| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
10.18 am
Mr. James Paice (South-East Cambridgeshire): It is conventional on such occasions to congratulate an hon. Member on having the good fortune to have drawn a high place in the ballot. I congratulate the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), because he has an opportunity that not many hon. Members get, however many years they are in this House. I also congratulate him on having the courage to choose an issue that is clearly as controversial between parties as it is, I suspect, within his own party. We know that from the fact that one of his colleagues intends to introduce a 10-minute Bill with a wholly different approach to the same issue.
The hon. Gentleman's speech was tinged with dry sarcasm and sardonic humour, which his hon. Friends all found highly amusing. However, it underlined the fact that the Bill and this whole proposition serve to demonstrate the divide between socialism, and capitalism and property ownership. It is a totally socialist measure. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will take that as a compliment.
Mr. Gareth R. Thomas (Harrow, West):
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Paice:
No, not for the moment.
The right to roam is based not on a putative enjoyment of the countryside, but on one thing and one thing alone: that most evil of human traits, envy. It is based on envy
of private property and a belief that land should be available to everyone and that no one should have the right to restrict access to it.
I have talked to many ramblers--my constituents and others--I challenged Kate Ashbrook, who had the courage to speak to a Conservative party meeting in the House last year, and I challenged the Minister when he made his statement earlier this month. I asked them what extra benefits of enjoyment of the countryside can be obtained from the right to roam that cannot be obtained from a comprehensive network of footpaths. They had no answer. They either evade the issue by saying, as the Minister did, that there is no comprehensive network, or they resort to the truth and say that they should have a right to go wherever they want.
The Minister took refuge in the absence of a comprehensive network of footpaths as a justification for his policy, which I accept is not 100 per cent. the same as that proposed by the hon. Member for Pendle, although it is pretty close to it. The fact is that, despite what the hon. Gentleman said, little effort has been made to create a comprehensive network of footpaths. A great deal more could be done, and I accept that further statutory measures may be required to achieve that network. If that were done, far more people would gain.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the proximity of his constituency to a large area of open land, but most people live in parts of the country where there is no conveniently placed open land. They may not be able to go out of their back door and have access to such land, but they want to be able to get to a good walk within a few short minutes or a short drive. No one in my constituency could access any open land in less than an hour and a half or two hours. Many other people are faced with the same problem.
I was born and brought up in the country but, before anyone suggests that I am a massive landowner, I should tell the House that I am not: I own the grand sum of 10 acres, so I am not speaking from self-interest. I want people to enjoy the countryside, because it has so much to offer, but that enjoyment can be obtained from walking along footpaths and does not require this draconian measure.
Mr. Derek Twigg (Halton):
I have a letter from a mountaineering organisation in my constituency. It says that the Country Landowners Association suggested limited access to recognised paths only, but to adopt that approach would deny access to the crags and open countryside on which mountaineering depends, and would make a complete mockery of the concept of freedom of access.
Mr. Paice:
We do not have many mountains or crags in Cambridgeshire. My point is that the vast majority of people would gain far more from a comprehensive network of footpaths than they would from open access. There is no reason why negotiations could not obtain opportunities for mountaineers to find the right rock face and to come to an agreement with the landowner. That is wholly different from this proposed wholesale right of access. People want to be able to walk on a Sunday or at any other time and have access to the countryside near to
Mr. Richard Allan (Sheffield, Hallam):
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that millions of people live near the Peak district either on the wrong side, the Lancashire side, or on the right side, the Yorkshire side, and they regularly access that land, but there is a major problem because certain areas are still out of bounds? We need genuine open access, and the Bill will do something to achieve that. It may not help the hon. Gentleman in Cambridgeshire, but it will help millions of people in the major conurbations in the north of the country.
Mr. Paice:
The hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong. It may not be possible to access certain areas, but that is not a reason to have open access. It is a reason for developing a more comprehensive network of footpaths--that is the point that I am making.
I am sure that it is impossible to convert the hon. Member for Pendle, so I shall not try to do so. However, if we take the Government at face value, they should be seeking the large tent--the hon. Gentleman referred somewhat sardonically to the inclusive nature of their policies. They should consider the needs and interests of the vast majority of people, which I believe would be served by creating such a network. They should work with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and should create links with support measures. They should simplify and speed up the diversion process, and remove the absurdity that enables a person to object to, and to obstruct, that process. We could then move towards a much more comprehensive network.
Many farmers have already opened up permissive footpaths, which ramblers reject for political reasons, because they are obsessed with rights. They believe that a footpath should exist for ever and a day, but that is not a necessary requirement. As long as there are plenty of footpaths in the countryside, the people who use them will have access to, and the benefit of, the enjoyment of the countryside.
Mr. Bob Russell:
The hon. Gentleman wants a network of footpaths, and I have considerable sympathy with his points about farming in relation to East Anglia and other parts of the United Kingdom where open access would not be applicable. What measures were taken in the past 20 years to create the network of footpaths that he advocates?
Mr. Paice:
I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has asked me that, because it allows me to tell him. The previous Government introduced the countryside stewardship scheme and the countryside premium scheme, both of which require access to the land. The farmer who farms land adjoining my property is in one of those schemes and has such an arrangement incorporated into his agreement. He has to provide access. The previous Government took steps to enable access, but I am the first to recognise that more could be done.
I have no time for landowners who wilfully obstruct and prevent people from having any access to their land. However, the ill-judged views of a few is no justification for this huge legislation and the cataclysmic effects that it would have.
Mr. Gareth R. Thomas:
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Paice:
No, I shall not give way any more, because many other hon. Members want to speak and I have other duties in half an hour.
I want to deal briefly with the detail of the Bill. Occupier's liability and insurance are mentioned in the Bill--and get a mention in the Government's latest document--but only extremely briefly. We cannot get away from the fact that the Country Landowners Association believes that landowners often consider the current arrangements for public liability insurance to be costly. To extend the arrangements as proposed would lead to greater public liability risks and insurance. The Government should carefully consider what level of liability it is reasonable to expect if people are to have access to open countryside.
The National Union of Farmers argues that increased access would involve costs to the landowner. I welcome the fact that the intention is not to extend open access to all agricultural land yet, although many people are worried about that. On the open countryside, where greater access is proposed, there is grave cause for concern about costs, and there is also concern about the definitions in the Bill. Clause 7(2) states:
"agricultural land shall not include land which is agricultural land by reason only that it affords rough grazing for livestock."
How will the average person who is not particularly versed in agricultural ways or even in the ways of the countryside be able to tell the difference between intensively or extensively managed grassland? There is a real danger that people will start their walk on a piece of open countryside, but will then find their way on to farmed land and will interfere with what is described as a legitimate use of the land.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |