---

Mrs. Gillian Shephard (South-West Norfolk): I thank the Minister for the Environment for letting me have a copy of his statement half an hour in advance--although that obviously did not give me time to examine the accompanying documents.

The Opposition strongly support increased access to the countryside, based on voluntary co-operation set within a secure legal framework to define rights and responsibilities that would allow mutual respect to flourish. We believe that the work done by landowners and others has demonstrated that voluntary arrangements can deliver greatly increased access, and we deplore the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has sought to alienate the very people who have done so much to improve access in all parts of the country.

The right hon. Gentleman's tone this afternoon may have more to do with his Back-Bench problems than increasing access to the countryside. No doubt his hon. Friends will judge his proposals by the parliamentary timetable that he is able to achieve to put them into practice. However, it is regrettable--although perhaps only to be expected from someone who has described land owning as "exclusivity and inherited privilege"--that the right hon. Gentleman has this afternoon squandered the good will that those in the countryside have sought to bring to this issue.

When does the right hon. Gentleman propose to legislate? Given the importance that he attaches to these matters, will it be in the next Session? Given--as English Nature has pointed out--that the Government have at no stage during the consultation process defined either the need or demand for greater access to the countryside, how will the right hon. Gentleman measure the success or otherwise of the policy that he has announced today? He has explained that his statement applies to mountain, moor, heath, down and common land. Can he explain to the House when the mapping exercises will be completed and what work has already been done on definitions?

By what means does the right hon. Gentleman propose to assess the effects of increased access on biodiversity and fragile habitats, and thereby refute the claims of Friends of the Earth that he has focused almost

8 Mar 1999 : Column 24

exclusively on the social implications of increased access? How strongly does he believe in consensus as a way forward? Will the statutory agencies be encouraged to use compulsion as an early option? Will the Government issue guidelines? What will be the cost to local authorities and statutory agencies of negotiating and managing access? What new money will the Government make available, given that it is precisely rural local authorities that have suffered most in Labour's local government finance settlement?

The right hon. Gentleman's statement refers only to access on foot. How strongly will the Government encourage use of the countryside by the general public, such as horse riders, cyclists, families, bird watchers and the disabled? What is in the statement for them? If compulsion becomes necessary, what compensation will there be for landowners and farmers to meet the costs of access and the loss of land values? What arrangements is the right hon. Gentleman making to protect owner liability? Will there be a new legal code to ensure that those using the land and those owning it are clear about their rights and responsibilities in terms of both public behaviour and the control of dogs--which was a thorny issue during the consultation process?

Who will be responsible for appointing the local access forums? What balance will the right hon. Gentleman seek to achieve within and among the different groups to be represented?

The right hon. Gentleman has today produced a solution that has the potential to satisfy no one. It will be cumbersome and bureaucratic; it will further divide town and countryside; and it represents a squandered opportunity.

Mr. Meacher: Nothing reveals more starkly the fact that the Conservative party is stuck in an 18th century time warp than their approach to the statutory right of access. The right hon. Lady's problem is that she cannot make up her mind whether to accept that the Labour Government, with a full manifesto commitment behind today's proposals, should be supported, or whether, as she said towards the end of her remarks, the proposals will satisfy no one. The contrary is true--they will satisfy the overwhelming majority of the electorate.

The Country Landowners Association's Gallup poll last year showed that 80 per cent. of people are in favour of greater access to the countryside. The Ramblers Association NOP poll last year demonstrated that 85 per cent. of people wanted a legal right of access over mountain, moorland, heath and down and registered common land. Once again, the Tory party is allying itself with the tiny, exclusive minority of 15 per cent. I have not at any time accused landowners of being exclusive or committed to the retention of privilege. It is the Conservative party of which I have said that in the past.

I have made it clear that we shall introduce a Bill as soon as parliamentary time allows. The mapping exercise has to be carried out, and we shall tell the new Countryside Agency to get on with that as quickly as it can. On closure for wildlife, we shall fully protect wildlife, sites of special scientific interest and nature reserves. We have always made it clear that protection of wildlife and environmental crops is our priority, and that will not be overridden by public rights of access.

8 Mar 1999 : Column 25

I have made it absolutely clear that we want minimum compulsion to be used. I favour the local access forums, which will be fully representative of all interests. The countryside agencies will issue guidelines. The policy is one not of compulsion but of maximising consensus.

The Government have made it perfectly clear that we shall make available new moneys to ensure that local authorities are able to meet the requirements of the legislation.

On horse riders and cyclists, the right hon. Lady needs to make up her mind whether she is in favour of people on foot having access before she decides whether people on a bicycle or a horse should have access.

On compensation, let me make it clear that the access provisions were devised to have regard to the needs of landowners as well as walkers, and independent research shows that landowners generally will not suffer costs significant enough to warrant compensation. The statutory right will allow agricultural activities, the development of land and the closure of land for good land management reasons to continue.

In answer to the right hon. Lady's final question about the local access forums, I can tell her that we shall certainly ask the Countryside Agency to advise us about the membership, geographical coverage and functions of those forums.

I hope that the right hon. Lady can find it in her heart at least to accept that the local access forums--on which her party will, perhaps, be significantly represented--can work towards resolving the question of access, which has poisoned relations between landowners and users during the past 50 years. We believe that our proposals can finally resolve that question.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett (Denton and Reddish): Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government coming down in favour of a statutory approach is great news for walkers and all those who love the countryside? Does he accept, however, that there will be a few fears that the Government have gone for a very bureaucratic approach? Will he therefore assure us that access to the 4 million extra acres of land will be achieved quickly? Will he make a plea for co-operation between walkers and landowners, to ensure that that is carried out speedily, and that townspeople especially have a better understanding of the countryside as a result?

Mr. Meacher: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes the important point that the provisions will engender greater knowledge and concern for the countryside among millions of people who have not previously had access to it. I am as keen as he is that this should not be a bureaucratic exercise. That is exactly why we are setting up local access forums. They will be able flexibly to take account of local circumstances, which vary dramatically. We have specifically not decided to resolve all these issues on the basis of a single statutory criterion. As to the time scale, I can only repeat that my wish and the Government's wish is to bring the provisions into operation as fast as we can. The main limitation will be the requirement for mapping because, especially for heathland and downland, some uncertainties must be resolved before the right can be exercised.

Mr. Matthew Taylor (Truro and St. Austell): The Minister has taken a big step from national rights to local

8 Mar 1999 : Column 26

realities. On that basis, we welcome his statement and support the direction in which the Government are moving. However, there are some key difficulties, not least concerning how people will gain the information that allows them to make use of such access, given that there will be rights of closure and other restrictions.

Does the Minister expect to get the measure through at least before the next general election, a key date towards which perhaps he is working? Does he agree that safe and accessible land rights, as well as a legal right, are important, and that to achieve that will require funds? I hope that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who is negotiating reform of the common agricultural policy, is considering the release of extra funds to allow landowners and farmers to open up safe and accessible routes into the countryside, as well as simply burdening them with a legal right. Perhaps most important, given that the Minister is asking everybody else to open up their land, has he talked to his colleagues in the Ministry of Defence about the very large areas of land to which the Government restrict access?

---