Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. The situation has led to unintended consequences, although, as I hope my remarks about my poor constituents have illustrated, they are not trivial. May I continue for a few more moments to quote from the letter from the chief executive? He wrote:"““Whilst the officers here at Wokingham have been in frequent contact with DEFRA about this issue on behalf of its residents, it is probable that there will be a significant numbers of other Authorities affected by the same issues across the country.””" He continued by naming several of them, and then wrote:"““Authorities such as Hampshire and Oxfordshire (who I believe currently have over 300 RUPPs between them), similarly to Wokingham, gave re classification of RUPPs under the 1981 Wildlife and Countryside Act a low priority, deciding that maintenance and enforcement were more important in the Council’s statutory Statement of Priorities for dealing with Public Rights of Way work. Even if Wokingham initiated a programme of re classification of the 17 RUPPs immediately, the process would take 2 or 3 years to complete, especially those modifications which were the subject of a public enquiry. This may mean millions of pounds worth of property could be unsaleable for this period of time.””" That is the crux. No one is really to blame. I do not believe that the conveyancing solicitors and estate agents who sold those houses—often a long time ago—thought that there were any problems. My constituents who bought such properties have carried out due diligence and behaved responsibly. I do not believe that Wokingham unitary authority and other local authorities throughout the country should necessarily have changed their policy, because doing so would have been extremely expensive and thus costly to council tax payers. We all know that expenditure is a matter of priority for local authorities, as it is with the Government. It was thus reasonable that the situation was not a priority until now. I do not think that the problem is especially the fault of the Government because like virtually every hon. Member, I am strongly in favour of what the Bill is trying to do. The points made by my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire and the behaviour of people who have been using such rights of way wrongly show that legislation is necessary. My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Robert Key) vividly illustrated what is happening in Wiltshire. I am not in the business of blaming, but I am in the business of ensuring that my constituents have a right to live in the houses that they have purchased and that they can sell them without an unreasonable restriction suddenly being put on them. There is little more unreasonable restriction than being told that there is no vehicular access to a property for homeowners and anyone who legitimately wants to visit them, including tradesmen. It makes that property unliveable in and unsaleable. That cannot be right. It cannot be what the Secretary of State and the Minister wanted when they and their officials drafted the Bill. New clause 10, which I hope to put to a vote, would resolve the problem. One or two people have contended that explanatory note 28 solves the problem. It states:"““There are property owners and others with an interest in land who rely on unrecorded . . . vehicular rights of way for access to that land. The Bill ensures that, if the public right of way for””" mechanically propelled vehicles"““is extinguished, those people are provided with a private right of way to access the land.””" However, clause 62(1) does not apply to my constituents because they do not meet the requirement of clause 62(1)(b) that the rights are used mainly for the purpose for which restricted byways are used. I estimate that 90 per cent. of the movements on RUPPs in my constituency are by MPV. Therefore, clause 62(3) does not apply and, presumably, nor does the explanatory note. I hope that the Minister does not hide behind explanatory note 28. If he does, I most certainly will want to press my new clause to a vote.