House of Commons Hansard Debates for 26 May 1993

Mr. Waldegrave : The hon. Gentleman's question gives me an opportunity, which I welcome, to clarify an important point. In everything I am doing, I am seeking to avoid the establishment of artificial divisions between applied and basic. I do not believe that those so-called Frascati definitions are necessarily helpful. We had advice, for example from the Advisory Committee on Science and Technology, that we should completely separate the funding of the two. I believe that that would be wrong.

What I am seeking to do, and what I believe we will achieve under the framework that I have set out, is to bring the whole science base, running from the purest through to the applied work, closer to industrial and user decision-taking, because that will benefit both sides.

The benefit to the chemist and the other, in shorthand, small sciences that will come from the division of the research councils will be great. SERC had to make judgments between chalk and cheese, or astronomers and chemists, that were too difficult for it. I see no reason why the chemistry board of SERC should not continue, although it will be for the new chairman and the director of the new Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council to make their own disposition.

Several hon. Members rose --

Madam Speaker : We must move on.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Column 937

Madam Speaker : I will take the point of order of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) ; it appears to be a point of frustration.

Mr. Dalyell : It is a point of frustration. This is a very important issue. Many of us have spent a great deal of our parliamentary lives on the subject. To cut the contributions is very rough going. Some of my hon. Friends have spent much time on the issue, yet they cannot put questions.

Madam Speaker : It is too large a subject to be left ; I am sure that the House will come back to it. I must make the point, reluctantly, that the hon. Gentleman was not in his place in the Chamber for the Minister's statement.

Mr. Dalyell : Yes, I was.

Madam Speaker : Order. He came into the Chamber when the Minister was responding to the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman.

Mr. Dalyell : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As a matter of record, I was in the Chamber for the statement. Then I went out to get the White Paper so that my colleagues and I could check what it said.

Madam Speaker : The hon. Gentleman knows that I watch very carefully to see that hon. Members who wish to put questions on a statement remain in their places. I have always made that clear. Several hon. Members rose --

Madam Spaker : Are there other points of order on that matter ?

Dr. Robert Spink (Castle Point) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I stayed right through the statement and the questions on it. Can you advise me when I may have an opportunity to comment in the House on the White Paper ?

Madam Speaker : I am sure that the business manager for the Government will give some indication on that. It is not for the Speaker, but no doubt we shall return to the matter. If hon. Members had heeded my earlier caution about brief questions and answers, I might have been able to help all hon. Members who were rising.

Column 938

Points of Order

3.14 pm

Mr. Robin Cook (Livingston) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is genuine, specific and urgent, and is relevant to you, as the authorities of the House are accountable to you for the discharge of their duties.

May I refer you to page 292 of "Erskine May", which sets out the matters on which Ministers will refuse to answer questions? They are detailed on that page and include discussions between Ministers, discussions between Ministers and advisers, proceedings in Cabinet, or the security and secret services. It is the practice of the Clerks of the House to refuse to accept for tabling questions that fall within those categories or that Ministers have refused to answer. There is no authority for that in Standing Order No. 17, but it has become the practice of the House.

May I put to you, Madam Speaker, the difficulty that the House and, to be fair to them, the Clerks now find themselves in as a result of the consistent decision of Ministers to refuse to answer questions relating to matters that are before the Scott inquiry? This is a new and unwelcome development. The Scott inquiry is not sub judice, and it is not part of the parliamentary process, as is a Select Committee. It is a departmental inquiry that will report to the President of the Board of Trade.

On previous occasions, the Table Office has accepted questions relating to matters that are before departmental inquiries, and Ministers have answered them. I have here a printout of more than 25 questions relating to the BCCI inquiry, which is precisely analogous to the Scott inquiry, in that it was a departmental inquiry chaired by Lord Justice Bingham.

What makes the decision to block questions in the Scott departmental inquiry particularly objectionable is that Lord Justice Scott has taken the welcome step of holding his hearings in public. As a result of that decision, counsel can ask questions and journalists can report questions and answers on the very subjects on which hon. Members are being debarred from asking questions. I cannot think of a distinction more likely to encourage Parliament to fall into desuetude and disrespect.

Yesterday, I sought to table a specific question of detail on which there was clear ministerial responsibility. I am mindful of the convention that it is not customary to read out questions that have been debarred, and I shall not do so, but for the guidance of the House I must say that that question did not turn on any issue of interpretation or subjectivity : it was a clear, precise question with clear, precise ministerial accountability. The Table Office yesterday refused to print that question. I suggest that that decision does a disservice to the House.

I appreciate that the House authorities cannot compel Ministers to answer questions, but nor do I think it right that they should protect Ministers from being seen to refuse questions for which there is no valid reason for not answering.

The House has a duty to scrutinise and challenge the Executive. The authorities should assist us in that role, and it would be most regrettable if the role of the authorities came to be seen as protecting Ministers from questions that are specific, urgent and within their ministerial responsibility.

Column 939

Mr. Jim Cousins (Newcastle upon Tyne, Central) rose

Madam Speaker : Does the hon. Gentleman wish to speak to the point of order? Mr. Cousins : No.

Madam Speaker : I shall reply to the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) before I take another point of order.

As the hon. Gentleman knows, he cannot seek by way of a point of order to refer to a question that has been refused. As the House knows, "Erskine May" makes it quite clear that an hon. Member who wishes to make representations to me should do so privately and not on the Floor of the House. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will do that.

Mr. Robin Cook : Further to my point of order, Madam Speaker. I shall be most satisfied to take the matter up with you privately, but I reserve the right to make any point of order that arises when we return from the recess.

Madam Speaker : I am sure that I will not debar the hon. Gentleman from raising a point of order.

Mr. Chris Smith (Islington, South and Finsbury) : On a separate point of order, Madam Speaker. Yesterday afternoon, I received a reply to a question that I had tabled to the Secretary of State for the Environment. My question related to what plans the Government have to introduce legislation to create an environmental protection agency, to change the administrative arrangements for national parks, or to implement the provisions of the European Community habitats directive. The answer that I received was that the Government were working

"for the early creation of the Environment Agency and legislation will be introduced as soon as the necessary parliamentary time can be found."

The answer clearly indicated a sense of urgency and rapid action by the Government, yet we know that for the last two weeks the Government have been briefing journalists that no legislation of any kind will appear before this House in the forthcoming parliamentary Session. Surely the Government are guilty of saying one thing in an answer to the House and another to the world outside.

Madam Speaker : The hon. Gentleman must understand that I am not responsible for ministerial answers to questions. He must find other methods to pursue what is not in fact a point of order for me.

Dr. John Gilbert (Dudley, East) : May I raise with you, Madam Speaker, another point that relates to the Scott inquiry. As a former member of the Trade and Industry Select Committee in the last Parliament--I have refreshed my memory of these matters by looking at videos this week--I can state that evidence given to the inquiry by Sir Hal Miller, a former Member of this House and deputy chairman of the Conservative party, while seeking to protect a member of the public, a former senior executive of the Walter Somers company, in a constituency next door to mine, unambiguously convicts that gentleman of telling an untruth to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry. I emphasise that the point I raise has nothing whatever to do with the conduct of Ministers. It relates to what a witness said to the Select Committee about whether or not

Column 940

certain tubes for export to Iraq were or were not intended for military purposes. I realise that, when it comes to questions of privilege, I have to write to you, Madam Speaker, but I hope that you will give me an assurance that you will inform yourself of these matters. The character of an important member of the public from Dudley borough is impugned by the evidence given by Sir Hal Miller to the Scott inquiry.

Madam Speaker : Let me make it clear--I hope the House will understand this--that, as the guardian of the interests of the House and of its reputation, I take a close interest in anything that relates to those responsibilities. I do not underestimate in any way the significance of what is being said to the Scott inquiry, but the House must trust me. It must trust me, in the exercise of my discretion, to use my best judgment as to whether, or when, it would be appropriate for me to grant any applications that are made to me. These are not matters on which I should be pressed to change my mind across the Floor of the House.

Mr. Jim Cousins (Newcastle upon Tyne, Central) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You have been kind enough to respond to my letter to you, and I understand the contents of your reply. You ask me to wait until the Scott inquiry is completed, when I understand that I may write to you again on the matter. My point is that your decision in that respect should not inhibit in any way any Select Committee from taking up matters of fact or record that may come out of the Scott inquiry.

Madam Speaker : Select Committees are in charge of their own proceedings. It is not for the Speaker of this House to inhibit them. Select Committees have automony and are in charge of their own proceedings.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have you received any application, from either the Secretary of State for Defence or the Foreign Secretary, to come to the House to make a statement about the coup in Guatemala ? Before this House reassembles, British troops will be withdrawn, in some measure, plus units of the RAF, from Belize, which is on the border with Guatemala. Guatemala has now ceased to be a democracy, yet that was the basis upon which all these assumptions were being carried forward.

Madam Speaker : I have not had a request from a Minister to make such a statement, but the Ministers on the Treasury Bench have no doubt heard what the hon. Lady said.

Mr. George Foulkes (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) : I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) has just said, Madam Speaker, but mine is a different point of order.

As you know, since last night I have been trying to get one of the Fisheries Ministers to come to the Dispatch Box to make a statement about the tie-up rule, following the understandable protest by the Girvan fishermen in blockading Girvan harbour because of their frustration and anger about the tie-up rule. They were told that they could have only 80 days at sea. Some of them have already been at sea for 80 days. They are facing ruin and the collapse of their income as a result of this rule. Before the recess, surely there is some way of getting one of the Fisheries Ministers to the Dispatch Box to make an urgent statement ?

Column 941

Madam Spaker : I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given yesterday evening by one of my deputies : I have not had any request for a Minister to make any such statement.

Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South) rose --

Madam Speaker : Mr. --

Mr. Cryer : Cryer.

Madam Speaker : Mr. Cryer.

Mr. Cryer : I take it from your response, Madam Speaker, that this is one of only a few occasions on which I have risen to make a point of order.

Reverting to the question of White Papers and their availability, it would certainly help Back Benchers--who at present have to leave the Chamber to obtain White Papers and other documents--if Ministers were to provide them for the House. Some Ministers helpfully provide them ; others do not.

I know, Madam Speaker, that you prefer Ministers to provide statements for Back Benchers rather than just Front Benchers of all parties. It might help if White Papers were actually tabled--placed on the Table of the House--so that hon. Members could collect them without having to leave the Chamber. Then there would not be any confusion about whether Members were hearing statements in the Chamber or were elsewhere.

Madam Speaker : The hon. Gentleman has made a useful point. It is up to the Minister whether he makes a White Paper available before his statement.

Mr. Cryer : But you would have no objection, Madam Speaker, if they were placed on the Table and we could get them from there?

Madam Speaker : I may well have a great objection to that. We have an office for the distribution of such papers. I wer. I appeal for your support, because it is strongly suggested that, in the next day of so, the Government will announce the setting up of a committee to monitor the intelligence services--a committee

Column 942

composed only of Privy Councillors. If that were to be the case, would you seek to protect the House by ensuring that, if it is done during the recess, there will be an early opportunity for the House to debate it?

Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North) : Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. We should be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) for raising this matter. As you know, it has not been possible to put down questions regarding the security services ; that has been the position for many years, under successive Speakers.

There have been repeated rumours about what the Government intend to do. Many of us would strongly object to a committee on which only Privy Councillors would be allowed to sit. It would be a form of apartheid which would be opposed by many hon. Members on both sides of the House.

In those circumstances, Madam Speaker, would you use whatever influence you have in these matters to ensure that no statement is made until Parliament returns from the recess? Surely it would be a contempt for such a committee to be set up where we would not be able to question Ministers. It would be a continuation of what has happened over the years--our inability to table questions about the security services in any form whatsoever.

Madam Speaker : I have noted what the hon. Gentleman has said. I can only act on fact, not on conjecture and rumour.

BILL PRESENTED

Representation of the People

Mr. Secretary Rifkind, supported by Mr. Secretary Hurd, Mr. Secretary Clarke, Mr. Secretary Heseltine, Mr. Secretary Hunt, Mr. Secretary Lang, Mr. Secretary Sir Patrick Mayhew, Mr. Archie Hamilton and Mr. Jonathan Aitken, presented a Bill to secure that members of the regular army who, except for the purposes of training, are required to serve only in Northern Ireland are not regarded as members of the forces for the purposes of the Representation of the People Act 1983 : And the same was read the First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 202.]

Column 943

Closure of Footpaths

4.38 pm

Mr. Charles Hendry (High Peak) : I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to permit highway authorities to close footpaths during periods of severe fire risk. It is appropriate that I should present this Bill today, because it was over the Whitsun weekend a year ago that three fires destroyed several hundred acres of moorland in my constituency. How they started will never be known ; perhaps it was arson, or possibly they were caused by a discarded piece of glass or a carelessly dropped cigarette end. What we do know for certain is that the heather on the moors was tinder-dry, after weeks of very hot dry weather, and that hikers still had open access to the moors despite the danger. We also have no illusions about the consequences of those fires. The hundreds of acres of heather that were destroyed will take at least five years, perhaps 10 years or more, to grow back. Countless animals and birds were killed as the fires raced across the moors at dozens of feet per minute. For several days, more than 70 firefighters, many of them volunteers--to whom I pay tribute--put themselves in danger to bring the fires under control, in the wretched knowledge that they could spring to life again at any moment, having smouldered for days or even weeks before bursting back into life.

Since the fires, much has been done to improve the way in which closure of the moors can be agreed. We have had to recognise that the old system did not work effectively. Its only achievement was to unite everyone in their dissatisfaction and anger at the inadequacies of the system.

Certainly, before last year's fires, those who own and work on the moors had called for closure for several days, and closure was discussed endlessly by the Peak district national park authorities. Some of its members said yes, some said no ; in the end they could not agree. Even after the fires, no ready agreement could be reached on whether the moors should be closed, because there was no set formula for deciding when the risk of fire outweighed the right of access.

Since then, and over the past year, there have been considerable strides towards an automatic formula for closing moors in times of high fire risk based on the dryness of the ground--the so-called soil moisture deficit. The formula is acceptable to all parties, including the owners and the national park, as well as the sporting and rambling interests. I understand that there may soon be full agreement that, when the soil moisture deficit and the so-called stress factor of the ground reach a certain point, closure will be automatic. That is greatly to be welcomed.

Even more welcome are the steps being taken by the Peak park and the owners of the moors to set up a joint fund to ensure that helicopter support is available to fight the fires when they occur. The House will appreciate that the often remote location of fires and their intensity mean that water bombing is the only effective way to put them out.

However, all that progress will be wasted if we do not clarify the law on the closure of footpaths. An automatic procedure can be found for closing general access to the moors, which removes people's right to wander at will, but the footpaths will remain open. It is nothing short of lunacy to decide that the moors are too dry to allow people

Column 944

to walk over them, but then to keep open the footpaths so that tens of thousands of walkers can tramp along them, across those self-same moors, on any hot bank holiday weekend.

The Peak park attracts some 22 million visitors a year--more than any other national park in the world outside of Mount Fuji. That will be distressing news to my colleagues from Blackpool and Scarborough, who argue endlessly about the merits of their resorts, which are minor in comparison. However, there comes a time when the long-term interests of the moors and the wildlife that they support, together with the immediate short-term safety of the visitors, are such that some of those visitors need to be disappointed and refused access. The nub of the issue is the lack of clarity in the current law. If there is a fire, footpaths--as public highways--can be closed, but there must be actual danger. If there is a risk of fire--a perceived rather than an actual danger--the law on closure becomes much more vague, absurdly increasing the risk of a fire starting.

During recent weeks, I have learnt that people in Derbyshire and Cheshire still talk with some anguish and pain about the horrendous rollicking that they once received from the Government for closing footpaths because of the fire risk. That was 17 years ago in 1976, after 81 fires had destroyed 2,500 acres of moorland. Despite that threat, the local authorities were left in no doubt that the closure of footpaths in such circumstances was simply not acceptable. It is not surprising that they have never dared to take such action again. Since that time, the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 has been introduced. It moves us forward, but still leaves us confused. It states that a footpath can be closed if there is

"a likelihood of danger to the public."

When does a risk become a likelihood? In the words of one official at the Department of the Environment :

"Fire doesn't have to be licking at the path."

Those words suggest that a fire needs to have started, rather than relying on the expert advice that there is a high and genuine risk of one starting.

Even my colleagues on the Front Bench, usually the epitome of clarity and sensible thinking, seem to be somewhat at odds on this matter. One letter that I received states that the use of footpaths "may be restricted or even prohibited by permanent or temporary traffic regulation orders. These are used mainly to regulate vehicular traffic, but occasionally apply to footpaths and bridleways, for example to forbid horse riding or cycling at particular times, but their scope does not extend to fire risk in the surrounding area."

A further letter states :

"these powers are very flexible and can be used to deal with a whole range of circumstances, including the risk of fire." The objective of my Bill is to remove that confusion and to make it clear that, by law, highway authorities have the power to close footpaths during times of high fire risk. It is a modest step that I hope the House will support.

A sensible further step would be to allow the national park authorities, once they had established closure procedures, to close the moors and the footpaths across them at the same time, rather than operating two separate decision-making processes. In particular, it would be sensible to allow the authorities to erect closure signs on behalf of the highway authorities.

In 1976, Derbyshire county council, which was not too familiar with the task, managed to put closure signs at

Column 945

what they thought were the ends of footpaths, which in fact did not exist and had never existed. My colleagues will not be too surprised to learn that that council operated at that time with the customary competence and accuracy whichwe still expect of it and which makes it so beloved across the county.

While I have inevitably concentrated on the needs of my constituency, the issue is anything but local. It affects thousands of acres of national park, thousands of miles of coastal walks and popular tourist destinations across the country. It is a national issue, which is why the law should be amended.

Moreover, it is most definitely not an anti-rambler device. The moorland owners remain committed to the concept of open access, even though they run the risk of a careless minority leaving their gates open, breaking down their carefully built and maintained dry-stone walls, or cutting off their power by crashing into the overhead electricity cables in their hang gliders.

Perhaps I should declare an interest at this point as someone who has tried hang gliding. My centre of gravity made it more akin to a Flymo hovering above the ground than a bird soaring in the skies. It brought a new meaning to the idea of a Member of Parliament dropping in on his constituents.

Any closure of footpaths would be short-term--for just as long as the expert authorities considered that the risk of fire merited such closure. Fires do enormous damage to wildlife and flora, which take years to restore, if they ever can be restored. They destroy the very environment that visitors seek to enjoy. Those who own and work on the moors invest endless amounts of time and money in creating and conserving some of the most beautiful parts, not only of this country, but of our continent.

The House owes it to them and to the generations to come who want to enjoy that unique inheritance to make this small change in the law to reduce, as far as is possible, the risk of unnecessary fires and the untold damage that they bring.

4.47 pm

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett (Denton and Reddish) : I oppose the Bill--not because I do not appreciate the fire risks, but because the Bill is misguided. With the holiday weekend almost upon us, I congratulate the hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Hendry) on drawing attention to the fire risks. Anyone going into the countryside should be careful. The Bill will do nothing to improve the current position. It deals only with footpaths, yet two of the worst fires on the top of the Pennines during the past few years occurred very close to roads. It was almost certainly the carelessness of car drivers throwing cigarettes out of their windows that caused some of those big fires, which continued to burn for many months. They were extremely difficult to extinguish, that being achieved only with the arrival of the cold and wet of winter. Therefore, it is wrong solely to pick out footpaths for legislation.

There is a need for much more public awareness of the risks, and I have already commended the hon. Gentleman for drawing attention to that. There is also a need for Government action. The Peak district national park authority has submitted a set of new bylaws for control of the access land, but I understand that the Home Office is

Column 946

not being as speedy as it could be in dealing with them. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should extend his efforts to speeding up those bylaws rather than trying to introduce a Bill that, at this stage of the parliamentary year, has no chance of progressing.

Many people already believe that there are sufficient powers to do what the hon. Gentleman is trying to achieve through his Bill. A highway authority has power, under section 14 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, as amended by schedule 1 of the Road Traffic (Temporary Restrictions) Act 1991, to prohibit the use of footpaths and bridleways temporarily because of the likelihood of danger to the public or serious damage to the footpath. In both those categories, if there is a fire, there is a risk to the individual crossing it and certainly danger to the footpath.

Probably my strongest reason for objecting to the Bill--certainly the reason why both the Ramblers Association and the Peak and Northern Footpaths Association object to it--is that, as a result of arguments across the Chamber about footpath measures over the years, the Rights of Way Review Committee was established in 1979. The committee has always been chaired by a Conservative Member, first by the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer) and then by the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst). The chair is now held by the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mrs. Browning).

The committee represents the Ramblers Association, the National Farmers Union, the Country Landowners Association, the local authorities, Government Departments and the Countryside Commission, and has always been a forum for trying to achieve agreed measures. It is unfortunate that the hon. Gentleman chose to ignore it and not to present it with his proposals, because there could have been a rational discussion. I am sure, if there really is a problem, that a proposal that had everybody's acceptance could have been agreed on. Insisting on unilateral legislation will not solve the problem. I do not accept that walking creates more of a fire hazard than any other use of the land. There is no evidence that walkers have caused dangers by crossing land. In fact, there is some evidence that, on occasions, walkers have reported a small fire--not caused by them--and that that speedy action by walkers has led to getting the fire put out. Excluding people is not necessarily the way to cut down the risk. What is most important is to stress to walkers, farm workers, water board workers, gamekeepers and others the high danger of smoking while they have access to land, and the danger of leaving glass behind, as that can cause fires.

I ask the hon. Gentleman to have second thoughts about his proposals. Instead of proceeding with the Bill, which will cause controversy, he should refer the matter to the Rights of Way Review Committee for proper discussions. He should try to persuade the Home Office to speed up byelaws concerning access to land in the peak district. He has reminded us all that we must look carefully at protecting the countryside.

The last thing that anyone going out walking should want to do is cause damage. I hope that the House will leave the Bill where it stands and not give it permission to be introduced.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business) :--

The House divided : Ayes 44, Noes 82.

Next Section

Home Page