| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Hogg: Is the Minister able to tell the House the time frame that he is contemplating in the regulations?
Mr. Mullin: I am told that the regulations should be available within a couple of months of the Bill's receiving Royal Assent.
Mr. Bennett: What are they going to say?
Mr. Mullin: The right hon. and learned Gentleman asks about the time frame in the regulations. I said a moment ago that there will be a flexibility in the regulations that will allow us to specify the length of the time frame. That is the point of flexibility.
Mr. Hogg: Will you tell the House what the time frame--
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister is still on his feet. The right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot conduct himself like that. It just cannot be done.
Mr. Mullin: The answer is that I cannot provide that information. The regulations will provide for flexibility. We do not think that prescribing a period of six months will meet all the eventualities that are likely to arise.
Mr. Bennett: I can accept that my hon. Friend the Minister wants flexibility, but are we talking about a period of between six and 12 months? He must have some idea. I know that the temptation for the people who draft legislation is to leave what they have not sorted out to regulations. However, can my hon. Friend share with the House the time span that he is considering putting into the regulations?
Mr. Mullin: I cannot share that information with the House at this precise moment, but that is not to say that I believe that the period for receiving representations will need to last as long as six months. We will, however, need to consider that matter carefully with the countryside bodies and others as part of the detailed process of preparing for the maps. That consideration has not yet taken place so I cannot tell my hon. Friend off the top my head exactly what we have in mind.
I should add that the Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales already have powers to direct the countryside bodies, under section 3(1) of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, that would allow them to require the Countryside Agency or the Countryside Council for Wales to take steps to prepare the maps if they thought that there some foot-dragging was going on. My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish said that the ramblers had a legal opinion suggesting that the Secretary of State does not have powers to direct, but the Government believe that he does.
I share the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish to secure the rapid implementation of the right of access, and I give him my assurance that we shall work closely with the Countryside Agency to ensure that that happens. However, I cannot accept that the amendments that he tabled would assist us in reaching our mutual objective, and I must ask him therefore to withdraw them.
Amendment No. 82 would alter the grounds of appeal to remove the reference to the land being predominantly mountain, moor, heath or down, and to add a ground that the inclusion of the land would serve no useful purpose. We have already debated the reason for the inclusion of the word "predominantly", and the grounds of appeal reflect that.
I do not agree that there needs to be a ground that the inclusion of the land would serve no useful purpose, regardless of its size. The countryside bodies have been given discretion not to include land if it is too small to be of useful purpose. We recognise that there will be land that fits that category, but we think that it is best left to discretion.
Amendments Nos 61, 62 and 63 would provide a right of appeal to members of the public. We have provided a right of appeal for those with an interest in the land
because, to be candid, that meets what we are obliged to do under the European convention on human rights. Opening up that right of appeal to the general public is not a requirement of the convention. Members of the general public cannot be said to be affected to the same degree as those with a direct financial or other interest in the land--a point made by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg).A general right of appeal could also result in an unmanageable number of appeals. That would have the undesirable result of significantly delaying the length of time that it would take to produce conclusive maps, and therefore for the right to commence.
Given that other amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish were about getting rid of delays, it does not seem wise to introduce an amendment that is likely to extend delays, possibly by a significant amount. We believe that consultation is the best way to involve members of the public in the mapping process. I hope that my hon. Friend will withdraw the amendment.
Clause 10 provides for the countryside bodies to review the maps of open country and registered common land 10 years after the publication of the initial conclusive maps. Amendment No. 30, tabled by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), would require the review to take place just five years after the initial mapping exercise.
We are determined that the initial mapping of open country will be a thorough and open process. As I made clear in Committee, there will be substantial opportunities for the public and landowners to contribute towards the drawing up of the maps of open country. Landowners will have the right of appeal against the showing of land on provisional maps. I am not convinced that we should cause the countryside bodies to embark on a fresh review of the maps just five years after completing the initial exercise. The maps are intended to give rise to a period of stability and confidence for both users and landowners. Users should not be faced with the uncertainty that maps of open country will become out of date and subject to further review just a few years after their publication.
I must also stress that the period between reviews mentioned in clause 10 is a maximum, not a minimum, threshold. It is entirely possible that the countryside bodies would wish to embark on an early review if, for example, they discovered significant errors on a map, or were aware of a significant change of land use in a locality. That flexibility of response is best vested in the countryside bodies themselves.
In addition, it is open to the Secretary of State to vary the frequency between reviews by making regulations to that effect under clause 10(3). I hope that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome will be reassured on that point.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that he originally drafted the proposals in amendment No. 29, and that they were nationalised. [Interruption.] Yes, without compensation, but he will have the satisfaction of knowing that his words are taken seriously. The amendment removes the provision for appeals to be heard in private. I am happy to tell the House that we are content for the offending provision to be deleted from the Bill.
Amendment No. 139 provides that when a document has been certified as a copy of a conclusive map by the appropriate countryside body, it may be accepted as evidence in court unless the contrary is proven. The amendment reflects the commitment given in Committee to my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) to consider a similar provision. We think that it could be of assistance in dealing with prosecution cases, such as those relating to the erection of misleading notices under clause 14, or obstruction of means of access under clause 37. It will put beyond doubt the status of maps submitted to court. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will agree that such a provision will be useful.
Mr. Bennett: I am a little disappointed in the Minister's response. I accept his rebuke that if we want to allow more appeals to take place, we should have tabled an amendment introducing a time limit so that the process is not delayed. That would have been one way of dealing with the issue. It would have been far better to have the appeals. However, if, as the Minister says, the process will be carried out through consultation, I hope that, in the guidance that he gives the Countryside Agency, he will make it clear that, in the case of a hotly contested area, the agency should err on the side of including it at that stage and allowing the landowner to appeal against its inclusion, rather than erring on the side of omission, which would mean that there would be no appeal procedure. I can see the temptation for the Countryside Agency to leave out an area because there will be no appeal, but I hope that the regulations will make it clear that if there is any doubt about an area it should be put in--after which time there can be an appeal against its inclusion--rather than being left out.
I am disappointed about the timing aspect. We should have had a clear steer from the Minister. He wants two years to complete the map of upland areas, which are easy to define. I should have thought he could have said that, in a further two years, the whole process could be completed. My hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt) made the point that the landowners want certainty. It is important in promoting tourism to be able to say to people, "The maps are there; in this area, you have so many acres or hectares or access land, so come to this very attractive part of the countryside." Part of the package must be to tell the landowners that there are benefits in having access land in their area. The sooner we get the maps, the sooner we can demonstrate to landowners that the provisions are in their interests as well as those of walkers and people who want access.
Having expressed my disappointment at the fact that my proposal that there should be a clear timetable has not been accepted, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |