| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
4.58 pm
Mr. David Curry (Skipton and Ripon): Before I came to the Chamber, I looked up the definition of the word "roam" in the "Concise Oxford English Dictionary". It defines it in three ways. First, it defines it as to
- travel aimlessly over a wide area.
- wander over, through or about;
We will all be greatly helped if we drop the expression "right to roam" from the debate, because I am sure that the Minister does not intend "roam" in any of those definitions of the word. Instead, we should talk increasingly about managed access or--even better--contractual access. That would convey the idea that we intend people who have access to the countryside to take on obligations and, equally, that we expect those who concede access to assume obligations--that is a matter of definition--and to receive some benefit as well. The more we talk in terms of a form of contract between the people who own the countryside and the other people whom they need to make a livelihood from it, the more we can put the debate on to a sensible footing.
We could argue about the Bill in principle or in practice. I am a realist. With the Government's majority, the sensible thing is to argue the practicalities of the Bill. If the notion of management or a contract is to prevail, the existence of a set of rules, effectively policed, is essential. We should debate the nature of those rules and the policing of them.
I represent a large constituency in upland Britain, and clearly the proposals will apply to that area. The Yorkshire dales national park is one of the management agencies that will have responsibility under the legislation. I want therefore to talk about the countryside not in an abstract way but in terms of the practical problems that are brought to me every day in my capacity as a Member of Parliament.
I note that much of the debate is about the pressure on the countryside. In Yorkshire, access to the national park and the management of traffic into the park are live and important issues. We have also realised that there are pressures on physical access, including the ability to move hardcore up to certain areas to reinforce footpaths.
I represent many people for whom the countryside is a working rather than a recreational environment, as it is for others. One group does not exclude the other. I represent a significant number of gamekeepers. I realise that the nearest that many members of new Labour have come to a gamekeeper is reading "Lady Chatterley's Lover"--and they might wish that all gamekeeping were as romantic and exciting as that--but in reality it is much more humdrum. Gamekeepers' livelihoods depend on the maintenance of the open spaces. The sport of the rich is the livelihood of the ordinary countryman. We should be careful about assuming that such sport is exclusively for the rich, and recognise that many people's livelihoods depend, even in an ancillary way, on access to the countryside. One form of access may occasionally be at odds with others. Even the sporting activity to which the Minister referred is a form of access.
I am conscious of the number of small and tenant farmers, to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) referred, who have a vested interest because their livestock graze the moorland and common land. They are already facing pressures as a result of the proposals to change from a headage basis to an area basis the arrangements for payments under the common agricultural policy--rightly in my view. They find that some of their support is taxed to help the rural development proposals with which the Minister will be familiar. All that adds to uncertainty and pressure.
It is important that in passing the legislation we should try to iron out the most obvious problems about which people have concerns. The Minister may say that those concerns are not justified or that they have been dealt with, but they come up repeatedly, so it is important that, in Committee, the Government demonstrate a willingness to try to deal with uncertainty or legitimate concerns about how the rules will work in practice. For example, who will man the local access forums? Will the local culture be dominant in those forums, or will pressure group appointees be nominated? It is important that people feel confident that the forums are manned by people who understand the environment for which they are responsible.
The local authorities have only a discretionary responsibility for management; for example, they must provide wardens and access points. It is difficult to understand how, in the present financial circumstances, many local authorities will find the money to make that provision, even though most of us think that it would be beneficial.
I am bothered about the Minister's apparent lack of interest in access points, which are important. In my constituency, roads across the moor become ribbon
parking lots at certain times of the year, as people park on the edge of the moor. The landscape that we enjoy is visually compromised by the volume of people who come to benefit from it.
There is particular concern about the fact that the Bill permits closures. How does one notify the public of a closure for a particular reason? If there is no central access point, how do people who come to the area know that the closure is in effect? That is a practical difficulty. It is a small issue, but it is important for the sensible operation of the legislation.
I see no objection to dawn-to-dusk access, but I am conscious of problems of rural crime--not just the wildlife crime to which the Minister referred. I know that stone and slate are stolen from barns in my constituency; we know that there is poaching. The incidental, collateral damage resulting from such activities often causes difficulty.
Sheep theft is not very frequent at the moment--one would have to be economically illiterate to want to steal a sheep at present--but such theft has been a problem. People enjoying such illegal access have left gates open, and policing at night is difficult. I hope that the Minister will be open to persuasion that there should be dawn-to-dusk rather than 24-hour permits.
I know that the issue of dogs is emotive. The Bill sets out a period in which they are required to be on a leash in the vicinity of livestock. It is easy to make fun of those who ask what "vicinity" or "being close to" sheep means, but the problem is a practical one, particularly if dogs are not well trained and difficult to bring under control once off the leash. The Minister must again address himself to a practical concern because the sanction throughout the Bill is extraordinarily weak. The law of trespass in the United Kingdom is a weak instrument, which would put the fear of God or of the law court into nobody's mind.
There is the question of liability. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells said, it is closely defined. There are manmade features of the landscape that are tantamount to being natural features because, in a sense, almost all the countryside is man-made. We are trying to preserve stone walls, which are under threat because of difficulty of maintenance, but if people stand on them, they become unstable. A dry stone wall is just that, and the danger of accident is real.
On the 28-day closed period, I know that the Bill provides for people to apply to a designated authority--in my constituency, the national park will probably be the main one--for an extension. We need to know that the procedure will be rapid and clear and that the response will be rapid, too. We all know of difficulties experienced by those who have had to apply to some official body--28 days later, they are still waiting for an answer because the next committee meeting is umpteen weeks away. Will the Minister ensure that there is a mechanism for rapid response and evaluation at short notice of such applications? In the light of circumstances, that would be very helpful.
I welcome the provision for rights of way improvement plans; they do need to be amended more rapidly. I welcome particularly the banning of vehicles from green lanes. Vehicles cause enormous damage on such lanes; when the snow comes, great potholes fill up--
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. Time is up. I call Mr. Pickthall.
Mr. Colin Pickthall (West Lancashire):
I have been a hill walker ever since my boyhood in Cumbria, so I suppose I must declare an interest in what I have to say. First, however, I very much congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment on a magnificent achievement in getting the Bill thus far. I also congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) and for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) on their long crusade on this issue.
Part of the pleasure of hill walking lies in seeking a different route every time one is out, and in the map and compass work that that often involves. Even in the Lake district national park, where access is about as free as it can be, it is still possible to be trapped by private land, deer fences or wire. In my experience of fell walking over 45 years or so, very few walkers have wanted to invade private property. The vast majority of the time, especially in poor weather, they want to stick to well-trodden paths.
I take enormous pleasure not only in walking myself, but in seeing others walking, many of them trekking up hills and along ridges: they are not sitting in front of television screens or on cosy football terraces, but exercising body and spirit, and many of them become addicted. Walking plays an essential part in maintaining the nation's health and its sanity. The ability to visit the countryside on foot is vital to those who do not live in the country. Walkers tend to be observant and careful; for the most part, they help to take care of the countryside through which they pass. Hill walking is one of the few occupations that is available to people regardless of age and almost regardless of income.
By contrast, the attitude of some landowners--not all, thank God--and their spokesmen is often marked by extraordinary snobbery. The Country Landowners Association regional secretary for Leicestershire, Rutland, Northamptonshire and Warwickshire wrote:
The CLA regional secretary for the east midlands wrote that the freedom to roam
One does not need to read many such comments to get a clear idea of what landowners think of the citizens of this country. They appear to hold the extraordinary belief that walkers are all from the towns. Writing in The Daily Telegraph, Quentin Letts refers to my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment as "Minister for Townie Ramblers", as though those of us who live in the countryside never put one foot in front of the other.
Another argument advanced is that the Bill represents the thin end of the wedge. Such an argument could be used to negate every piece of legislation ever proposed.
Jolyon Dodgson, the CLA regional secretary for the north-west--a fine man, pleasant company and an old friend of mine--writes that the Government's decision
A third argument that is often advanced has already been put by the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King)--the people will not understand the legislation. Apparently, we are all too thick to understand such complicated legislation, so we should not do anything about it. A hint of that attitude has been heard in suggestions made this afternoon about the right people not being put on the access forums, and the need to choose carefully people who can understand the legislation--and, no doubt, who own a lot of land as well.
The key to the Bill is balance: it not only extends rights of access, but provides the means to protect wildlife from disturbance at sensitive times of the year and allows for the protection of the land itself from hazards such as fire. In the existing national parks--in the Lake district, the Peak district, north wales and so on--the most serious problem caused by walkers is erosion of footpaths, as continuous overuse grinds them down to gravel. One need only visit the Old Man of Coniston or Kinder Scout to see that that is a problem. However, better access in other parts of the country might help to prevent such problems by diverting walkers elsewhere.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pendle and I had an interesting meeting a short time ago with representatives of the CLA in the north-west. They told us that they did not expect a vast mushrooming in the number of walkers--such as the total population of Greater Manchester and Merseyside suddenly wandering out into the trough of Bowland. However, existing walkers and their families and new walkers--we hope that there will be more, for all the reasons given by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish--will be given a wider choice and greater access closer to their homes, involving less travelling. For me, the trough of Bowland, most of which is out of bounds, will become accessible and it is only a short drive away.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister on clause 65, which deals with the danger to limestone pavement, which has exercised me for some years. It is appalling that limestone pavement in south Cumbria, north Lancashire and the Pennines has been quarried for gardens and for massive export to Japan. It is therefore reassuring to see the clause.
The problem of dogs has been mentioned. I understand the restrictions contained in the Bill, but I ask my right hon. Friend to consider further restrictions. Human beings, as well as sheep and birds, are in danger from unleashed dogs in mountainous country and country where there are quarries. My two daughters and I have been knocked flying in the mountains by other people's dogs racing ahead of their owners. It is a problem that needs addressing.
In the last couple of minutes available to me, I shall deal with the provisions on footpaths. The CLA is right to argue that most people want to use footpaths in their neighbourhood--the footpaths that connect or ramble round villages and hamlets, such as those in my constituency of West Lancashire, which are often under
threat from development as well as from farming. The Government are right to be impatient with the slow progress in producing definitive maps in some areas and the huge delays in sorting out disputes and diversions.
We don't want all and sundry roaming our land, especially not criminals, drug pushers and vandals.
I am sure the House can imagine a drug pusher on top of the trough of Bowland, waiting for the walkers in woolly hats to come up and buy his illegal goods.
would apply to everyone, including the minority of vandals, sheep stealers, badger baiters, horse slashers, illegal hare coursers, poaching gangs, birds eggs thieves and those responsible for a rising tide of crime in rural areas.
Picture those people, staggering around the mountains looking for a horse to slash. The hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) summed up walkers as trespassers and hooligans.
is nothing more than the expropriation of private land rights and we would advise other owners of private property to take note.
Next, Parliament will legislate to allow people to wander through other people's gardens.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |