| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
'other than a manually propelled vessel'.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 134, in page 41, line 9, at end insert--
'(and for this purpose "vessel" includes a sailboard)'.
Amendment No. 132, in clause 40, page 23, line 20, after "3", insert--
'or (Power to extend to waterways)'.
New clause 17--Power to extend to waterways--
'.--(1) The Secretary of State (as respects England) or the National Assembly for Wales (as respects Wales) may by order amend the definition of "open country" in section 1(2) so as to include a reference to waterways or to waterways of any description.
(2) An order under this section may modify the provisions of this Part in their application to waterways (whether or not within the definition of "open country" apart from the order).'.
Mr. Miller: This is the canoeists' amendment. While tabling it, I realised that there was a possibility that I may have to admit to having trespassed on many occasions. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) for bringing that to my attention.
In the next few minutes, I hope to convince the House that the law as currently drafted is an absurdity and in need of change. For my legal advice I am relying on the fifth edition of J. G. Riddall's "Introduction to Land Law", which appeared in 1993. Under the heading "Land Covered by Water" Riddall states:
- In the case of land covered by water, for example a river, the bed of the river belongs to the fee simple owner of the land through which the river passes.
- The riparian owner has the exclusive right of navigation on water which overlies his land.
- The public will, however, acquire rights of navigation if . . . either the riparian owner dedicate the water as a public highway, or . . . if statutes confer such rights on the public.
In an interesting article in the Canoeist in May, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), explained in some detail why waterways will not be covered by the Bill. I accept that point and I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment will make it when he responds. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary relies entirely on the possibility of developing voluntary agreements. I agree with that method in principle, but, as I shall show in a moment, it has not been very successful, despite many efforts by the British Canoe Union. However, my hon. Friend goes on to say:
- We realize that this is only a start and there is more to do to ensure voluntary measures work. But I want to assure you--
- that we are determined to do all we can to ensure that the goal of greater access becomes a reality.
I shall set out the facts about access in England and Wales. There are some 13,000 miles of waterways, of which 376 rivers have voluntary access agreements.
Canoeists can legitimately use other waterways such as rivers with common law or statutory rights of access; for example, substantial parts of the Severn and the Wye. That category includes some 1,100 miles of waterways. Canoeists can also use canals with licence, which make up another 1,400 miles. Some 10,000 miles are private or have disputed access. That position is not satisfactory.I deal now with my local river, or perhaps, being a bi-riparian Member, I should say one of my local rivers. The weir on the Dee at Chester has access at certain times of the day, but in researching my remarks I found that, extraordinarily, I may well have unknowingly and regularly broken the law about 15 years ago. I used to go upstream from the weir, where, it transpires, there are no voluntary arrangements. Of course, I may have been within the law because of the tolerance of the local riparian owner.
The riparian owner on one side of a river might be playing ball, but what about the owner on the other side? There may be a mythical line down the centre of the river, with rights of access given by one landowner but not another. Who will enforce such a law? That is a crazy position in which to put people who are engaging in a perfectly harmless pursuit.
I point out to my right hon. Friend the Minister that the situation has existed for a long time. Landowners do not make many attempts to prosecute and a good number generally tolerate use of the waterways, which is welcome. However, the legal position in this country is absurd. To draw attention to that point, I shall briefly describe the position in other countries, which I shall deal with not according to priority but simply in alphabetical order.
Argentina has free sportive navigation on rivers, lakes and other waters. In Australia, canoeists are free to use all waterways. In Canada, there are, for the most part, no restrictions on canoes, although authorisation of the Minister may be required for a limited number of specific lakes, reservoirs and other waters. The citizens of China, which is not known for its tolerance, face no restriction on sailing in inland waters in canoes.
The position in France is interesting: there is a right of passage on all waterways classified as "state domain", comprising those formerly used commercially by boats or for floating or rafting logs. Other rivers are private, but the Administration, by virtue of a 1964 law, have a role to protect the generality of usage and have introduced common-sense rules so that owners, anglers and navigators can live together. My list continues, but in view of the time pressure on the House, I shall not complete it, except to point out that in the United States public use has been widely established.
Hon. Members who do not support the rights of canoeists cannot back up their argument by demonstrating that canoeists have damaged the environment or landowners' interests in any of the countries that I have mentioned.
Mr. Bercow: I am listening to the hon. Gentleman's disquisition with interest, and not least to his view on riparian rights. A few moments ago, he observed that a number of waterways admitted very little access, a position that he described as "not satisfactory". Will he
confirm that, on the whole, those that do not admit access are the smaller waterways, and is he arguing that any size criterion should be applicable?
Mr. Miller: It is not only the smaller waterways that pose a problem of access. Of course, size needs to be taken into account. Alongside my cottage in Cheshire runs a tiny brook on which one would have a job to float a canoe, and clearly I am arguing for access not to little streams but to navigable waterways. The 376 waterways that have voluntary agreements include reasonably sized rivers such as the Allen, the Axe, the Dart, the Conwy, the Exe, the Nadder, the Ouse and the Trent.
Mr. Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham): I, too, am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman. Why does he make a distinction between, on the one hand, punts or canoes, which he contemplates being able to use waterways, and, on the other hand, sailing boats? What principle is he relying on in making that distinction?
Mr. Miller: I put forward no principle other than the fact that a small vessel paddled by one or two occupants does no discernible damage, is safely controlled and draws a small amount of water.
I end my remarks with the important point that any arrangements, whether voluntary or statutory--I have set out my position on that in the amendments--must be made without any disturbance to the reasonable rights of anglers.
Canoeing is a great sport, and I urge hon. Members of all ages who have not tried it to do so. I ask the House to adopt the principles set out in the amendments. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will accept the amendments because they will give him the power to act if his voluntary approach does not work.
Mr. David Heath: When the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) spoke to the amendment in his name, I suggested that I might be being extremely stupid because I did not understand it. I now realise that I was being extremely stupid, and I want to put that on record. His amendment was entirely in order, and I apologise to him. I have considerable sympathy with the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller). There is a lack of access to waterways for canoeists and other users. However, I disagree that canoeists should have a right of access under the Bill. The difficulty lies in the point that the hon. Gentleman made at the end his speech and has to do with reconciling canoeists' interests with those of other users.
6.30 pm
I have some experience of that. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston said that he was a bi-riparian Member. I think that I must be a poly-riparian Member. Sometimes, a large part of my constituency is covered in water, which is a problem. Is not the answer to use the new processes of consultation that will come into being as a result of the Bill, particularly the local access forums?
I note that the guidance to the forums gives as one of their intentions the development of recreation and access strategies that cater for a wide range of people. I hope that
that includes the rights of people other than those who wish to have access by foot to open access country. I hope that the Government will have that sort of development of strategy in mind in setting up the bodies, which are so ill defined in the Bill at present.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |