| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett (Denton and Reddish): Where is the hon. Gentleman's evidence that the measure will
cause any problem? As was pointed out on Second Reading, such provisions have applied in most of the Lake district for more than 100 years--and in large chunks of the Peak district as a result of access agreements negotiated by the national park--without causing any difficulties at all. If such arrangements do not cause a problem in those two areas, where is the hon. Gentleman's evidence that it will cause problems elsewhere?
Mr. Green: The hon. Gentleman is tempting me down a route that is not entirely germane to the amendments. However, the upland areas in particular contain the farms which are under the most economic pressure: they are suffering from the worst economic crisis that many can remember. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, who is knowledgeable on these matters, will agree that for the Government to deny money-raising opportunities to upland farmers in the climate in which they are forced to operate today is particularly unfortunate.
In this group of amendments and others, we will seek precisely to ensure that the right of access--which we did not oppose on Second Reading--is as practicable as possible so that all those who have to make it work, particularly in the uplands, can feel that, although the Government are making their lives more difficult in many ways, they are not making it unnecessarily difficult through the detailed provisions of the Bill.
Mr. James Gray (North Wiltshire): Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the important distinctions to be made between the arrangements applying to the Peak district and Lake district national parks and the provisions of the Bill is that, in those areas, the authorities are able to designate where people are allowed to walk? They may choose to allow people to walk anywhere, but they are certainly allowed to offer them designated access points--mainly linear access. That is quite different from what is proposed in clause 1.
Mr. Green: My hon. Friend makes the point that there are many differences between the designated national parks and other areas where access will now be allowed. Each has individual characteristics and it is important--precisely because this House cannot and should not pass legislation that bears differently on different parts of the country--that the legislation that we pass should not disadvantage those who are already in the most difficult economic circumstances.
The purpose of amendment No. 101 is to make practicable the provision of access to areas permitted under the clause. We are seeking to introduce greater consistency to the Bill, which has as one of its many faults a degree of inconsistency. The Government recognise in clause 4(5)(a) that pieces of open country may be so small that access should not be required. The amendment proposes a de minimis limit of 10 hectares, to ensure that that perfectly sensible provision in clause 4 also applies in clause 1.
I am sure that the Minister will recognise that there are many reasons why that should be the case. In all cases, there are many costs associated with providing the access land--whether related to signing, to providing wardens or to making byelaws. Quite apart from the economic effect on farmers and other landowners, there will be costs on the public purse.
We want to ensure that the extra access actually provides the most advantage to those who want to use it--the walkers--and that it is targeted towards decent-sized areas of land that offer the greatest public benefit. We keep using the phrase "right to roam". Clearly, the right to roam is of less use on a small parcel of land because less roaming can be done there.
We want both to restrict the additional costs that arise from the Bill and to maximise the leisure and health benefits that will accrue if more people are encouraged to walk in the English countryside--one of the matters that does not divide those who hold differing views as to the merits of this part of the Bill. There is little point in a right to roam if there is not enough land over which to roam, so it would be a good idea to establish a minimum size for access land.
Many of those with the greatest knowledge of such matters agree with us. The point is well made by the National Farmers Union, which supports the amendment because, without it, many small areas of land that are difficult to reach could fall under the definition of access land. That would be especially relevant in the uplands. If such places were difficult of access, new areas of access land would have to be created in order to reach them. Those places might be small, of limited interest to the user and awkward to map and manage.
I hope that the Government will take the amendment in the spirit in which it is intended; it would improve the practical application of the measure without denying to any great extent the right of access to any area.
Amendment No. 102 is an attempt to improve the Bill by adding greater precision to the definitions of access land. Currently, the phrase "wholly or predominantly" is used. We want to make the wording more practicable by changing it to
- at least 60 per cent.
I shall take the unusual step of referring to a briefing that is in disagreement with the amendment. The NFU agrees that further clarification is needed, but thinks that our amendment sets too low a threshold. That is one point of view. However, it is unarguable that some sensible and definite level needs to be set; otherwise confusion will reign and it will not be clear whether the measure is being applied fairly.
There are some other problems--literally around the edges. The definition of whether and how far the land can extend beyond the edge of the heath in certain circumstances is clearly relevant too.
I am aware that the expression "wholly or predominantly" has been taken from access agreements and orders made under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. However, there is an important difference between such orders and those that would be made under the Bill. The provisions made under the 1949 Act applied by agreement or by a carefully considered order and were subject to compensation. We shall discuss
compensation later, but the key point is that those provisions were not likely to be applied to land that was not obviously open country. The Bill will impose that regime on 4 million acres of open country and it is obvious that the definitions require more precision if they are to be applied to such land.Other legislation applying to land designations--to sites of special scientific interest, for example--does not use the word "predominantly". If the Government wished to accept the amendment, they could satisfactorily argue that it followed precedent. There are better ways of defining land areas than that used in the Bill.
Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham): Does amendment No. 101 spring from the premise that the privacy appertaining to a small piece of land is inherently greater than that which applies to a larger piece of land, or is it my hon. Friend's contention that it is merely a matter of practicality that informs the amendment?
Mr. Green: My hon. Friend tempts me into a debate about principle, which I suspect you, Madam Speaker, would not find acceptable in this context. I merely say that practicality is the predominant issue in this group. However, I am aware that many hon. Members on both sides of the House have views about the principles involved.
Should they wish to, the Government could accept amendment No. 102 in the full knowledge that they would merely be following the legislation that set up the sites of special scientific interest, which hon. Members on both sides of the House supported. I recommend that the Government follow that example rather than that used in the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949.
Mr. Bill Etherington (Sunderland, North): The hon. Gentleman has referred to the size of the area of land and to practicalities, but is he aware that at Hawes in Wensleydale, north Yorkshire, is the Hardraw force, one of the most beautiful waterfalls in the country? It is made more interesting by the fact that, in the 19th century, it was destroyed by severe flooding and was rebuilt in a magnificent way by the then landowner. If the hon. Gentleman prevents the public from having access to small parcels of land, he will deprive them of the opportunity to see the one small feature that is worth visiting in an area of many square miles. Will he respond to that point?
Mr. Green: I will happily respond to it. I am not aware of that waterfall, but I shall make a point of visiting it. I am advised by my hon. Friends who know the area that a footpath runs right to the waterfall, so there is already access to it. The hon. Gentleman's example is not relevant to the Bill and to the access provisions, because access is already provided. Even if there were not a footpath to the waterfall, I remind him that it is open to any landowner to provide voluntary access, in the way that many do. As the hon. Gentleman said, a public-spirited landowner repaired the waterfall in the 19th century. I hope that his descendants--if they still own the land--are equally public spirited and would wish the public to enjoy the full beauty of that waterfall.
The hon. Gentleman's point is not relevant to my point, which is that, if the Bill is to have largely beneficial effects, it needs to be as practicable as possible. My hon.
Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) will speak to amendment No. 306, which deals with a specific issue but which is also concerned with the overarching point that the Bill should be as practicable and tidy as possible. In that spirit, I commend the amendments to the House.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |