| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
3.44 pm
Mr. Tim Yeo (South Suffolk): I rise to oppose the Bill.
The hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) by his speech, and the Bill prepared by the Ramblers Association by its text, have demonstrated how little the hon. Gentleman and his party understand the countryside and the needs of those who live, work and seek to enjoy recreation there. In pursuit of an aim that is widely shared among Conservative Members and among those outside the House, of greater access to the countryside--an aim, incidentally, on which we are making substantial progress, although the hon. Gentleman did not acknowledge that in his speech--he has produced a legislative dinosaur,a monstrosity that is flawed in five serious respects.
The Bill would give local authorities massive and totally unnecessary new powers. It would create a vast new bureaucracy with almost unlimited scope for disputes between parties and for delays in decision making.It emphasises the rights of the public without mentioning corresponding responsibilities. It threatens to criminalise innocent citizens who seek only to protect their property. It also damages the cause of conservation.
Significantly, those are the proposals not just of the hon. Member for Sherwood; he has the express endorsement of the Opposition Front Bench in the form of the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), who was quoted yesterday as saying that she fully supports the Bill and hopes that it may lead to the passage of legislation. As the Bill's approach is based on old Labour's attitudes, it is surprising that it has slipped past the notice of the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), but perhaps his attention has been diverted elsewhere recently as he agonises whether to preach the education policy that he and the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) already practise.
The tragedy is that the Bill is totally unnecessary. The Government are already working towards greater public access. For example, in the past five years alone, land management schemes have produced agreement for managed access to more than 90,000 hectares of land. Under the countryside stewardship scheme, statutory bodies have made available another 13,000 hectares, and substantial progress has been made towards the target set in the 1990 environment White Paper to bring up to a good standard the 140,000 miles of rights of way and footpaths that already exist, much of which is under-utilised at present.
The target of improving access to the countryside was specifically re-endorsed in last October's White Paper, "Rural England". Against that background, I deeply regret
that the hon. Gentleman has chosen to introduce the Bill now because, in so doing, he rejects the principle that better access to the countryside must be based on voluntary managed schemes. Overturning that principle, on which all recent advances have been made, is a recipe for dispute, delay, conflict and, ultimately, damage to the rural environment.
My first objection to the Bill is that it gives vast and completely unnecessary new powers to local authorities. Clause 6 places a duty on local authorities to secure access to any open country from the public highway if any person, regardless of whether he or she has local connections or not, considers that the existing access is somehow inadequate. Local authorities may require landowners to construct bridges, cut down ancient hedges or demolish stone walls, all at their own expense, to satisfy the whim of a council officer whose interest in the subject may have been aroused by a passing motorist or disgruntled neighbour. The mind boggles at the potential for local authorities hostile to local interests--as all too many, including the disgraceful Labour-Liberal Suffolk county council, now are--to intrude on private property and make mischief with valuable habitats and natural features.
My second objection to the Bill is that the extra bureaucracy involved and the inevitability of disputes about interpretation will cause countless problems. Clauses 2 and 3 purport to define what is and is not open country, but they raise more questions than they answer.
Years of argument will ensue before agreement is reached about specific areas of land. The onerous obligations placed on landowners--including, for that purpose, someone who may have only a quarter of an acre of rough grazing on the edge of a village--mean that there will be inevitable resistance to the designation of land as open country under the legislation.
The interminable delays already experienced when minor variations to existing footpaths are proposed, sometimes with universal local support, but objected to by some individual from a remote area, will be nothing compared with the delays that the Bill is likely to cause. The effect will be to halt, for a generation or longer,the steady current progress towards more access.
My third objection to the Bill concerns two new criminal offences that it creates; the first is obstructing access to open country, and the second is erecting notices that might deter the public from entering open country. Criminalising in that way landowners who may merely be innocently seeking to protect their property, or to keep people away from hazardous areas, may appeal to the hon. Member for Sherwood and his allies, but it is utterly irrelevant and deeply inimical to the needs of the countryside. Rural dwellers in Suffolk and other similar areas want help in protecting their property, not threats that may put them on the wrong side of the law.
My fourth objection to the Bill is that it imposes all those obligations on landowners, but--apart from references that the hon. Member for Sherwood made to not dropping litter or starting fires--it makes no mention of any corresponding duties on members of the public. That may well be what Labour means by a stakeholder society, and it reflects old Labour's tendency to emphasise rights while overlooking responsibilities, but the Bill even fails to acknowledge that the countryside is used for other recreations apart from walking. Activities such as riding
or bird watching are legitimate uses of the countryside, but they may sometimes come into conflict with unrestricted walking.
To curtail the right to roam over a specific piece of land, an application to the local authority would be required under the Bill. The Bill would thus involve, for example, a Riding for the Disabled group going on bended knee to a council lackey for permission to use rough grazing land made available for that purpose free of charge by the landowner. Similarly, a small tenant farmer hoping to enjoy a day's shooting with a few neighbours would have to apply to the local authority each time he wished to do so.
My final objection to the Bill is that nothing in it promotes the cause of conservation. Indeed, the strong probability is that conflicts will arise as the unrestricted right to roam affects areas that have hitherto enjoyed considerable protection and undisturbed peace. Even English Nature, the statutory body entrusted with great responsibilities by the House, will have to apply to the local council for land to be accepted for the right to roam, and such applications can be granted only temporarily and may subsequently be overruled at the whim of the local council.
Time does not permit a fuller explanation of the many other reasons for resisting the Bill. In conclusion, I return to the central issue of principle.
Good progress is currently being made towards improving access for everyone so that they may enjoy more of our countryside. That progress is achieved voluntarily, by agreement between the parties concerned, and generally involves landowners and others in the continuing management roles.
The Bill would bring all that progress to an immediate halt. Its consequences for everyone interested in the future of the countryside would be disastrous, and I urge the House to reject it by a huge majority.
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):--
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |