| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
4.46 pm
Mr. Tom King (Bridgwater): I rise to oppose the Bill, but not because I wish in any sense to oppose access to the countryside. Everybody who lives in towns and in the country knows the value of our wonderful countryside, and all hon. Members should share the determination that people should have the maximum possible access to it.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) on his persistence. He has been here before, and I have read the speech that he made on 30 January 1996, in which he sought to bring in a very similar Bill.
I do not quite understand why we are here today, because I heard the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle), say last week in the House that the Government would introduce legislation on this subject and would conduct a wide-ranging consultation exercise later in the year. Without anticipating whether legislation will prove to be necessary, I am sure that this is an issue on which the widest consultation arises.
The hon. Gentleman was absolutely frank with the House when he said that he was vice-president ofthe Ramblers Association. He said that the Bill has the support of ramblers. I shall seek to persuade the House that a vastly wider range of interests has to be accommodated in such a complex measure.
I challenge the House to recognise its responsibility. It has the power to legislate on virtually anything, but before it embarks on a particular course, it has a heavy responsibility to decide whether that is the right route to take to achieve the objectives that many right hon. and hon. Members may wish to achieve. The hon. Gentleman says that there is a balance of interests to be determined, that there must be full consultation, and that he does not wish to predetermine any issue, but his Bill predetermines the key issue: that we will now abandon the voluntary principle, and move to the world of prohibition, of enforcement.
We have an advantage that I do not think we had on 30 January 1996. I have a copy of the previous Bill. I do not know how many hon. Members have had a chance to read the earlier Bill, but those who have will have found that the enthusiasm they may feel is much greater when they stick to its broad principle, and rapidly declines when they examine the complex details.
Schedule 1--which may be altered in the new Bill--lists the people who will not be allowed the right to roam. It refers to a person who
The hon. Gentleman said that the measures in his Bill would not be imposed without consultation; they would be imposed after consultation. That is what he proposes, and what he hopes will happen. However, given the complexity of the issues, I believe that we abandon the voluntary principle at our peril.
I hold no brief for anyone, although I have seen the brief from the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, and I know that the Country Landowners Association has advocated the voluntary approach. Perhaps I approach the issue as the then Minister who introduced the Bill that became the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, and carried it through to enactment.
I also represent a rural constituency, and I see the pressures on the countryside. I challenge the hon. Gentleman to recognise that the issue does not affect only ramblers. It is not just a question of ramblers against landowners; a host of interests are involved. Certainly ramblers and all walkers are affected, but we must also consider mountain bikers, and the awful "mystery tours" by four-by-four clubs that turn up in the countryside and show no interest in discovering where there is a legitimate right of way.
Then there are horse riders--in my constituency, in the Quantocks, there are even camel riders--bird watchers, naturalists and fishermen. We must also bear in mind the interests of conservation. Pressure is put on the countryside by balloonists, hang gliders and scramble motor cyclists. Many of those involved are competing with each other.
I see this Bill as the first of a row of such Bills. Hon. Members may know about the issuing of temporary prohibition orders. Every three years, under the Bill, every ancient monument that English Heritage wants to protect from those who demand a right of access must be given a temporary prohibition order. The same applies to landscapes and areas that are important to conservation--
sites of special scientific interest, I suppose. It is a continual process. That is what hon. Members are going to support today.
Opposing the earlier Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) described it as a legislative dinosaur, and I agree. It provides unlimited scope for disputes, and I think that it could cause great damage. I accept that the voluntary principle needs improvement, but I will fight hard to keep it. I want to warn hon. Members of the dangers before they rush instinctively into what they think must be sensible measures.
Who looks after the countryside? Who are its stewards? Farmers, foresters and those with sporting and conservation interests, along with organisations such as the Woodland Trust, are trying to preserve a countryside in which people can enjoy walking and rambling. I would never defend those landlords who have a fortress mentality, but nor would I support a militant and aggressive assertion of rights, which could cause great trouble.
The House has the power to legislate on anything. It has a reputation not for legislating too little, but for legislating and then having to legislate again and again. My plea to hon. Members is that, before going down the route that the hon. Gentleman invites us to follow, they consider carefully whether the voluntary principle could be made to work, so that a balance can be struck between the different interests without creating a bureaucracy. Local government would have to enforce this legislation, which would introduce two new criminal offences. Access to our countryside should be agreeable and achievable. I beg the House to be fully conscious of those arguments, and not to support the Bill.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 23 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business), and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Paddy Tipping, Mr. Andrew F. Bennett, Helen Jackson, Ms Sally Keeble, Ms Jackie Lawrence, Ms Chris McCafferty, Mr. Colin Pickthall, Mr. Chris Pond, Mr. Gordon Prentice, Mr. Chris Ruane, Mr. Stephen Timms and Ms Joan Walley.
Mr. Paddy Tipping accordingly presented a Bill to amend the law on trespass and to enable members of the public to resort on foot to open country in England and Wales for their recreation; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 13 February, and to be printed [Bill 54].
The Paymaster General (Mr. Geoffrey Robinson):
I beg to move,
The amendment to section 5 of the 1993 Act requires Parliament to approve a Government report. That report should set out how the Government's economic and budgetary position relates to public investment and to the goals of article 2. Parliament must approve that report before information may be submitted to the Commission or Council for the purposes of articles 103 and 104c of the Maastricht treaty, which relate to the broad economic guidelines and excessive deficit procedure respectively.
The "Financial Statement and Budget Report" published earlier this month provides an appropriate assessment. It clearly sets out how the Government intend to meet the social, economic and environmental objectives mentioned in article 2 of the Maastricht treaty. It also sets out the Government's position on public investment.
In the Budget, the Chancellor announced how the Government would begin equipping Britain for its long-term future. The Government's policy will promote economic stability, encourage long-term investment, modernise the welfare state to encourage work and not dependency, provide high-quality public services, move towards a fairer tax system, and protect the environment and health.
In the past, Britain has suffered repeated cycles of boom and bust, which have damaged long-term investment and growth. The Government are putting economic management on a more stable, longer-term footing. A five-year deficit reduction plan will ensure that the Government borrow only to finance investment. That should reverse the steady increase in the burden of public debt in recent years.
The Bank of England has been given responsibility for setting interest rates to meet the Government's inflation target, which should mean that interest rates will be lower in the long run.
Britain has a legacy of under-investment in new technologies, infrastructure and skills. Investment in relation to gross domestic product is low by both historical and international standards. That has contributed to capacity constraints, and has held back economic growth. The Budget encourages long-term investment by putting economic management on to a more stable footing, reforming corporation tax and reinvigorating the private finance initiative.
In Britain today, one in five working-age households have no one earning a wage. In order to replace welfare with work, the Budget introduces new deals for the young, the long-term unemployed, lone parents and schools. The Government have also launched a review of the tax and benefits system to consider how to streamline and modernise the welfare state to help employment opportunity and work incentives.
"(a) drives or rides any vehicle;
I like (n), which refers to a person who
(b) lights any fire or does any act which is likely to cause a fire;
(c) takes, or allows to enter or remain, any dog not under proper control;
(d) wilfully kills, takes, molests or disturbs any animal, bird or fish or takes or injures any eggs or nests;
(e) bathes in any non-tidal water in contravention of a notice . . .
(f) engages in any operations . . . connected with hunting, shooting, fishing . . . taking or destroying of animals . . .
(g) wilfully damages the land . . .
(h) wilfully injures, removes . . . any plant, shrub, tree . . .
(i) obstructs the flow of any drain or watercourse . . .
(j) affixes . . . any advertisement, bill, placard . . .
(k) deposits any rubbish or leaves any litter;
(l) engages in riotous, disorderly or indecent conduct;
(m) wantonly disturbs, annoys or obstructs any person engaged in any lawful occupation".
"holds any political meeting or delivers any political address".
That will have brought home to hon. Members what we did not know when the Bill was first introduced. It demonstrates the complexities involved.
4.56 pm
That this House takes note with approval of the Government's assessment as set out in the Financial Statement and Budget Report for the purposes of section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993.
The debate arises from an amendment to the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993 proposed by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Disability Rights. The purpose of the amendment was to signal the importance attached by the Labour party to the objectives contained in article 2 of the Maastricht treaty, which include the balanced development of economic activities, sustainable and non-inflationary growth, respecting the environment, a high level of employment, and economic and social cohesion.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |