---

Mr. David Davis: I apologise for intervening again, but it is a serious practical problem. I agree about the Pennine way; I do not like walking in a trench. In the part of the coast-to-coast walk that is just beyond Nine Standards Rigg, the organisers of the area have tried to vary the path all over the moor. When I go there, I watch lots of people who are not used to navigating in high country walking in all parts of the moor, not on a path at all. The result is that, almost in its entirety, the moor is wrecked.

One of my concerns--I speak as someone who walks the Kinder Scout walk every year in memory of the 1930s--is that serious damage will be done to parts of the open countryside, particularly those near urban areas, which the hon. Member for Pendle mentioned, not just because of a linear route, but because of the sheer mass of population that will come on to it.

Mr. Bennett: It may be a problem. That is one of the things that we have to consider in examining access agreements. How can we manage access, so that we do not destroy the things that people go out to? However, I caution Conservative Members who say that linear paths are always the answer.

In some places, good linear footpaths will be important. I do not think that ramblers object to permissive paths where they are extra to the network. Where many country lanes have been lost, there are strong arguments for people to put a footpath along the field margin, away from traffic. That can be helpful. There are some good landowners who look to save field margins, so that they can encourage wildlife. Relatively few people are likely to walk them. They should be able to walk some of them.

We should not see the matter as us and them. We have to accept that the town and country need each other and that there needs to be a uniting of activity between the town and countryside.

Inevitably, if we are going to retain the carefully nurtured upland landscape, someone has to pay for it. It will no longer be paid for as a by-product of food production. We need changes to the common agricultural policy that will enable farmers to go on looking after the landscape that they have looked after for many centuries. That is important but, if townspeople are going to contribute towards that maintenance by farmers, why should they not be able to go out and enjoy the countryside?

We need to remember that little of Britain is wild landscape. Even on top of mountains, there tends to be a wall. When we look down into the countryside, we see carefully nurtured field boundaries. We have to find a way in which to keep that and to ensure that the land is enjoyed not just by farmers or landowners, but by everyone. That is why I welcome many of the Government's proposals. I hope that there will be a spirit of co-operation, so that we can start to work out some of those difficulties.

There is the question of compensation. I do not believe that a vast sum of money should be paid in compensation, but the example in the Peak district is clear. Where we have access land, on occasions, people have to get to that access land. Extra stiles and gateways may have to be put

26 Mar 1999 : Column 646

in place for people to get to it. That is something that the nation should pay for, either through national parks or local government, so that the farmer or landowner is not out of pocket.

Accident liability is a serious issue. It is clear that the landowners must meet their obligations under health and safety rules, but, where people go on to land to enjoy it, they also have a responsibility and should not expect to be able to sue the landowner for accidents that they have caused. That matter needs sorting out.

We should make progress through the local forum on access to the countryside. We need to get the mapping going. I do not want to see a lot of policemen in the countryside, but there is a case for using rangers, particularly in some of the more popular areas. Some of the national parks rangers have done an excellent job in interpreting the countryside rules and in helping with safety. We need to expand that.

Out of the legislation--I hope that it comes soon--we want a partnership between country landowners, the National Farmers Union, ramblers, the British Mountaineering Council and the tourist boards to ensure that walkers are welcome in the countryside. We should all be involved in showing walkers the beauty of the countryside, and in telling them that they have a responsibility in the countryside.

Our green and pleasant land should be something that everyone can enjoy. Everyone should contribute to ensure that we and future generations can go on enjoying it. Access to the countryside is very important. It should be in legislation soon.

10.50 am

Mr. Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington): I congratulate the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) on securing this debate and on his boisterous, knockabout speech. His choice in private Member's Bill was a happy one, even if he has chosen to go out with a bang rather than a whimper. Whichever side of the argument they are on, people care passionately about the right to roam. However, the issue is not, as some Conservative Members have suggested, about class war. The right to roam is not evil, but involves fundamental freedoms. Nevertheless, the right to roam issue leaves me in a quandary.

I strongly support the principle that land should be accessible to all. There is no justification for placing off limits to all but a small minority vast tracts of our memorable countryside.

Mr. Peter Atkinson (Hexham): But, on the other hand.

Mr. Brake: But, on the other hand: the right to access must encompass only low or no-impact access.

I believe that the Right to Roam Bill does not quite get the balance right. Therefore, I told my constituents that I would attend and speak in today's debate on the Bill, but that I would abstain in a Division on it. I was therefore relieved when the Government made their own, more limited access proposals, which I think that all Liberal Democrats can support.

The hon. Member for Pendle can rightly be proud of the part that he has played in forcing the Government's hand. However, as his Bill has now been overtaken by events--by the Government's proposals--we should

26 Mar 1999 : Column 647

be scrutinising the Government's proposals. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will answer some simple questions.

When will the Government's access proposals become law? The Minister for the Environment has said that, in this Parliament, a wildlife Bill will be introduced. Will the Government's access proposals be linked to that wider wildlife Bill?

How will the Government ensure protection of sites of special scientific interest and areas of outstanding natural beauty? What impact will their plans have on nature reserves managed by organisations such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds? What will the Government do to open up their own land, such as Ministry of Defence land?

What additional research will the Government be commissioning to examine the costs to farmers caused by the access proposals? I do not think that the proposals will have no cost implications, so Ministers should revisit the cost issue.

Liberal Democrat Members' support will remain conditional so long as those and other questions remain unanswered.

As the hon. Member for Pendle said, the right to roam is about not only rights but responsibilities. We shall soon have the rights--which Liberal Democrat Members welcome--but we must consider more carefully the responsibilities.

10.53 am

Mr. Tom Cox (Tooting): I am sure that hon. Members on both sides the House, and people across the country, warmly support my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) in promoting and presenting his Bill. I pay tribute also to my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment for all his work on, and his commitment to, the Bill.

The British people's belief that they should be able to walk through our countryside--so that they might enjoy its beauty and life--has long been one of the Labour party's deep commitments. In my years as an hon. Member, and even long before, Labour Members have sought to introduce legislation on that commitment. We have always--today is no exception--encountered difficulties and objections in those attempts. However, we have had to fight for many of the rights now enshrined in our legislation. The difficulties of introducing legislation for the benefit of the British people have always been--and always will be--emphasised by those who, despite what they might say, do not really support the principles enshrined in the Bill.

26 Mar 1999 : Column 648

Hon. Members may remember Arthur Blenkinsop--the distinguished former Labour Member of Parliament for South Shields, who, sadly, died some years ago.

The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher) indicated assent.

Mr. Cox: I see that my right hon. Friend remembers him.

Arthur Blenkinsop was a great believer in people's right to be able to enjoy the countryside, and, in his years in the House, he campaigned vigorously on the issue. However, like many other hon. Members, he repeatedly encountered objections to such legislation--such as people's supposed lack of respect for the countryside, which they would only damage. Although we still hear such objections, I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will have noticed that, happily, most people's attitude to the issue has changed enormously. Now, there is undoubtedly enormous support among the British people for the measures that my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle is seeking to introduce in his Bill.

I am sure that all hon. Members in the Chamber have received cards and letters from constituents, calling on us to attend this debate and to support the Bill in a Vote, if there were one. In recent weeks, I have received 393 cards and letters on the Bill, and every one of them supported it. I did not receive one letter from anyone in my constituency saying, "Don't support the Bill. Parts of it are okay, but we don't really need it."

---