| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
1.57 pm
Mr. Gareth R. Thomas (Harrow, West): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) on his entertaining and effective speech. Several unflattering comparisons have been made with the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), but they complemented each other with the potency of a Yorke and Cole combination. To take the footballing analogy a little further, my right hon. Friend the Minister has already had one excellent result and I hope that, like Alex Ferguson, he goes on to gain another in securing a right to roam Bill in the Queen's Speech in November.
Walking and rambling are hugely popular in this country. More than 400 million walking trips were made in 1996. A statutory right to roam will further increase the opportunities for leisure activity--for healthy walking, for tourism and for increased understanding of our environment.
A statutory right to roam would build on, and increase, the opportunities available through the existing rights of way network. Above all, it would deliver huge pleasure to all those who take advantage of it. We have some stunning scenery in our nation, but enjoyment of far too much of it is denied to the many and left locked up in the hands of a privileged few--a privileged few who have been defended today by the Conservatives and were also defended by a Plaid Cymru Member when my right hon. Friend the Minister made his recent statement.
Conservative Members claim that they, too, support high-quality access arrangements. Taking their words at face value, their mistake is in believing that a voluntary approach could deliver high-quality access. The voluntary approach has had enough time to deliver results. The right of access to land is not an issue that has suddenly arisen. It has been a political issue for more than 100 years and has been supported by the Labour party for much of that time. Those who advocate a voluntary approach should have been able to deliver more substantial and more wide-ranging access arrangements to demonstrate their view that statutory action was unnecessary.
Bearing in mind the potential 3 million to 4 million acres that we have been talking about, the small amount of additional land voluntarily made available pales into insignificance. If the election of a new Labour Government committed to examining a statutory right to access cannot stimulate a more active and more determined voluntary commitment to access from landowners, it is safe to say that, 100 years since thestart of the campaign, the voluntary approach has demonstrably failed.
The Government carefully examined whether--despite the history--a voluntary approach could be made to work. Six sensible benchmarks were laid down, against which people were asked to judge whether a new form of voluntary approach could be developed. Some 84 per cent. of respondents to the Government's consultation exercise--a clear majority--made it clear that they did not believe that voluntary arrangements could deliver cost-effective access of sufficient quality, extent, permanency or clarity.
It is highly relevant to examine what is likely to happen in Scotland. The Scottish access forum, comprised of representatives of all sides of the access debate--including landowners, walkers and public agencies--has called on the Scottish Parliament to provide a
If Conservative Members cannot accept the views of Scottish landowners, perhaps they will listen to their own Scottish spokesman, Murdo Fraser, whose support for a statutory right to roam I made clear in an earlier intervention. Scottish walkers, Scottish local authorities and Scottish landowners support a right to roam. Even the Conservative party in Scotland supports a right to roam. Why not the Conservative party in England and Wales? Are Welsh mountains somehow more fragile than Scottish mountains? Are wildlife habitats on moors in England more at risk than those on Scottish moors? I do not think so.
It is ridiculous that the Conservative party in Scotland supports a statutory right to roam while the Conservative party in England does not. There is no massive difference on the issue between Scotland and the rest of the UK. What is different is that the Conservative party in England appears to be even more obtuse than its Scottish counterparts.
Beyond educating English Tories, the Scottish experience has a lesson for all those interested in access in England and Wales. The various interests have developed mutual understanding and effective partnerships to begin the task of implementing new access provisions. We need a similar sensible dialogue among landowners, managers, user groups, conservation interests and local authorities in England and Wales.
The new national access forums in England and Wales, coupled with the local access forums--which will bring together people with a detailed local knowledge, mirroring the membership of the new national forum--are sensible and important ways of securing wide support within local communities and the national scene for access packages.
Landowners--both individually and collectively--have an important perspective, and must be heard. They should have the discretion to close land or restrict access for
defined reasons for a limited number of days. The Government's package will allow that to happen. Conservation interests also have a different and crucial dimension to bring to the forums. However, it is time that user groups were heard. The Government's approach will ensure that all interests are heard.
Legislation is urgent, but it will take time. It is an opportunity for ramblers and landowners to sit down locally and start hammering out the details of access. It is far better to start negotiating locally now, so that united advice from local interests can be presented to the new Countryside Agency.
The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher):
I start, as others have, with warm congratulations for my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) on the opportunity that he has given the House to debate the important issue of public access to the countryside--something for which we have been waiting, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) has just said, for the best part of a century.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pendle spoke with his usual eloquence and commitment, and exhibited a rich vein of humour that exposed how tenuous and fragmentary are Conservative Members' arguments against a right of access and how readily that lack of argument has been covered by resort to cheap slogans about class warfare. I always take note when Tories start to talk about class warfare. They know all about it, because they have been practising it for centuries.
My hon. Friend's gentle mockery demolished a number of myths and misrepresentations, and I pay tribute to him. He has campaigned tirelessly on a cause in which he clearly believes passionately, and he has contributed not a little to the Government's own preparations for a Bill. Since he introduced the Bill, the Government have announced proposals for improving access to the countryside. I am grateful to him for his decision to withdraw the Bill in favour of a Government Bill.
My announcement to the House on 8 March was, I am delighted to say, extremely widely welcomed. As my hon. Friends the Members for Heywood and Middleton (Mr. Dobbin) and for Tooting (Mr. Cox) said, their postbags and mine have never before been as full as they are now, with personal letters of thanks for our decision to legislate for a new statutory right of access.
For some reason, the announcement was also apparently unexpected. The cutting that I most relish was, I think, a leader in The Daily Telegraph. I do not have it here, but it said something like, "Michael Meacher stood up yesterday in the House of Commons and did something unprecedented in modern British politics. He delivered himself of a statement that had not previously been leaked to the press."
My hon. Friend the Member for Pendle spoke about mapping. He is right in saying that common land is already clearly demarcated and that upland common areas
have already been mapped, but there are difficulties with areas of downland. I have already spoken with the Countryside Agency about getting a mapping exercise under way as quickly as possible, and we are certainly considering whether the right of access could, on that basis, be introduced by stages.
"right of access to land and water, exercised responsibly, for informal recreation and passage."
The forum developed a package of proposals after extensive consultation that commanded the support of all the forum members. John Grant of the Scottish Landowners Federation claimed:
"These legislative proposals will ensure that arrangements for public access to our land are among the best in Europe. They will enhance the quality of life of every citizen."
If the landowners' organisation in Scotland can take such an enlightened attitude to access legislation, surely Conservative Members--who oppose such statutory provision in England and Wales--should re-examine their view.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |