| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Paice: I shall speak to amendment No. 82, which stands in my name and those of my hon. Friends and which goes back to issues that we discussed in Committee. The Government undertook to consider the points that were made in a debate about the straightforward issue of the classification of land as mountain, moor, heath or down. In some ways, the debate could replicate the one we had a while ago about the definition of "predominantly". In this case, however, someone has to judge whether land is predominantly mountain, moor, heath or down and whether there should be the opportunity to appeal against such designation.
The amendment seeks to provide the opportunity for appeal against a designation on the grounds first, that the land does not consist of mountain, moor, heath or down and, secondly, that its inclusion would serve no useful purpose.
I was interested to see that the document from the Countryside Agency, already referred to this afternoon, states quite clearly that
- identifying the different types of open country is not a precise science and somebody has to take a view.
The second part of the amendment deals with circumstances in which it would serve no useful purpose for land to be designated as open land and included in the mapping. I can think of a number of examples, one of which is when a fairly small piece of land is involved. I shall not refer to any precise areas, but it could be a
small piece of land surrounded by non-access land. It might be argued that little would be achieved by mapping such land as open country.Another example returns to the point that we were discussing earlier--in connection with land which is likely to be eligible for designation as open country only temporarily. We discussed earlier the issue of set-aside land. Another category is land that is shortly to be afforested. There is quite a lot of land on which the owners--the Forestry Commission or others--are planning to plant and have all the necessary permission, but which at the time of mapping may not have been planted. It would serve no useful purpose for such land to be designated only to be planted with trees at a later date and thereby officially excluded.
I hope that the Minister will look favourably on the amendment. I am interested to see that it is quite close to amendment No.63, to which the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) has just spoken. The hon. Gentleman is also suggesting appeals on the grounds that land does not consist wholly or predominantly of mountain, moor, heath or down, so there is obviously a degree of cross-party interest. I hope that the Minister will look favourably on that amendment too.
Mr. David Heath: I wish to speak to the two amendments that stand in my name. Amendment No. 29 started off in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) and has since acquired the imprimatur of the Deputy Prime Minister, no less. No clearer illustration exists of the right hon. Gentleman's wish to encompass the big tent and co-operate with other parties. Of course, the amendment had cross-party support in Committee. I think that it was the hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas) who first asked why these matters should be dealt with in secret. I am glad that the Minister agreed that what was involved was simply the knee-jerk reaction of civil servants, which is that all hearings should be secret. I am pleased that we are moving away from that climate of secrecy.
Amendment No. 30 deals with an issue that we covered in Committee, so I shall not dwell on it at length. It concerns the timing of the first review. It is very important that the mapping procedure be right. First time round there will inevitably be anomalies, challenges and things that are not quite right, but it would be quite wrong for that position to be maintained for 10 years. It would be far better were there a shorter period preceding the first review. Then we could go on to the 10-year cycle, which is perfectly reasonable, with no lack of clarity or indecision besetting landowners or those who want access to land.
When we discussed the issue in Committee, the view was that there was a benefit to stability and that in any case there was nothing to stop the first review being carried out within the 10-year period. My view is that it would be an advantage to specify that the first review should be within five years.
Let me briefly touch on the amendments moved by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). There is a need for the Government to make it absolutely clear that a strict timetable is necessary for the work to get under way. Whether that is on the face of the Bill or
whether it is in clear guidance from Ministers to countryside bodies is immaterial; it is important that there are signposts throughout the process so that we are absolutely sure that, once the Bill becomes law, there is no inordinate delay in clarifying the situation. That is in everybody's interest.My only concern, which I expressed in Committee, is whether there are sufficient resources to do the job effectively. Many parts of the country have experienced long delays in implementing the rights of way legislation. Very often that is due to a lack of resources. In this instance, we are dealing with national bodies rather than local government, but the same constraints apply. I hope that the Minister will make it clear this evening that there is a clear timetable for implementation and that there are sufficient resources to do the job effectively.
Mr. Levitt: I support amendment No. 2 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). I should like to start with a declaration of non-interest, in that my constituency contains more than half the open access land in the Peak district, which contains more than half the open access land in England. In that sense, one might think that there were not many opportunities to extend open access in that area, but that is not the case. A considerable number of areas are identical in topography and geography to those which have open access and I hope that open access will be extended to those areas.
It is important that landowners in my constituency and elsewhere know very well that the responsible right to roam is coming. They need to know what time scale to work to. It is only right that a campaign that has continued for nigh on 70 years should have some idea, now the goalposts are in sight, of how many yards are left to go. If we accept the amendment we shall miss the opportunity of having everything in place by the 70th anniversary of the 1932 Kinder trespass, which took place in my constituency, but if my hon. Friend the Minister can give a categorical assurance that, by the time of the 75th anniversary, all the Bill's aims will have been achieved, I shall be very happy to hear it.
7 pm
Mr. Hogg: I want to make some observations on amendments Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 61. I am in favour of the Bill containing a prescribed timetable. The arguments for insisting that a timetable be set out and met are real. I hope that the Minister will agree.
It is a good thing to do away with the concept of a time scale that depends on regulation, and hence on Ministers. I hope that amendment No. 3, which sets out the time period of six months, is accepted.
However, I oppose amendment No. 61. It is not right for the House to give a wider right of appeal to the country at large, for the very good reason that to do so would be to expose farmers and landowners to much greater expense than the circumstances warrant.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Chris Mullin): Amendments Nos. 2, 3 4 and 58 would impose a timetable on the countryside bodies in undertaking their duties to draw up maps of open countryside and registered common land under chapter I of the Bill.
In contemplating these amendments, I had some sympathy with the motives of my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). I usually do, on a wide range of issues. He and I--and, I am sure, most hon. Members--want the countryside bodies to make good progress in drawing up maps of open countryside.
I assure my hon. Friend that the Countryside Agency will be dynamic. When it gives evidence to the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs, of which my hon. Friend is Chairman, I hope that it will succeed in convincing him that it is dynamic.
Several hon. Members asked about a timetable. The Bill allows for a fast track for access to common land and to land above 600 m. We anticipate that that could come into effect within about two years--well in time for the 75th anniversary of the Kinder trespass mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt). That fast-track access will apply to an estimated 2,000 square miles, which is no small matter.
However, we recognise that, in the main, the introduction of the right of access must await the publication of conclusive maps by the countryside bodies. I know that the Countryside Agency is ready to embark on this challenge, and that it will make good progress to the best of its ability. I am sure that the National Assembly for Wales and the Countryside Council for Wales will want to make equally rapid progress, but I do not think it right to impose an arbitrary timetable on the countryside bodies' responsible for drawing up maps when some uncertainties remain about the weight of the task ahead of them.
Amendment No. 3 would cause the period for consultation on draft maps of open country and registered common land to be fixed in legislation at six months. The Bill as it stands provides for regulations under clause 11(2)(f) to determine how long the period for representations on draft maps should be.
I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish is concerned to ensure that progress in mapping open country is not delayed by unnecessarily lengthy consultation. However, we also want to ensure that there is a full process of consultation between all parties, and that there is flexibility in the regulations that allows us to specify the precise term of consultation.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |