Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

Last night, I looked at a booklet featuring Saxon and Roman routes through Bassetlaw, which is now no longer published. Those who were on the Standing Committee will probably be relieved to learn that I do not propose to illustrate my speech with numerous extracts from it, although doubtless other Members will be greatly disappointed. Anyway, I am sure that an opportunity for me to quote from it will arise at an appropriate point. I shall confine myself to saying that it is absurd that, as a result of an anomaly in the law that the Bill attempts to remove, 550 square miles of my constituency that are riddled with both Roman and Saxon through routes should be affected because quad bikers and other such sportspeople choose to give their business to the area, having discovered it through websites and links. Only recently, a group from south Wales who had spotted the routes on the internet decided to pay a day-long visit with the sole purpose of travelling along former bridleways. Whether it is called the Bassetlaw question or not, the Minister must ensure that it is acted on. There is a legislative anomaly here. I am relaxed about the potential use of traffic regulation orders, on condition that the Government give clear direction to more reluctant authorities such as Nottinghamshire county council, which seems to think that the use of such orders in this context should be seen in a variety of wider contexts than that of what is wanted by the overwhelming majority of local people. The wide public consultations in which I have engaged suggest that 99 per cent. of local people do not want quad bikes, motor bikes or any other motorised vehicles to travel down the most sensitive lanes in our countryside. It is essential that the Government give the right guidance to rectify that anomaly. I was perturbed by the triumphalist language that we heard at the beginning of the debate. There were references to U-turns and backing down on the Minister’s part, as if he were a weak Minister forced into concessions. In fact, as those who served on the Committee will recall vividly, there was all-party debate and consensus on most of the issues that were raised then. The fact that the Minister felt able to go back to his drafters and return with his own amendments indicates strength. No doubt he feels able to go further. In any event, he has ensured that the common sense exhibited by all parties will become legislation. I see that as the action of a strong Minister, not a weak one, which the House should commend. I intend to make three points about the new clauses. There is an important omission from new clause 4, which it is vital not to overlook. Subsection (2) contains paragraphs (a) and (b), but there ought to be a paragraph (c), dealing with crime and disorder. Paragraphs (a) and (b) deal essentially with the volume of motorised vehicles, but we should also consider the threat. Occasional use of such vehicles may not damage the environment to any great extent. It may not constitute a particular danger according to the definition. In terms of crime and disorder, however, it may be a problem. It may affect isolated properties, for instance. In my constituency, there is the potential for entrances and exits to be created to and from areas in which crimes could be committed. I have received support from both the local crime and disorder partnership and the police in regard to the use of traffic regulation orders. The police believe that crime and disorder are critical to the need to row back the new rights. If it were just a question of the odd trail rider, we would all feel quite relaxed. It is, however, a question of the rights going to everyone else, and the impossibility of doing anything about it. There is no particular clash with trail riders in my area. That is the weakness that I see in new clause 4, but I also see a strength in its meaning and intent. A problem for county councils is that each traffic regulation order causes a good deal of bureaucratic work. In a wider context than today’s debate, it would be sensible for Government to allow authorities to impose such orders en bloc rather than individually. That might be done by means of a lowering of speed limits in villages, or the application of TROs to anomalies with which the Bill cannot deal. Such a move would save authorities time and costs, and I hope that the Minister will consider it. I feel that it is in the spirit of new clause 4. New clause 10, tabled by the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay), deals with the law of unintended consequences. I shall make two points about it. First, the definition of ““premises”” needs to be tight. Secondly, there is the issue of definitions of ““right of vehicular access””. I can give two examples of attempts by property developers in Bassetlaw to create new rights of access to what they claim are existing properties. The properties have not, in fact, been built, but the developers are trying to secure initial planning permission. They have been found out, though. Their case is essentially this: ““We want to convert an old ruin, and because we have been driving to and from it for many years—although no one has spotted us—we have vehicular rights.”” Wrongly and stupidly, in my view, planning permission may have been given for one property and then, lo and behold, new vehicular rights emerge in respect of neighbouring land. The issue is not peculiar to the countryside. The most contentious example applies to an urbanised area of Worksop, in my constituency. That is, however, precisely the kind of unintended consequence that could result from the new clause, according to my reading of it. I hope that the right hon. Member for Bracknell will not push what appears to be a sensible proposal without allowing the Minister—I hope that he has not already accepted the new clause; if not, I urge caution on him—to take account of other unintended consequences. I am thinking especially of the creation of vehicular rights that could be used to enhance land values with the aim of securing new property developments that would not have been allowed if the initial vehicular right had not been granted. There is a problem with the new clause’s wording and I will certainly vote against it if it is pressed to a vote, even though I wholly accept the logic behind it. On new clause 21, which deals with cycling, I again urge caution, although not in respect of the principle behind it. Let me give another example from my own constituency, which concerns one right of way crossing another. A particular footpath to a school in my constituency is most definitely the safest route for children to take, because it keeps them away from dangerous main roads. However, attempts have been made to create an enhanced right of way across that footpath. We need to exercise caution in such clashing of rights of way. On the face of it, such a development could constitute an enhancement, but it could lead to the rights of the occasional cyclist at certain times endangering small children going to the nearby nursery school. Moreover, the school travel plan encourages slightly older children—those aged from five to eight years old—to travel on their own to school on that route, because doing so is considered safe. We need to look at this issue to ensure that we are not creating another unintended consequence by providing what is, on the face of it, a sensible enhancement of cyclists’ rights.