| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Gordon Prentice: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Clark: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I have not finished with him yet.
Mr. Prentice: If I said such a thing in the House of Commons Library, it was said with jocularity. I have said the same thing to the Bishop of Blackburn, the Very Rev. Alan Chesters, and he took it as a joke. The right hon. Gentleman seems to be congenitally incapable of seeing a joke.
Mr. Clark: That is not a charge that has been made against me before. Usually, people accuse me of being too frivolous. However, the House and the public will judge. I regret the fact that a really important cause, which is genuinely to be encouraged as we change gear from one century to another, will suffer damage if it is presented in the tendentious language used by the hon. Gentleman.
The Bill will not trouble us again, but I hope that the Minister, when he introduces Government legislation, will bear in mind the anxiety that affects many people who are otherwise completely well-intentioned towards it. According to the Bill, open country
Mr. Prentice:
The access group.
Mr. Clark:
That may work, but one is naturally suspicious of any ambiguities in legislation.
Many of the provisions are pointlessly punitive. My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) mentioned the penalties for displaying signs deterring public access. There are especially penal provisions laying the burden on the landowner
I am in favour of opening up the land and inhibiting awkward and rebarbative landowners, and I recognise that such people exist--the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper) cited one--but to oblige landowners to advertise and invite the public to enter their land seems to me to be going rather too far.
Mr. Bennett:
If the right hon. Gentleman is as keen to encourage access to the countryside as he suggests, what should happen when a public right of way is clearly marked, but someone puts up a notice saying, "Keep out. Trespassers will be prosecuted"? Surely it is important that such notices are removed and the rights of individuals to use such paths are enforced. How should that be done?
Mr. Clark:
I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I would have thought that, if anyone put up such a notice, especially after this legislation or its equivalent has passed through the House, it would be immediately attended to. The hon. Gentleman has opened the door on the especially disquieting element of the Bill, which was inflamed by the hon. Member for Pendle in the way that he approached the topic. There are people who want to use the new right--I do not dispute the fact that it may be viewed as an ancient right that has been inhibited for centuries--as an engine for their private and extreme political convictions. I know those people. Few hon. Members would dispute my green credentials. I have been on the picket line at live export demos and been roughed up by the police, and I also went to Jill Phipps's funeral at Coventry cathedral. I well know that militants infiltrate such movements. The militant hunt saboteurs, for example, have no more commitment to animal welfare than I believe does the hon. Member for Pendle to the beauties of nature.
Mr. Gordon Prentice:
I introduced the Bill.
Mr. Clark:
I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman if he wishes to intervene.
Mrs. Eileen Gordon (Romford):
Although I have been known to ramble from time to time, I hope that I shall not do so today. My remarks will be extremely brief. Many of the points that I intended to raise have already been covered in this interesting debate.
I would not claim to have the depth of knowledge of many of my hon. Friends. However, I have received many letters and postcards from my constituents showing their support for the right to roam. I know that they warmly welcome all the efforts and work of my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice)--or should I saythe class warrior for Pendle--the Minister and the Government to make the right to roam a reality at last.
Like many people who live in towns, my rambling and walking is mostly done in towns and shops. That landscape is extremely pleasant--at least to me--but many people living in towns like to escape to moor or down to be surrounded by our beautiful countryside, to hear the call of the curlew rather than the ringing of cash registers. We need that space, freedom and access.
I can tell Opposition Members that people move out from their towns. People leave Romford and visit other places. They like to go to the Peak district or the Yorkshire moors, for example. They should have the right to do so.
As a town dweller, I become confused about where we can and cannot walk in the countryside. It is a brilliant idea to have mapping, when we get the right to roam, so that people will know where they can and cannot go. It will give people--perhaps new walkers--information, knowledge and clarity. That will be most welcome.
I can speak only from my limited experience. However, two particular walks have influenced me and my support for the Bill. The first was a family rambling day in Havering, which was organised by the Ramblers Association. I have always found that association to be a very responsible group in its concern and care for the countryside.
The Havering walk was on designated footpaths. My hon. Friends the Members for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer) and for Upminster (Mr. Darvill) joined me. It was a fairly short walk, but many of the footpaths were overgrown. Some had been diverted without any consultation or without the right to divert. Most were neglected and encroached by crops, for example. As a result, most of the footpaths were very narrow and insecure. It is clear to me that, if landowners are so casual about maintaining footpaths and do not even provide access to comply with the law, they and other landowners will not voluntarily provide greater access.
The second walk was in the Forest of Bowland area, when we went on another trip during the Labour party conference at Blackpool last year. The weather was pretty foul but the countryside was lovely. There was so much
beautiful land with so little access. I therefore became convinced that a voluntary agreement would not work. I am reassured and delighted that those who know much more about the subject than I do, and the Government, have come to the same conclusion. This land is our land. I look on today's debate as the beginning of yet another Labour party manifesto pledge fulfilled. As we said, our policies include greater freedom for people to explore the countryside.
Legislation is needed, and I am sure that the Government will introduce a Bill as soon as they can when parliamentary time permits. Like my hon. Friends, we are looking towards November for that to happen.
Mr. David Atkinson (Bournemouth, East):
I apologise to the House, and in particular to the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), for not being present at the start of the debate, owing to an unavoidable commitment.
I should declare a long-standing interest in hiking and mountaineering. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) mentioned the Glyders, the Carnedds and the Snowdon horseshoe, which are my second home.
Those are healthy pursuits which, together with walking, horse-riding and cycling, are widely shared by our constituents. Outward-bound activities such as orienteering are becoming more popular, not just among young people. Ever more people will be pursuing such activities as more free time becomes available to them, not least in retirement, and they should be encouraged to do so. That is why the Bill is so timely and would have had my support in principle, with some important reservations, which I hope the Government will take into account in preparing their own promised legislation.
The right to access or to intrude on private land has long been a contentious and divisive issue. It has, regrettably, been fanned by the politics of envy over the years, as my namesake, my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) emphasised. Emotions continue to run high, encouraged by the media, as currently demonstrated by their coverage of the Bill. That is regrettable, but it is a reality and will remain so unless it is addressed by legislation.
I willingly confess to feeling incensed by being denied access to areas that I want to climb and explore, but that are permanently closed, just as I am incensed by ancient covenants that prevent my constituents from building a swimming pool in their back garden, for example.
I welcome the reasonable approach that, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) reminded us, has been adopted by the Ministry of Defence, which owns much of the attractive countryside and coastland in my county, Dorset. The MOD makes it available for walking on most weekends and at other times during the year, thanks to the last Conservative Government.
Clear conflicts of interest exist on the issue with which the Bill deals. The right to ownership of property and the right to privacy are clearly defined in the European convention on human rights, and are rightly upheld by the European Court of Human Rights. It has been suggested that, if the Bill became law, landowners would be entitled to compensation from the courts.
I accept that the right of common access to open countryside, as proposed by the Bill, is not mentioned in the European convention on human rights, but it is a right that public opinion strongly supports and demands, as my postbag demonstrates. That demand will only grow, so it is right to address the issue now. It is reasonable for the European Court to take account of that growing demand, should it be necessary.
A number of my hon. Friends continue to advocate a voluntary approach, as do, understandably, those representing landowners and their interests. I do not believe that a voluntary approach would work. There are too many people representing both sides who will find it impossible to appreciate the approach of the other. The situation is not helped by the media, which tend to demonise those with strongly held views. That is why so little progress has been made in achieving the co-operation and understanding that would be necessary for a voluntary approach to work.
As the issue is so polarised and the opposing points of view are so entrenched, I believe that there is no alternative to legislation. I agree with the Countryside Commission's conclusions that any voluntary arrangements would be unlikely to deliver the extent and the permanence of access that the Government are now seeking.
Far from destroying the good will that is necessary to achieve greater access, the Bill would provide a framework for mutual trust and understanding to develop between landowner and rambler or walker. Legislation would make clear beyond any misunderstanding the obligations on all land users.
The Bill defines the rights and responsibilities placed on ramblers. The detailed list in schedule 1 defines those to whom the Bill would not apply, because of their thoughtlessness, willing destruction of property or sheer stupidity. That should be welcomed on both sides of the argument.
Those eager to access the land were described in a recent letter to The Daily Telegraph as people who
To the landowner, the Bill should be equally reassuring. It would place statutory obligations on those who are using the land in pursuit of recreation and provide the landowner with increased recourse--supported by the full weight of the law--in the event of maltreatment of property. The law would provide the landowner with specific powers; it might not be necessary to use them, but they would be instrumental in establishing a working relationship between landowner and rambler. Such powers would not be provided by a voluntary agreement.
"means any area which consists wholly or predominantly of mountain, moor, heath or down".
Who is to judge what is "predominantly"?
"to take such steps as are agreed from time to time with the authority for the area or areas in which the land is situate . . . for the publication of sufficient information to enable a member of the public to identify the land".
That is completely punitive.
"do not want to destroy the countryside; we simply want to enjoy it peacefully, carefully and with as little disturbance to the local population as possible".
Such people will no doubt welcome the measure as a way of ensuring that decent, common courtesy is maintained, and as an assurance to the landowner that his land will suffer no detrimental effects as a result of their presence on it.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |