| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Paice: My hon. Friend is absolutely right and makes my point for me.
Moreover, the point holds true in countless parts of the United Kingdom, including in Wales. We do not have the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) with us today, but, in Committee, he made some extremely important points on the matter. The only crop grown by most farmers in Snowdonia, for example, is grass--which is the means by which they feed their livestock, not only in the summer but through the winter. A grass crop being grown for silage will be harrowed, rolled and fertilised, and, occasionally, even weed killer may be applied to it. The crucial point, however, is that it will not necessarily be ploughed or drilled within a 12-month period.
Grass is just as much a crop as wheat or barley, and people walking across a grass field would damage that crop's potential yield just as much as they would damage the potential yield of a wheat or barley crop by walking across it. The Minister does not seem to have taken that point on board, despite his undertaking to consider all the comments made in Committee.
In many parts of the country, even non-permanent grassland is part of a rotation. However, grassland is rarely part of an annual rotation. As you will know from your own experience, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the most common practice is for grassland to be left for two or three years, to give the grass time to improve the land's nutrient value, thereby providing nutrients for subsequent arable crops.
Mr. Simon Thomas (Ceredigion): Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the views he has just expressed are particularly relevant to organic farming, in which the need to fix nutrients in the soil is particularly important? Additionally, in Wales, there is ever more organic sheep farming.
Mr. Paice: The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy has sent an admirable substitute. The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) is entirely right to say that, in organic farming, grassland rotation is critical as an alternative to artificial fertilisers in providing nutrients for crops. As I know from my original agricultural training, grass crops grown for only one year will have a minimal effect on the soil's nutrient value.
The key point is that grass crops have to be in for two or three years to have any beneficial effect. Grass is sometimes included in a rotation with conventional crops such as wheat, barley, potatoes and other arable crops, but it is left in for two or three years. Although I welcome the Minister's attempt to define "cultivated land", I am worried that the definition in the amendment would exclude that type of country.
In Committee, the Minister said:
- It is also unlikely that land that has been recently cultivated would be mapped as open country.--[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 6 April 2000; c. 172.]
Amendment No. 195 does not meet our desires or those of the National Farmers Union, which, although it welcomes the Government's recognition that "cultivated" requires further definition, is disappointed by the definition that the Government have used. It makes the following point:
- We also feel the time period of 12 months is too narrow as land on rotational leys can often lay fallow without being ploughed or drilled for three years or more.
My final point relates to other agricultural schemes such as set-aside and countryside stewardship schemes. Under the set-aside scheme, as it now operates, farmers can leave the same piece of land set-aside for more than a year. It used to be rotational; now it can be the same piece of land. It is self-explanatory that land that is set aside for more than one year will not have the surface of the soil disturbed within a 12-month period. Again, there is a problem that I hope the Minister will reconsider.
Mr. Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman explain what the problem is in allowing people access to set-aside land?
Mr. Paice: There are plenty of problems in allowing people access to set-aside land. First, access to it may involve crossing other cultivated land. Secondly, the inclusion of all set-aside land would double or treble the 4 million acres that would be affected by the Bill. That would be a huge alteration in the general perception of the impact of the Bill. Thirdly, the various environmental bodies now recognise that land that is set aside for more than a year is having a beneficial effect, particularly on traditional farmland birds--ground-nesting birds such as skylarks and lapwings. Allowing access to set-aside land would have a damaging impact on that.
Mr. David Heath: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me on another point that we discussed in Committee--namely, that there is at least a potential conflict with the European Union rules that apply to set-aside, in that the land has to be cultivatable but not
cultivated? It is at least arguable that if land that was not cultivated was designated as access land, it would no longer be cultivatable.
Mr. Paice: That is certainly a strong possibility.
Although I welcome the fact that the Government have sought to define cultivated land, I believe that their definition is far too narrow. I do not seek to divide the House on the matter because I welcome the fact that the Government have taken a step in the right direction, but I hope that the Minister will take heed that there are still widespread concerns about the proposed definition, which I am sure will be examined carefully in another place, where I have no doubt that there will be attempts to amend the Bill.
In the meantime, I hope that the Minister will agree to look at the matter again. I hope that he understands the importance of grass as a crop for thousands of farmers who farm adjacent to open land. On that basis, I hope that he will at least agree that he might not have got it entirely right first time.
5 pm
Mr. Gordon Prentice: I shall speak briefly to amendment No. 1, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). It concerns military land.
Even under the Bill, vast expanses of land used by the military from time to time will remain out of bounds. My friends among the ramblers have given me a little list of the areas involved: Castlemartin in Pembrokeshire, the vast expanse of land at Otterburn in Northumberland, Catterick in north Yorkshire, Longmoor on the Surrey- Hampshire border, Salisbury plain, and Watton Brook in Norfolk.
The Bill automatically excludes from the definition of access land all land that is subject to military byelaws. Such byelaws cover all the areas that I listed, but I do not understand the reason for the exclusion. It is perfectly possible for military use and public access to coincide, as happens with Dartmoor, where separate legislative provisions apply. That example shows that there is no reason why the coexistence that I envisage cannot occur.
A powerful ally of the amendment is the Countryside Agency, whose briefing all hon. Members will have received. It states that lines 19 and 20 of schedule 1, covering the point about military land that I have just made, are too restrictive and are unnecessary, given the provisions of clause 26. That clause gives the Secretary of State powers to restrict access to access land if that land is needed for defence or national security purposes. Lines 19 and 20 of schedule 1 are therefore not necessary, and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will be able to give a little on that point.
Mr. David Heath: I shall be brief. I pay tribute to the Minister, who promised to give serious consideration to points raised by hon. Members in Committee, and has done so. Some definitions have been improved. The right hon. Gentleman undertook to consider the definitions of cultivated land, pens and unauthorised development, for example, and the amendments that he has tabled prove that he has considered them.
However, I fear that I am no more content with the definition of cultivated land than is the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice). I agree that huge
difficulties remain with improved grassland and with different rotations that do not fall within the specified annual scheme. In Committee, we discussed under which definition, if any, certain kinds of land fell. Such land included coed cae and ffridd land in Wales, and inby land in northern England. The matter will have to be revisited in another place.I also hope that more consideration will be given to the definition of livestock. Moving the definition has not improved it one bit--it remains incomplete, with obvious omissions. In Committee, we fastened on the absence of deer from the definition, but we also discussed ostriches, llamas and alpacas. I still prefer the definition that appears in the Agriculture Act 1947, as it can be extended to any domesticated animal. However, even that is deficient, as it does not include horses used purely for recreational purposes.
The hon. Members for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) and for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) are right about military land. I do not see why the Bill should have to define that term several times and make it ever more inclusive of land that probably should be given to access.
The Bill contains provisions for public safety and national security purposes. The Minister assured me that he would look again at the possibility of a regular review being presented to Parliament of the extent of military exclusions from the right of access. I do not know whether he has had any further thoughts, but this seems unnecessary. I hope that if the right hon. Gentleman cannot consider that issue today, he will do so before the Bill goes to another place.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |