving traffic and parking powers and practices. As my hon. Friend has said, it met with majority approval. Local highway authorities, in particular, supported the suggestion that the time periods should be relaxed. The existing three-month time limit outside London has proved unrealistic. It has resulted in large numbers of orders being referred to the Department for extension. The case for an extention is incontrovertible. It makes no sense for central Government to be involved in such matters on a routine basis.

So it is clearly time for change. Local highway authorities are responsible bodies. They should be trusted to make their own judgment in these matters without having to resort to the Department.

Local highway authorities are also creatures of statute—with statutory obligations to exercise their traffic regulation powers with due regard to maintaining access, to the effects on the amenity of an area, and to other relevant matters. They must

"secure the expeditious, convenient and safe movement of traffic".

They must

"prevent as far as possible the stopping up or obstruction of the highway".

And they must

"protect the rights of the public to the use and enjoyment of the highway".

These duties are enshrined in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and the Highways Act 1980.

Against the background of these safeguards, it is indefensible to continue to subject authorities to a second-guessing consent regime after three months, especially where measures of a temporary nature only are involved. The case for relaxation is therefore overwhelming.

My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South has explained the amendments themselves in careful detail. I fully endorse his remarks. I am happy to express the Government's support for the amendments which are before the House and which were approved in the other place. what they will do is help to provide an incentive for authorities to limit the duration of orders affecting walkers, horse riders and other non-motorised traffic. It ought to be possible—as he says—for the inconvenience to such groups to be minimised, and rights of way restored more quickly after their temporary suspension.

The arguments advanced by the Ramblers Association and others were cogent and persuasive. I was therefore happy to give written undertakings to them and to the British Horse Society that their concerns had been noted.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) for his kind comments about the Department's response to those who were concerned. It is very much the business of the Department, where it possibly can, to ensure that agreement is obtained. In this instance, the help of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South, together with my officials, has resolved the difficulties. It may be appropriate to put the undertakings on record, which I was not able to do in earlier proceedings. I shall read out the main text of my letter of 30 April, addressed to the deputy secretary of the Ramblers Association:

"I believe you are not opposed to the Bill, in principle, but have a number of concerns over the details, on some of which there was unfortunately insufficient time for debate last Friday. I discussed these with Mr. Brandon-Bravo and we had agreed between us a number of points on which we hoped we could have satisfied you. It may be helpful if I record them below.

We are content for the Bill to be amended so that temporary orders affecting traffic other than motor vehicles on a footpath, bridleway, cycle track or byway have a more limited duration. We would like to propose 6 months, which would provide a limited relaxation on the present 3 month period, with a power for the Secretary of State to authorise a longer period, on the same basis as now under section 15 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. A suitable amendment would be brought forward in the Lords.

I am also prepared to consider whether, when the Bill is enacted, appropriate guidance might be issued by the Department to highway authorities about the exercise of their powers. This would aim to emphasise the statutory duties which already oblige them to protect rights of way and minimise obstruction. The Bill enhances the provisions about traffic signs. Guidance would underline the need for clear signing and its maintenance throughout the period of any restriction. It could also endorse the requirements in respect of alternative routes. I would be prepared to involve interested bodies in the preparation of such guidance. They will, in any case, be consulted on procedure regulations to be made under clause 1."

10.30 am

Those undertakings are now on the record, and I promise the House that they will be carefully respected. I am glad to report that the responses received were united in their welcome for, and acceptance of, this proposition.

For the Ramblers Association—this is the point that the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) raised in the original debates—Mr. Trevelyan suggested, in his reply, that the proposed guidance might be discussed in due course in the rights of way review committee, an informal non-statutory committee under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst). At the most recent meeting of the Committee, which I believe was on Monday this week, whose constituent members include the Ramblers Association, the Countryside Commission and a variety of other bodies concerned with countryside matters, I understand that members expressed their satisfaction with the outcome on the Bill and were content to be consulted in due course through their representative organisations. I should like to put on the record my gratitude to them for their co-operation, which I know is shared by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South.

As has been said, clause 1 provides for the Secretary of State to prescribe procedures to be followed in connection with the exercise by highway authorities of their powers under the Bill. This approach mirrors that already followed in connection with the main types of traffic regulation and parking place order under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. It has the advantage that procedures can be more easily modified at a later stage to reflect changes in circumstances; and that time can be taken to consult affected parties and take account of their views in drawing up the necessary regulations. The 1984 Act requires such consultation before regulations can be made. We value that process and will look forward to receiving responses from consultees in due course.

I hope that we shall consult on draft regulations during the autumn. Suitable guidance would be prepared at the same time. We would then aim to implement what I hope by that time will be an Act by commencement order, and publish the guidance, simultaneously with introducing the procedure regulations—perhaps, I hope, around the turn of the year.

Regulations on procedure will replace the provisions currently set out in schedule 3 to the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. Those deal, at present, with requirements for the prior publication of notices in local newspapers before a temporary order is made, and further notices to be published when the order is made. The notices must state the effect of the order and include a description of alternative routes available.

In the case of temporary restrictions by notice rather than by order, there is no requirement for prior publicity, but the same obligation to describe alternative routes must apply. In all cases, whether the restriction is by means of a notice or order, street notices must be posted conspiciouly at each end of the road and at intermediate junctions.

It is envisaged that new procedure regulations will cover much the same ground. There may be some modifications. In the case of motorways and urban clearways, for example, it hardly seems appropriate to require the posting of street notices where motorists cannot possibly stop to read them.

Order. Perhaps the Minister will tell me how all that relates to the amendments.

I had hoped, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I was dealing with the amendments in the round. As we did not have the opportunity to debate the details that were raised by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish on Second Reading, I was seeking to deal with them now. I hope that that meets with your approval.

I hope that the Minister can tell me and the House how he relates the matter that he is describing to the amendments that we are considering; otherwise, he must address his remarks specifically to the amendments.

I shall endeavour to do that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I was under the impression that I was discussing those matters at the request of the House, following the Second Reading debate, when I undertook to provide amendments that the representatives of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South could table in another place. I said that, when the amendments returned to this House, I would respond to them, and that is what I was endeavouring to do.

Perhaps I can continue, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and if you find me—

Order. I hope that the Minister will not be too prolix and that he will recognise that the Chair has a duty to safeguard the interests of other hon. Members who are waiting for their Bills to be reached. This is a private Members' day.

Yes, I understand that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I was trying to respond to the real concerns that were raised in the original debate, which I was requested to do by hon. Members of all parties, when my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South and others raised a number of topics. I thought that I had recorded my desire to do so in my earlier remarks, and my gratitude to those people who responded as a result of the amendments that were tabled in the Lords. What I am saying relates to those amendments. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South will agree with that. I shall endeavour to proceed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and see whether I can stay within your terms of order.

I am glad that, in his later comments, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South recognised the importance of traffic management. The main impact of the Bill will be in respect of traffic on the road network. We must ensure that highway authorities have an adequate and efficient means of managing the network. That is as relevant to temporary measures for emergency work, repairs to water mains, or other remedial work as it is in respect of permanent traffic orders. With rising car ownership and the increasing demand for travel, we must use every endeavour to ensure that we make the best use of the available road capacity.

I know that many hon. Members are concerned about congestion and delays that result from roadworks. That matter was referred to in interventions by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) and the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock). The Bill does not seek to strengthen the law in respect of road works by utilities, and the matter of subsequent reinstatement. Many hon. Members have made clear their support for more far-reaching changes in the management of utility street works. The Horne report—the report of a review carried out under the chairmanship of Professor Horne—made a convincing case for reform. The Government accepted that case, and I am delighted that the hon. Member for Deptford also accepts it. I hope that, when that matter is debated in the House, we shall have a short debate and reach agreement on the reform of the Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950, which covers the matter that we have discussed.

The Bill, however, is now an appropriate vehicle for piecemeal changes to street works legislation. I hope that we shall bring forward such legislation in the not too distant future.

The Bill and the Lords amendments relate to the TAPWORK report—the report of the traffic and parking working group—to which I referred in my opening remarks. The report supported the recommendation of the Horne committee that highway authorities should have the power to charge public utilities undertaking road works, so recovering the costs of making traffic orders, erecting signs and other associated costs.

Order. I do not think that that has anything at all to do with the amendments. Am I wrong?

I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but this matter arose during the debate and I am responding to it. I thought that that was the task of a Minister during debate.

I do not think that these matters relate to the debate—I may be wrong. Perhaps the matter was referred to when Mr. Speaker was in the Chair.

I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but you were not in the Chair when that matter was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West, and the hon. Member for Deptford intervened; Mr. Speaker was in the Chair at the time. In the circumstances, I thought that it would be wise for me to touch on that matter now, and I hoped that the House would approve of that. That was certainly my intention.

My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South has not sought to include those matters in his Bill. Perhaps he was wise to limit his ambitions in that respect. The Government have, however, already accepted the principle that the highway authority should be able to recover from any body excavating in the highway any reasonable costs in making temporary traffic orders and signposting traffic diversions. That is what the Bill and the Lords amendments are all about.

In view of your strictures, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I do not wish to delay the House unnecessarily. There are matters that I can gloss over, in view of the concerns that have been expressed. The ones to which you have just referred are not incorporated in the Bill. In many respects I am glad that they are not.

On Report, the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish suggested that the sole aim of the Bill was to help bureaucrats in the Department and in local authorities and that it would do nothing for the general public. That is not the case. Anyone who has worked in local government, as I have, will know that local authorities take their highways responsibilities seriously. Their aim is to minimise disruption from roadworks and maintenance and to manage traffic efficiently in the public interest. The Department's objectives in that respect are no different. My hon. Friend's Bill, and the amendments that were tabled in the Lords, are not designed simply to save my officials' time. He would be the first to admit that.

My hon. Friend has done a remarkably good job in trying to co-ordinate the speed and pace at which road repairs are going ahead, but is he aware that in my constituency there is a positively third-world problem?

Order. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should obtain a copy of the Lords amendments before he intervenes again.

Perhaps my hon. Friend ought to come to see me on another occasions, when we might discuss the third-world effects of road congestion in Crawley.

On Report, the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish suggested that the sole aim of the Bill was to help bureaucrats. However, it is aimed at streamlining the process and cutting out wasteful and unnecessary bureaucracy at the centre. I am confident that the aims of the Bill and the amendments that were tabled in the Lords, at my hon. Friend's suggestion, will commend themselves to the whole House.

On Report, the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)—who, I regret to say, is not, unusually, in his place—took us on a brief visit to Swallow Falls. It reminds me that the Bill, and the amendments that were tabled in the Lords, relate to Wales as well as to England and Scotland, as does the 1984 Act that the Bill seeks to amend.

On a number of occasions, our debates have also touched on green lanes, the colloquial expression for byways open to all traffic, otherwise known as BOATs. The amendments that we are considering would introduce the shorter six-month time limit for temporary orders affecting byways, which Lords amendment No. 8 defines more prosaically as

"a highway over which the public have a right of way for vehicular and all other kinds of traffic but which is used by the public mainly for the purpose for which footpaths and bridleways are used."

That definition already appears in section 127 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.

In view of your strictures, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall not linger on byways, a subject that properly deserves separate attention. Suffice it to say that I share the desire to preserve historic routes and that I am concerned at instances where there appears to be inappropriate or over-intensive use by vehicular traffic.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has been requested by the Countryside Commission to initiate traffic regulation powers on part of the Ridgeway national trail. Preparations are in hand for draft orders that would impose a ban on recreational vehicle use on Sundays throughout the year. The aim is to reduce the scope for conflict between vehicular users and those on foot or horseback. Draft orders will be published in due course. There will be an opportunity for public comment and representation.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the strong feeling that the orders go far too far as it is, and that the conflict between users of vehicles and pedestrians and horses has not been satisfactorily resolved by the Government? Further consideration must be given to the extreme selfishness of those who drive motor bikes and motor cars over those roads, resulting in such dreadful effects for horse riders and walkers.

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention. I know that he feels deeply about the matter and that he speaks about it with considerable knowledge. I am sure that he will pursue it. If I dealt with it now, you would rule me out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Perhaps, therefore, my hon. Friend will write to me, when I shall be more than happy to pursue the matter.

If the Lords amendments were passed, I understand that the highway authority could ask the Minister to extend the period beyond six months, but that the Minister could refuse the request. After such a refusal, highway authorities could not make another application for at least another three months. My hon. Friend would have an absolute power in respect of highway authorities if the Lords amendments were passed. In what circumstances would he use his absolute power to refuse a highway authority permission for an extension beyond the original six-month period?

I am cautious about suggesting that I have absolute power over anything. I should not wish to exercise absolute power. However, as usual, my hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head and in his question has also defined the answer.

The aim of the draft orders would be to reduce the scope for conflict between vehicular users and those on foot or horseback. Draft orders will be published in due course. There will be an opportunity for public comment and representation before the matter is taken further. I am reminded that at one of my earlier meetings with my departmental officials the topics included green lanes, orange badges and red routes. I do not intend to be drawn on matters that are outside the terms of the Lords amendments.

Traffic signals are an essential component of many temporary traffic schemes. I am very nearly at the close of my remarks, Mr. Deputy Speaker, which, as the House will recall, were the result of a commitment that I made at an earlier stage when I was pressed, not least by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish, to establish the procedure for tabling the Lords amendments. I am grateful that the House recognises that it is important for me to expand on the amendments.

Traffic signals are an essential component of many temporary traffic schemes, the subject of the Bill and the Lords amendments. They can make the difference between an orderly queue at roadworks, and chaos as alternating traffic competes for priority. It is sometimes sensible to phase roadworks along a stretch of road so that the minimum length of road is out of commission at any one time. In such cases, the temporary restriction need apply only where appropriate traffic signs are in place.

However, when the temporary order is first made it may not be known what the contractor's sequence of work will be. There is a need for flexibility to cope with that. One of the less conspicuous items in the Bill, clause 14(4), provides the necessary freedom to organise these matters in the most effective manner by reference to section 4(1) of the 1984 Act, which allows a traffic regulation order to have effect only where the relevant traffic signs are in place.

The Bill retains the present power to make temporary restrictions in the interests of protecting the public from danger. It is equally important that safety at roadworks is given due consideration. That is why I welcome clause 1(5), which ensures that temporary speed restrictions at roadworks and contraflow sections on motorways are subject to the same penalties as speeding offences elsewhere. The maximum penalty will remain at level 3 —£400, as now—but will be strengthened by the additional powers of obligatory endorsement and discretionary disqualification.

On report I made a comment about being an avid follower of grand prix and other motor sports. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish thought that I might have powers to close roads temporarily for motor racing. I have to disappoint him; I have no such powers. Racing on the public highway is an offence. Motorists who do not observe speed limits through coned-off sections of road are acting foolishly and dangerously, as well as illegally. The Bill will ensure that they face the full force of the law.

The Bill contains a collection of small but useful measures. Taken together—

I am not entirely sure that the Minister gave me the assurance I sought about consultation with the British Horse Society under clause 1. He referred to the consultations and the correspondence, but I am not sure that he said that he intended to consult the society under the terms of clause 1.

I certainly intend to consult wherever necessary. That has always been the policy of the Department of Transport. Given the opportunity to consult, we always do so.

In conclusion, the Bill contains a collection of small but useful measures. Taken together, they will provide more flexibility and better powers to manage traffic for temporary periods in the interests of minimising congestion and disruption. They will reduce unnecessary bureaucracy and help authorities to respond more quickly and positively when the need arises.

In congratulating my hon. Friend on the way in which he handled the Bill, which demonstrates his skill in these matters, I give the Bill and the Lords amendments my wholehearted support.

I shall make the briefest of remarks, because I hope that we shall proceed to other private Members' Bills this morning.

I associate the Opposition with the Minister's remarks —of course only those which were in order—in supporting the Lords amendments. It is a considerable tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) that he so powerfully raised the interests of the Ramblers Association, walkers and riders at the start of our proceedings on the Bill, leading to the success of the Lords amendments which have enabled us to reach a happy consensus.

Perhaps I am anticipating today's conclusion, but, as one who has successfully piloted a private Member's Bill through the House, I know just how much stress is involved and how thrilling it is when one reaches the final hurdle and, one hopes, gets over it. However, I warn the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) that he will have to make sure that the Minister keeps his undertaking to make regulations. To date, the Government have failed to put the regulations to my Bill. I am sure that that comment was out of order, but I thought that I might get away with it.

I conclude on a happy note. I congratulate the hon. Member for Nottingham, South. It is indeed a Bill of small but useful measures. We support the Lords amendments and the Bill as amended.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am not the loser as a result of this childish procedural nonsense; the loser is the British public. The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) graciously gave the Bill the Opposition's blessing. You will be aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that this is the second time in the past few months that a procedural attempt has been made—by people who otherwise profess their support for the Bill—to ensure that it is blocked. Is there no way in which Back Benchers can seek some form of protection from this crazy nonsense?

I well understand the hon. Gentleman's resentment, but it is not a matter for me. Nothing out of order has taken place, and I think that it would be unfruitful for us to embark on a post mortem.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

I hope that it is one.

I think that you. Mr. Deputy Speaker, will be knowledgeable enough to know that what happened this morning was that the Government failed to get their required 40 hon. Members to vote. That is an indictment of Tory Members and others who were unable to be present. Let me remind you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—you were not in the Chair at the beginning, although you were probably present—that at the beginning we were happy to allow the Bill and the amendment to go through on the nod. It is pretty clear that Conservative Member were talking at length to stop the protection of Badger setts Bill.

Order. That is not a matter for me. It will not help the House or hon. Members who have Bills—

rose—

Order. Hon. Members must not seek to rise when the occupant of the Chair is on his or her feet. It only wastes time, and it is not useful. Unless hon. Members raise genuine points of order, I warn them that I shall not hesitate to interrupt them.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is there no way in which you can use your influence to tell the House whether the Government are filibustering in an attempt to block all today's Bills? After all, the Minister spoke for half an hour on the last Bill.

Order. Point of order, Mr. Martyn Jones.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It seems that the Bill has merely been adjourned until the next sitting, which will comprise Government business. If the Government wish the Bill to go ahead, they can give time for it on Monday.

Unlikely though it may seem, that is correct.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Is it a genuine point of order?

It is entirely genuine. I raised a point of order earlier with Mr. Speaker about the disgraceful conduct of the hon. Member for Clywd, South-West (Mr. Jones)—

Order. I heard that exchange, and I remember that Mr. Speaker ruled on it. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not seeking a second ruling from me.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

I hope that this point of order is more genuine than the last one.

It is genuine. It is a different point of order relating to my previous point of order. The House has already been insulted; now a filibuster is in progress, with pointless votes—

Order. This is merely a different bogus point of order.

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

With this we may take Lords amendment No. 2.

These are technical amendments, but it is only proper that I should briefly explain them to the House.

I thank my predecessor Lord Kimball for so ably steering my Bill through the other place. I also thank my noble Friend the Earl of Radnor for his diligence and experience, which enabled him to spot a point that had hitherto been missed, despite all the careful scrutiny that the Bill had received from those on the working party that developed it—lawyers, officials of three Government Departments, parliamentary draftsmen and so on. The point did not surface during the Bill's earlier passage through the House, despite the careful consideration that it was given.

Although the amendments are being dealt with as Government amendments, they derive from that important point. It concerns the definition of "grass" in new section 137A, which the Bill inserts into the Highways Act 1980 to deal with the problem of crops that are allowed to encroach on or grow on a right of way. I do not need to remind the House that the new section is the key provision of the Bill. The survey carried out by the Countryside Commission into the condition of the rights-of-way network found that crops growing on the line of rights of way were the single most prevalent factor affecting the public's use and enjoyment of footpaths and bridleways.

The vagueness and uncertainty of the present law severely limits the ability of local authorities to deal with the problems effectively. The amendments go to the heart of an important Bill. Section 137A requires a farmer to prevent any crop "other than grass"—that is the key phrase—from either obliterating the line of the right of way on the ground or making the right of way inconvenient to use. The Bill will impose on the farmer a clear duty to ensure that the line of the right of way is apparent on the ground. If he fails to do so, the authority may clear or cut back the crop as necessary and recover its costs, or it may prosecute him. It is essential that the section is as clear and unambiguous as possible. When the Bill left this House it was not, and that could have led to all sorts of problems.

The section applies to a crop "other than grass" for a number of reasons. I have spoken before about the problem caused to walkers and riders by the invasion of paths by oilseed rape, nicknamed by some "the yellow peril" because of its vivid colour and its habit of growing as a dense impenetrable mass reminiscent of a tropical rain forest.

More traditional crops—wheat, oats, rye, barley and the like—can be a considerable problem when they are growing across the line of a right of way. It is hard to have an enjoyable walk in the countryside if one must wade through acre after acre—should I now say hectare after hectare?—of knee or waist-high crops, particularly if they are wet.

We have heard from hon. Members about the scale of the problem and how such crops can deter many people from even venturing on to footpaths and bridleways. As every survey shows, most people who walk in the countryside are very law abiding and are discouraged from walking by such hindrances.

My hon. Friend says that the majority of people who walk in the countryside are very law abiding. Is he aware of the increasing concern among farmers about people failing to secure gates and to leave the countryside as they found it? Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the Bill and the Lords amendments deal sufficiently with the farming community's concern in that respect?

I am anxious to keep strictly to the amendment. My hon. Friend makes a worthwhile point and speaks from personal experience, but I hope that he will not mind if I do not go down that footpath because I want to remain strictly in order. As always, he made his point fairly and very well.

It has always been accepted that there is no justification for applying the provisions of the new section to pasture land—pasture can be either permanent or pasture that has been sown like any other crop—and that they should not apply to hay meadows. It was pointed out in an earlier debate that hay meadows can be pleasant to walk through.

The problem throughout has been how to define grass. The amendment addresses that because it was the substance of what their Lordships were worried about. The problem was considered by the working party of the rights of way committee. That group, which represents all interests in a powerful network, put together the excellent measures in the Bill, and I stress that the Bill is widely supported by all sides of the countryside network and hon. Members. The committee's legal advisers paid much attention to the problem.

Hon. Members might say that crops and grass are understandable and straightforward terms, and so they are, and the working party's initial advice from its experienced learned counsel was that the courts would have no difficulty with either term. The Bill, as first presented to the House and debated on Second Reading, simply referred to

"a crop other than grass"

without attempting to define either term. The House was satisfied with that; although several important points of detail were made by hon. Members, that was not one of them.

Doubts were first expressed, however, about several detailed points on the drafting of the Bill by Department of Transport lawyers. In their initial reaction, they were unkind enough to say that the word "grass" might be roast beef to litigators. Whether grass can be roast beef to the Department of Transport or anyone else I do not know, but they raised several detailed points that caused much difficulty to those who drafted the Bill.

That caused the working party to reconsider the issue with the experienced draftsmen who had framed the Bill and to take further technical advice from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the National Farmers Union on how grass might be defined. It considered many possibilities, but, as I do not want to prolong the debate, I will not go into them. Suffice it to say, briefly, that it considered the definition of grass in previous Acts of Parliament, such as the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, and in common agricultural policy set-aside procedures.

The working party found two problems, the first of which is technical. The crops that must be kept clear of rights of way must include cereal crops—wheat, oats, barley and the like. The difficulty is that, technically, or botanically at least, certain cereals—wheat, barley and oats, for example—are also classified as a grass. It might have been possible for a clever lawyer to argue that a crop growing on a right of way was perfectly legal and permissible, however inconvenient it might be to path users. That is why the amendment is so important. If their Lordships had not spotted the problem, it might have been possible to drive a coach and horses through the provisions of the Bill. That is why we must briefly discuss it.

I must declare an interest, because, as a farmer, I am growing oats and vetches for silage, and it might be difficult to define how the amendment would apply to them. If there are difficulties with cereal crops grown for silage, could not they be overcome if the so-called problem crops to which my hon. Friend referred—rye, oats, wheat, maize, barley and the like—were defined in the amendment? If they were set out in statute, it might overcome the difficulty and prevent those of us who earn a paltry living by farming from running foul of the law.

That is an important intervention; my hon. Friend speaks from personal experience. I rang the executors of Sir Joseph Nickerson, which is one of the leading seed companies in the country and is my constituent. If I wanted to waste time, which I do not, I could go through an enormous list of varieties of winter wheat, winter barley and spring barley. I have the set-aside procedures and could read out all the crops that are listed.

My hon. Friend's suggestion would not have worked because the schedule to the Act would have had to be so long that it would be unworkable. I am trying to go through this carefully, step by step, but if my hon. Friend is patient I shall explain that, having rejected the schedule setting out what is or is not a grass, and having gone through those difficult matters botanically, we have found another way of proceeding. I hope that at the end of my brief explanation the House will be satisfied about these technical but important matters.

As I said, the problem could have caused much confusion in the courts, and it has been made more difficult by the great advance in recent years in plant breeding. A range of cereal crops, many of which, botanically, are considered as grasses, have come on to the market.

The second problem is a practical one—to achieve a definition of grass that will not only be satisfactory for the statute book and understood by the courts but can be understood and applied by the farmer and the rights of way officer. The working party has striven hard to make the Bill as clear and straightforward as possible, and the essence of the Bill is that it must be easily understood. The working party was keen to ensure that the rights of way officer should not have to be a qualified agronomist or have a degree in botany to work out whether the law was being broken. He must be able to do so at any stage of the crop, or at least as soon as it begins to inconvenience users of the right of way. That goes to the heart of the Bill and I reassure farmers that they need not worry about a crop growing on a path; they need to worry when it becomes inconvenient to users of the path. One should not have to wait until the crop is matured to be able to see what it is. The farmer needs a straightforward, simple definition of what he can or cannot grow on a right of way. It is no good expecting him to refer to a long technical list of botanical species and sub-species or different strains to decide whether he is keeping within the law.

The working party rejected as impractical the idea of identifying individual species or strains, as identified in some Acts or Common Market regulations. Its draftsmen produced a simple—I am coming to the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) asked—and straightforward definition that a particular crop shall be treated as grass—and these are the words that were in the Bill before it went to the other place—

"if, and only if, it is of a variety or mixture commonly used for pasture, silage or haymaking, whether or not it is intended for such a use in that case."

That seemed to satisfy everyone. The Government's parliamentary draftsmen, the lawyers, even the lawyers of the Department of Transport who had caused so much trouble earlier, the Department of the Environment, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the NFU, the Country Landowners Association and the ramblers were all satisfied with what seemed to be a reasonable way of defining the problem.

My hon. Friend is my next-door neighbour and represents a large rural agricultural constituency, where probably more cereals are grown than anywhere else in the country. Is he aware that the definition of grass in the Bill, at least when I last heard it, mentioned silage? Is he aware that silage can be made from cereals? Is not that a problem?

My hon. Friend makes a fair point. If he will be patient for a moment, I shall deal with the issue of cereals being used for silage, which is a relatively modern procedure. This point also goes to the heart of the Lords amendments.

The amendment was one of a series that were designed to add clarity to the Bill and which both sides of the Committee were pleased to accept. The long experience and wise counsels in the other place, which are so valuable to us, especially on countryside matters, came into play in this issue. The Earl of Radnor, from his long experience of farming and the countryside, noticed what no one else had noticed, but which my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) has already noticed—in the past, certain cereals have been grown for silage. At once it was possible to see that there was a gaping hole in the middle of the Bill. Perhaps the Earl of Radnor had in mind also the rapid and continuing development of new strains and species. He was concerned that the words in the Bill could still lead to legal arguments, which we are all trying hard to avoid.

Raising the point in this way encouraged the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to look at the problem again on behalf of the working party. It found that, although oats were once grown widely for silage, that practice is currently restricted to a few hundred acres in Scotland. As the Bill applies only to England and Wales and as no cereals are grown for this purpose in England and Wales, the Department's initial advice was that any claim that cereals were commonly grown for silage would be unlikely to succeed.

At this point, therefore, it seemed that their Lordships' fears were ungrounded and that the amendment was not necessary. But it was then realised that failed cereal crops could sometimes be used as pasture or be fed to livestock while they were still green. That might be the case with, for example, a crop that had been damaged by frost or had failed to ripen. Occasionally a farmer might run short of feed and want to use a growing cereal crop as emergency pasture.

In the light of all this, everyone realised at that stage that the Earl of Radnor's amendment was a valuable and important addition to the Bill. It will close this potentially troublesome loophole by excluding any cereal crop from the definition of "grass". It does so regardless of arguments about botanical species or strains, with all the difficulties that I have described to my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside, and it clearly sets out what a crop will be grown and used for.

Unfortunately a further difficulty arose, for which I must apologise. The parliamentary draftsmen were not entirely satisfied with the words chosen by the Earl of Radnor to frame his amendment and preferred their own words. Throughout the Bill's passage, we have repeatedly come up against parliamentary and departmental draftsmen and we have always given in to their demands, just as we have done today. The difficulty led to a Government amendment to an amendment on Report in the other place.

I have gone through the story logically step by step and am now coming to what I hope will be a happy ending. The amendment is a small but valuable addition to the Bill.

I thought that my hon. Friend was coming to a point that he has not yet covered. Although he has dealt with grass and cereals in the countryside, he has not covered another crop. I have a crop of peas in at the moment, mixed with oats and vegetables. Would a pea crop be adequately covered by the Bill? I bring my hon. Friend back again to the possibility of having a schedule. It would be cumbersome, but it would leave the matter beyond doubt, as it would set out precisely what crops were covered and what were not. What about peas?

That is an interesting point. At about half-past eleven last night, I asked myself that question when an officer of the Countryside Commission and I were discussing how we could get the Bill through today. He told me that he was satisfied that the Bill covered all crops, whether they are soft root crops, peas or beans. The Countryside Commission was anxious that the Bill should be passed, and it is satisfied that these matters are covered.

Although sometimes the House has a reputation for shouting party political abuse, it comes out best on this type of issue. There is all-party support on this technical and complicated Bill. There have been hundreds of hours of detailed scrutiny by parliamentary draftsmen. Thanks to the efforts of my noble Friend Lord Kimball, the Earl of Radnor, members of the Labour party, the Countryside Commission, the NFU, the CLA and Conservative Members, and provided the House agrees to the Lords amendments, the Bill will be right, will work and will be a major benefit to the 17 million people who every year walk through the countryside.

I follow my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh), who said that he hoped that the Lords amendments would lead to a happy ending, by expressing a small measure of doubt. As he knows, the Bill is supported by both sides of the House, and I have expressed my support for it in the past. My concern, as on the previous occasion when I spoke, relates to the fact that the Bill must be not only enforceable by farmers and countryside officers, who can be presumed to have the detailed technical knowledge necessary to enforce its provisions, but immediately obvious to ordinary members of the public, like the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) and myself—two keen ramblers. People must be able to see clearly when the Bill's provisions are breached and when they are not. I have severe doubts whether the amendment as drafted, without a schedule, will make the Bill more easily enforceable.

Without a schedule, we have to fall back on whether a path, bridleway or road is being encroached upon by a crop of cereals or by grass. I am not sure that the definition will be obvious to the average rambler like me or even to the average amateur botanist. My first query is directed to either my hon. Friend the Minister or my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle: in the absence of a schedule, is there in statute or case law a definition of "cereal" which could be used instantly without recourse to further legislation?

I shall try to answer my hon. Friend's question. I understand his anxiety. I am sure that he will accept, however, that it would have been absurd to have drafted the Bill in such a way as to make it illegal for a farmer to grow grass across a right of way.

indicated assent.

My hon. Friend accepts that point. One must let the grass grow. Having accepted that, one is up against the second problem—botanically, many cereals are grasses. We all know that cereal crops are a major disincentive to walkers, and this is the key point of the Bill. My hon. Friend heard me refer to the many strains of cereals that exist and the many new strains that are being developed. I hope that he accepts that, as a matter of common sense, we have got the Bill about right. The farmer will understand that he can grow grass on a right of way, provided that it is not a cereal. That is a common-sense way forward. I believe that he can make the legislation stick.

I accept my hon. Friend's point. The majority of farmers who wish to stay within the confines of the Bill will understand it. My point relates to the small minority of farmers who, as in the past, do not necessarily wish to stay within the strict confines of the law and those people who are not farmers, and presumably do not have the technical knowledge to recognise a cereal crop. Those who feel that the law is being encroached upon will not immediately be able to say, "I must report this offence to the highways authority, because it involves encroachment by grass"; or, "This is an offence that I must report to the Countryside Commission, because we are dealing with encroachment by cereals"; or, "This is not an offence."

11.30 am

As I explained to my hon. Friend on a previous occasion, I am concerned that although we must accept—as he does and, as he knows, I do—that the vast majority of people who use the countryside will do so with good will and in the spirit of the legislation, which I hope reaches the statute book today, we must remember the areas where friction has arisen. In that connection, we must question whether the legal definition that we are using in the Bill will aid the resolution of problems that have arisen as a result of that friction.

I must go more deeply into why I am worried by the absence of a definition of cereals. I have had the good fortune to refer to what I understand to be the standard work on British grasses. In "Grasses" by Mr. C. E. Hubbard, I find that there are eight different groups of grasses which are commonly referred to as cereals.

I will not go through all the groups because I am conscious of the need to make progress today. But I shall refer to the three groups which are commonly referred to under the heading of oats, and I hope hon. Members will forgive me if I refer to them also by their Latin definitions, not least because the debate will be unintelligible to botanists without mention of those definitions.

That group of oats is known as the avenas. The three groups of avena which are commonly referred to as cereals are the avena-strigosa, which is the bristle or small oat; the avena sativa, which is the common oat and the one most frequently seen; and the avena byzantina—not often seen in this country—which is the red or Algerian oat. None of those groups includes perhaps one of the commonest plants in the countryside, the avena fatua, which is the common wild oat.

So we immediately have the difficulty that even by basic botanical definition, there are four similar plants, three of which are cereals and one of which is not. When we consider the structure of those plants, the position to anyone other than a farmer or acknowledged botanist becomes even more confusing because all four plants are annuals, all four can grow to about 100 cm high and all four have culms—for the benefit of non-botanists I should explain that the culm is the overall structure of the seed of the plant which can be tufted or solitary, erect or bent and can contain three to five nodes.

I trust that my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle appreciates that a non-botanist, walking along a path which has been encroached on by something which even to a non-botanist is recognised as a member of the oat family, whether wild or cultivated, will have some difficulty knowing whether an offence has been committed and, if it has, to whom to complain. If the encroachment is by cereal oats, my hon. Friend may say that it will be obvious because the rambler might see the cereal oats stretching for some distance, but where a field has been left to pasture and it has been seeded—

I appreciate that my hon. Friend is making a serious point and, while I cannot claim to be a botanist, I intervene because I think that I have the answer to his question. The Lords amendment would make the provision read:

"For the purposes of the application of sub-section (1) above in the case of a particular crop, the crop shall be treated as grass if, and only if… it is a variety commonly used for pasture, silage or haymaking, and…it is not a cereal crop."

In other words, the oats about which my hon. Friend is speaking must meet those two tests. But the problem he raises would be addressed not simply by that provision, for they might not meet those tests. The difficulty would be addressed by the point I made in my initial remarks, when I explained that when the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food did its reasearch, it found that although it may have been true that oats were once widely grown for silage, that practice is currently restricted to a few hundred acres in the far western islands of Scotland, and the Bill will apply only to England and Wales. So my hon. Friend's point about oats, although well made, should not be a problem in England and Wales, where the Bill will apply.

I take my hon. Friend's point, but I fear that he has not taken mine. I accept that when it comes to enforcing the legislation, as a result of the expert advice which my hon. Friend just cited, the enforcement authority may be clear that we are dealing with encroachment by a grass, the common wild oat, or by a crop—any of the other versions of avena to which I referred.

The trouble is that by the time we have reached that stage we shall be several steps down the road. We do not have, as a result of the Lords amendment, a list of the different botanical varieties of oat available to the Countryside Commission and the highways authority so that, on receipt of a complaint from, say, myself as a rambler, the highways authority will immediately be able to say that it is a particular type—

I interrupt my hon. Friend again because I think I can help him overcome that problem. The officers of the Countryside Commission are listening to the debate. They are drawing up a code of practice which will be sent to every farmer in the country. Would it help my hon. Friend if I said that after the Bill becomes an Act we can do some work on the subject and make sure that clear guidance is given to farmers so that the problem is addressed?

My hon. Friend is going a long way towards meeting my objection, but if such guidance is to be drawn up, it should be made more widely available than just to farmers. As I told my hon. Friend on a previous occasion, difficulties have occurred not with the vast majority of farmers but with the few who are prepared to see highways, bridleways and paths misused and who in the past have not shown themselves to be particularly concerned with infringements of highways and byways. If such guidance is drawn up, it should be made available not only to every farmer but to the Ramblers Association for dissemination among its branches, to local botanical societies for dissemination among their members and to all organisations through which users of the countryside might have access to the information. By disseminating the information to farmers my hon. Friend is going some way to meeting the problem, but he should go further.

I cannot give an undertaking on behalf of the Countryside Commission, but I undertake to convey my hon. Friend's fears to that body. I agree that if this important measure is to work, the widest possible dissemination of the points in question should be made to all interested organisations. So I give my hon. Friend the undertaking he seeks.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend.

I support the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern), and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) will honour the undertaking that he has given. But in view of the extreme lack of credibility in the Countryside Commission among those who have knowledge of, or dealings with, the countryside, may I ask my hon. Friend to agree to discuss with my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle the issue of what is the right body to produce the material for dissemination? By that means we shall ensure that its presentation is entirely honourable and factual.

I should be only too happy to accede to that request and to become involved in discussions of that nature with my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle. Given the good will that exists generally for the Bill among hon. Members in all parts of the House, I hope that such discussions could involve not just me but, for example, the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish, with his well-known concern for the ramblers' organisations, and other hon. Members who have expressed interest in the subject.

At present, there is a general understanding of what the Bill means by a "cereal", at least among farmers and their organisations. However, we are dealing with one of the fastest-changing sectors of agronomy in this country and in the western world. Therefore, I hope that in making the arrangements to provide regular information to farmers and other organisations about the definition of a cereal as it now appears in the Bill, the Countryside Commission and other organisations will undertake regularly to review the nature of their advice so that all new varieties of cereal are compared with similar grasses and there is no possibility of the position being changed by legislation or litigation in four or five years' time. By that time, as I am sure farmers present will agree, there may be an entirely different major cereal crop in this country.

My hon. Friend will recall that, during his excellent speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) mentioned set-aside policies. I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) is pursuing an important point because the imperative of the set-aside policy may lead to the sort of circumstances that he mentioned. That makes it even more pressing for my hon. Friend the Minister to state at length how the Government intend to frame the legislation.

I entirely accept my hon. Friend's point.

I accept the spirit of the amendment, but I remain concerned about the availability of information to enable the amendment to be enforced. I readily accept the undertaking of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) to involve non-farming organisations as widely as possible in the drawing up of the definitions and their dissemination to make the clause enforceable.

I wish to make two or three points, and to raise a possible inconsistency, a possible difficulty and a matter brought to my attention by a group of constituents. I am a great supporter of the Bill and spoke in support of it on Second Reading. The Bill states that crops should not encroach on a highway to reduce its apparent width, which means that tall crops such as rape should be cut back by farmers should they grow over the right of way. That does not apply to grass, but, as we heard earlier, cereals are grasses and the amendment is designed to deal with that.

There is an inconsistency, because cereals will have to be cut back to provide a clear right of way, but not grass. A crop of grass such as cocksfoot has a growing habit similar to that of wheat or barley. It grows to much the same height and tends to hang over more than wheat and barley, yet the cereals will have to be cut back, but the cocksfoot will not.

I raise the second difficulty not to be nit-picking, but because it seems best to raise such points and receive an answer to them in this place. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) said, if, growing among a field of cocksfoot there are wild oats, are they defined as grass or cereal? I do not know. If the wild oats among the cocksfoot overhang the path, are they to be treated as grass or cereal?

My final point was raised with me by a group of constituents who enjoy walking in the country.

We know that my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson) has professional expertise in this matter, and he makes a fair point. However, the basis of the Bill is compromise. It was agreed that the Bill would not apply to grasses used for silage or hay making. If we were to try to address the problem as my hon. Friend seeks, the agreement on which the Bill is based—we all know that private Bills go through with agreement—would have fallen down. My hon. Friend was making a fair point, but I hope that he will accept that we had to make a rough compromise, which is what we have done.

I appreciate the work that my hon.Friend has done on the Bill, and I realise that it involves a delicate compromise between various groups of interests. In the light of what he has said, I am satisfied on that point.

A group of my constituents have raised an unusual point. They told me that, when they go for walks in the country, they actually enjoy finding difficulties and obstructions on the paths. They say that when they go for walks around the constituency and in towns and cities, everything is even and easily laid out for them, so they simply walk along the pavements, which is no challenge to them. When they get into the country, they enjoy it if they have some difficulty in getting from A to B, and have to clamber over a tree trunk that has fallen over the path. They say that they carry wire cutters and if they come to a strand of barbed wire they take the greatest pleasure in snipping it so that when they get home they feel that they have accomplished something. Therefore, it seems that the Bill, although welcome—

I refer my hon. Friend to column 1181 of Hansard, 23 February 1990 where, on Second Reading I referred to the very point he makes and mentioned the 1988 Countryside Commission survey, carried out by 1,000 volunteers. I said:

"They discovered that on a typical two-mile walk along the 140,000 mile footpath network there was a two in three chance of meeting an obstacle … Impenetrable vegetation or hedges or fences across a footpath can be dealt with by existing legislation. The most important problem, which occurs repeatedly in the surveys, is the ploughing up and cropping of footpaths."—[Official Report, 23 February 1990; Vol. 47, c. 1181.]

They found that, contrary to what my hon. Friend says about some people liking to wade through knee or waist-high cereals, most people do not like doing so. The problem addressed by the Bill is the single greatest disincentive to the enjoyment of the 17 million people who wish to walk in the countryside every year.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I have raised with him the point that my constituents asked me to, he has given me an answer that I will happily relay to them. I am sure that what he says is right and the vast majority of people would much rather not meet with obstacles. I thank him for the fair-minded way in which he has answered my point.

Rights of way are notoriously complex and arouse strong emotions and argument. Even the botany underlying some of the issues is far from straightforward, as we have heard this morning. It is to the credit of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) that he has threaded his way through the complexities and produced legislation that commands almost universal assent.

More than 40 amendments were accepted in Committee. They were mostly technical amendments, clarifying the Bill's intention. Taken together, they demonstrate the almost overriding importance of ensuring that the Bill is practical, workable and immediately understandable. It was because the Highways Act 1980 was widely misunderstood, and landowners, local authorities and path users had difficulty in interpreting some of its provisions, that the need for this legislation became so apparent.

The failure to restore paths properly is probably the major cause of dispute and misunderstanding between landowners and path users. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson) that a walk in the countryside should be something of an adventure, and perhaps our paths and rights of way should not always be clinical and straightforward. But I think that all hon. Members agree that blocked paths that are impossible to traverse are against everyone's interests. Not everyone is as athletic as my hon. Friend. We want the countryside to be enjoyed by all people, old or young, athletic or less so.

It is right that the Bill should not merely clarify the law but ensure that our marvellous network of footpaths—about 140,000 miles of them are kept open and, as far as possible, free of obstruction.

We have been lucky that the Bill received such detailed and expert scrutiny in another place. I pay tribute to the work of Lord Kimball, and perhaps it is also appropriate to remind the House of the important role played by the rights of way review committee, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst).

The Bill recognises that pasture land already provides a suitable surface for walking and riding. One of the pleasures of the countryside is walking through crops of grass—it is one of the reasons why people go into the country—but walking through cereal crops is a different matter. Riders' and walkers' confidence is diminished if they are faced with a field of oats or barley across which there is no visible path. That is why the Bill requires that such a path be kept clear of crops other than grass, and provides a definition of grass.

The Bill was drawn up as widely as possible to cover grass mixtures of a type commonly grown for pasture, silage or hay-making. Certainly, to the layman's eyes, that definition excludes cereals, which are not commonly grown as silage. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) who as always, has done his homework, mentioned the possibility of different species of barley causing problems. I draw his attention to the fact that oats are not merely botanically, but are commonly considered to be, cereals and would therefore have to be removed under the provisions of the Bill. He also mentioned wild oats, which are not botanically classified as cereals. Page 5 of the Bill makes it clear that grass will be permitted on the footpath only if it is commonly used for pasture, silage or hay-making. Wild oats, which are chiefly a weed, would not fall into that definition, and would therefore require to be removed under the provisions of the Bill.

I am not sure that my hon. Friend understands the point that I was trying to make. I agree that wild oats are not classified as a cereal, and so I assume that, under the Bill, they will be treated not as a cereal but as a weed. My point was that, botanically, wild oats are so similar to oats treated as cereals that problems of description and identification could readily arise unless clear guidance were given to as many countryside users as possible.

Whether wild oats are classified as a cereal or as a weed is not important in practical terms, because under both definitions they will require removal.

My hon. Friends the Members for Bristol, North-West and for Gainsborough and Horncastle raised the question of guidance to educate the public about their rights under the Bill. I draw hon. Members' attention to the rights of way review committee's intention to draw up detailed notes for guidance, which will perhaps—it is up to the committee—go into the matters raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West. It is intended that those notes for guidance will be distributed to every farmer and local authority in England and Wales, and possibly more widely, through groups such as the Ramblers Association which are anxious to improve access to the countryside.

The explanatory and educative function of the rights of way review committee will help to remove any lingering uncertainties or scope for misinterpretations, as well as ensuring that the Bill is a success in practice as well as in theory.

The Bill represents a hard won and possibly unique consensus between users and landowners. Some disbelief was expressed in another place that the National Farmers Union had agreed to a rights of way Bill, but I confirm that it has done so, and that it has been extremely supportive throughout the passage of the legislation. Along with the Ramblers Association, the British Horse Society, local authority associations and many other groups, the NFU hopes that the Bill will help to remove the uncertainties and misunderstandings that have bedevilled the issue in the past.

I must mention a serious matter which relates to the amendment and to the legislation which will flow from it. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not surprising that the NFU should wish to co-operate because no one, least of all farmers, seeks to deny the public access to land? But access must be responsible access. What worry the farming and countryside communities are the dreadful abuses heaped upon the countryside by those who use it.

I agree with my hon. Friend that rights carry obligations. I hope that the public will use the right of way network for recreation, but will understand that their rights carry duties and obligations to respect the countryside, to shut gates after them, not to throw litter down or to leave waste materials littering the countryside. I also agree with the idea behind my hon. Friend's intervention—that the rights of way network provides a marvellous means of reconciling potentially conflicting pressures. Of course there are difficulties—the public may interfere with farm practices—but the rights of way network provides a means of avoiding such conflicts.

Does my hon. Friend agree that in such cases, when farmers and other landowners are able to get together with people who wish to use the countryside for recreation, they may be able to work out extensions to the footpath network which will be of great advantage to both sides?

My hon. Friend is clearly acquainted with the system whereby permissive rights of way can be negotiated or granted by landowners, in addition to the traditional rights of way network. That is an encouraging way forward. I urge landowners and farmers to work where possible with local authorities and access organisations so that, where appropriate, they can extend the marvellous rights-of-way network which we already enjoy. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle on piloting his Bill thus far. It is now at the last hurdle. It is called the Rights of Way Bill but I anticipate that the legislation will be known as the Leigh Act.

I shall be brief because the House wishes to attend to other important business. The Bill is as important as the Protection of Badger Setts Bill which we hope to reach later. The Opposition are as anxious as the Countryside Commission, the working party and the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) to see the Bill on the statute book. However, we regret that the Government have not come forward with comprehensive proposals of the type that were set out in the last Conservative party manifesto. It was made clear in our debate on Wednesday that although such legislation might be near it is still some way off. We need far-reaching and comprehensive legislation on the countryside which will incorporate the Bill and other measures about access.

The interests of path users are not always as well represented in the other place as they could be. The Second Reading debate showed that the Opposition were worried that the views of the land owning lobby and its nervousness about public rights of way were again about to make their influence felt. That view was expressed by the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames).

I hope that the Bill will overcome its last hurdle. The strong support for the Bill from the National Farmers Union, the Country Landowners Association and ramblers has no doubt helped its progress. I pay tribute not only to the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle but to my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) who played a large part in helping the Bill over its many hurdles. Even though the Bill has only two helpful amendments its progress thus far is a significant achievement.

The hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle fully explained why it is important for the section of the Bill that deals with crops to be as clear as possible. I hope that subsequent discussions will clarify that matter and that the regulations and code of conduct will make such clarification widely available. Neither the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle nor the Minister mentioned the importance of the role of local authorities, in enforcing the new law. The Government must make sure that authorities have the modest resources that are needed to do that. This week discussions took place with the Secretary of State for the Environment about the standard spending assessments and the poll tax. Those matters will place intolerable burdens upon local authorities and we doubt whether the resources that they need will be available.

Order. The hon. Lady knows that such matters do not arise from the Lords amendments.

Careful consideration of the Lords amendments shows that local authorities will have to make sure that the excellent measures in the amendments will work. However, those authorities have had curbs placed on their finances. Many make a valiant effort to enforce the law, but their achievements will be limited.

In areas where land-owning and farming interests dominate, local authorities could find a ready excuse for doing nothing and we want to avoid that. Walkers, riders and the voluntary groups to which they belong have an important role to play in encouraging farmers to comply with the new law as a matter of course. We are confident that the Ramblers Association and other such organisations will play that role.

New section 137A of the 1980 Act is one of the sections under which a prosecution can be brought by an individual or group or local authority. That is of great importance to such bodies, not only because of its provisions about crops but because it gives them the power to enforce the provisions and that is crucial. The clarification that is made by the two amendments and the closure of a potential loophole will be as welcome and useful to path users as to local authorities and farmers. For that additional reason, we welcome the amendments and hope that the final hurdle can now be overcome.