All 1 Debates between Bill Wiggin and Chi Onwurah

Deregulation Bill

Debate between Bill Wiggin and Chi Onwurah
Monday 23rd June 2014

(10 years, 6 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chi Onwurah Portrait Chi Onwurah
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

This is all about individuals’ rights to walk on private property, just as I walked over the Duke of Northumberland’s land yesterday. I do not want to belittle or trivialise cases in which property owners experience significant stress, but there are already powers that permit landowners and land managers to apply to a local authority to make an order to divert or close a public path that crosses their land, so additional legislation is not required.

Bill Wiggin Portrait Bill Wiggin
- Hansard - -

rose—

Chi Onwurah Portrait Chi Onwurah
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I know that other hon. Members wish to speak, but I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Bill Wiggin Portrait Bill Wiggin
- Hansard - -

Will the hon. Lady tell us her party’s proposals to ensure that the family of Roger Freeman know that no other family will suffer the pain and misery that they have been through?

Chi Onwurah Portrait Chi Onwurah
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

The Bill’s measures on this subject derive from the Natural England stakeholder working group. I think that the hon. Gentleman would agree that finding a consensus between users, landowners and local authorities, and between Ramblers and the Country Land and Business Association, is such an achievement that it should not be jeopardised. If he wants further proposals to be brought forward, he should work with the stakeholder working group to deliver consensus on them. It is imperative that the measures agreed by the working group are implemented as soon as possible. We do not want them to be jeopardised by the new clauses in the group, especially because those new clauses raise several important questions. For example, who would decide that a public right of way was intrusive? Why are the measures necessary when there are already powers that permit landowners to apply to a local authority, as I set out? Who would define what “limited circumstances” were?

A presumption in favour of a diversion would take powers away from local authorities and reduce the ability of communities to have a say. Is this in accordance with the localism agenda, which I thought all Members on the Government Benches agreed with? Local communities, through their local councils, should have the ability to shape their local area. We should support the rights of all to access the countryside and to maintain existing rights of way, especially as the local countryside offers our citizens benefits in terms of health, exercise and mental well-being.