| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Gareth R. Thomas (Harrow, West): I support the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) and welcome the expression of sympathy from the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath).
It is clear that the success of the Bill thus far has thrown into stark relief the problem of access to water. It is certainly true, as my hon. Friend outlined, that our laws on the rights of navigation for unpowered craft on water are wholly out of step with international laws.
Bearing in mind the concerns that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome made clear about the rights of users and other people who have a stake in waterways, may I throw in the example of France, where there is a right of passage on all waterways classified as being state domain? On other rivers that are private, thanks to a law of 1964 the French Government have a role to protect the generality of usage. They have introduced common sense rules, so that all who have a stake in waterways know where they stand and have proper access to waterways as they need it--they include anglers, whose rights are properly protected, as my hon. Friend said.
For many canoeists, the challenges lie on the rapidly moving water of upland rivers. That is where the exciting rapids and interesting drops are. Other canoeists prefer smaller lowland rivers, which are unsuitable for powered craft and perhaps appropriate for those who want to try the sport of canoeing, and for younger canoeists.
There are nearly 10,800 miles of such waters. As my hon. Friend made clear, canoeists have access to just 376 of those miles, which is equivalent to just 2.8 per cent. Given that the access agreements that do exist do not generally apply for 365 days a year, canoeists currently have access to less than 1 per cent. of the areas in the definition. Greater access to Britain's upland or smaller lowland water would avoid overuse of waters where there is currently access, and enable canoeists to use waterways that are much nearer to where they live.
Until now, Governments have argued that access to water, or delivering greater access to water, should be achieved through the voluntary approach. In 1983, the Sports Council drafted a statement of intent to try to promote the development of access agreements between landowners, canoeists and the British Canoe Union's representative body in particular. That statement of intent was not even signed because not all the organisations involved agreed to ratify it.
More recently, the British Canoe Union has drawn up a list of 20 target rivers, which it has discussed with the Country Landowners Association. The CLA deserves credit for its efforts to secure voluntary agreements on those 20 target rivers, but absolutely no progress has been made on delivering better access.
On Second Reading, my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment highlighted the failure of the voluntary approach to deliver better access to land. The problems are even greater in terms of access to water. Because of the unclear legal situation, where there are
or have been rights for canoeists or voluntary access for canoeists, many of those access arrangements are coming under pressure.I know that it is a probing amendment, but I hope that Ministers will look at the problem of access to water and offer hope to canoeists of much greater opportunities to canoe in Britain.
Mr. Hogg: I am pretty cautious about the measure. I wish to make just three brief observations.
First, I find it difficult to see what distinction there is between manually propelled vessels and others. Manually propelled vessels include punts, canoes and eights. I do not see what the distinction is between, for example, those and a sailing boat, a pedalo or a small motor boat. If it is in terms of the damage caused, I suppose that an eight causes as much damage as a small motor boat, not to mention the pedalo, which is foot propelled. We are seeing an example of a special interest group having its cause advanced without anyone paying much attention to the principle that underlies it.
Secondly, I have a strong preference for moving forward by way of consultation and voluntary agreements, rather than statute law. I am against the measure for that reason alone.
Thirdly, I am glad that hon. Members are so sensitive about the rights of anglers. So am I, but I am not sure what the difference of principle is between the rights of anglers and those of fox hunters. I strongly suggest that if Members are going to defend the rights of anglers, they will do well to defend the rights of fox hunters, too.
Mr. Meacher: The principle underlying the amendments--better access to waterways--is one that I wholeheartedly support. However, I am not convinced that it warrants a place in this Bill.
We thought hard about what access provisions to include in the Bill. Our first priority was to meet the clear demand for more access for walkers. We took advice from the Countryside Agency and from the Countryside Council for Wales on what other areas to include. Both recommended a more vigorous use of existing mechanisms, such as voluntary agreements, to extend access to land adjoining canals and waterways. We expect much to be achieved by a similar approach to access to water, although I hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) says: it is one thing to reach an agreement, but it is another to get it delivered.
We have tabled amendments to the Bill, which we will come to later, which will retain on the statute book part V of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, which will allow for access agreements and orders to continue to be made on waterways and the waterside. Such agreements can make specific provision for access for users of canoes.
We recognise, however, that obtaining voluntary access to waterways can be far from straightforward. That is why, in March, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), met the British Canoe Union to listen to its concerns. As a result of that discussion, at the end of last month officials in my Department held a meeting with a range of interest groups, including boaters, anglers and landowners.
We are considering the conclusions of that meeting, but the general feeling of all present was that there were not enough hard facts on the availability of waterways, the scope for new access and the scale and nature of unmet demand. That points to the need for detailed, independent research into access to water. As I say, we are looking at that carefully and will make an announcement shortly.
In the meantime, we have already started promoting voluntary access in a number of areas. The Environment Agency has published a guide to developing voluntary agreements. The booklet, which was produced in conjunction with the angling and canoeing liaison group, provides information for all parties who are seeking to achieve new access for canoeists.
In addition, we have recently issued an updated code of practice on conservation, access and recreation for the Environment Agency and for water and sewerage companies. The code gives practical guidance to those bodies on their access and recreation duties, including the availability of water for recreational pursuits such as canoeing.
I realise that that is only a start. There is much more to do to ensure that voluntary measures work. However, I want to assure my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) that we are determined to do all that we can to ensure that the goal of greater voluntary access to waterways does become a reality.
I hope that, on that basis, my hon. Friend will feel free to withdraw amendment No. 133.
Mr. Miller: I tell the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) that I accept--as, I am sure, do all canoeists--that rights go with responsibilities.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) has considerable experience in the matter, and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will take on board the points that he made.
I challenge the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) to try to row his eights up the type of rivers to which my hon. Friend referred. In relation to the top of the Dee, the right hon. and learned Gentleman's comment was a bit of a joke.
I welcome my right hon. Friend the Minister's extremely positive statement. The British Canoe Union is doing a lot of research and is very carefully monitoring the voluntary agreement. I commend to him the arrangements that seem to work in Northern Ireland, where--according to the Canoe Association of Northern Ireland--canoeists have no problems with access to waterways. Only one river in Northern Ireland, the River Bush, is not used by canoeists, and that is a research river for salmon breeding. The Canoe Association has agreed not to use the river except for a short time in the winter. The agreement seems to work and is perhaps the type of approach that his officials might like to examine.
I most sincerely thank my right hon. Friend for his very positive approach, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments made: No. 200, in page 41, line 10, at end insert--
'(cc) commits any criminal offence,'.
No. 201, in page 41, line 19, at end insert--
'(hh) uses or has with him any metal detector,'.
No. 202, in page 41, line 20, leave out paragraph (i).
No. 203, in page 41, line 22, leave out paragraph (k).
No. 204, in page 41, line 27, leave out paragraph (m).
No. 205, in page 41, line 32, leave out paragraphs (p) and (q).
No. 206, in page 41, line 48, at beginning insert--
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |