| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. David Heath: The great problem with discussing this important group of amendments is the risk of going into hyperbole, with one side saying that all walkers are likely to cause difficulties for farmers or landowners while the other takes the view that all landowners will be seeking to thwart the legislation by whatever means they can. That is not true of the great majority of landowners, farmers, walkers and ramblers.
The difficulty is the practical application of the Bill. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) is, to a large extent, right, but his argument would be for no closures at all. He argues that there is no difference, in effect, between a 28-day closure and a 40-day closure to the individual who finds that land is closed. There is no logical reason for the hon. Gentleman to argue for one or the other if his view is that which he has expressed--other than a wish to restrict closures as far as possible. That is a perfectly reasonable position to take.
There are farming and other practices that farmers, owners and others feel would be better without disturbance. The classic case is lambing, and I agree with the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) about the need to protect lambing as far as possible on these upland areas. I cannot understand the argument that lambing can somehow take place on a Monday-to-Friday basis; it does not make sense.
The Government have taken that view because they do not want closures every weekend as a result of the discretionary closures that landowners can impose. The Government do not want the 28 days, 40 days or whatever to lead to a succession of weekends of being closed to all-comers. I understand that. It would be an abuse of discretionary closure and would be contrary to the purposes of the Bill.
9.30 pm
Mr. Paice: The hon. Gentleman is right. No one would want the land to be closed off for 28 or 40 Saturdays or Sundays. However, does he agree that no one is likely to do that, because people would not want to carry out the activities I mentioned only on Saturdays? They might do so on some Saturdays, but it is extremely unlikely that they would use Saturdays to the exclusion of all the other days of the week.
Mr. Heath: The hon. Gentleman is right; it is extremely unlikely indeed--unless someone was
deliberately trying to circumvent the provisions. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) and I tabled amendment No. 31. That would allow closure on four Saturdays and four Sundays in the year, but would ensure that not all the days were weekends. It would allow normal farming practices to take place.In Committee, the Minister for the Environment made two arguments. He dealt with partial closure and made the important point that it is open to landowners to define for themselves the parts of their land that should be closed and on which days. That would make the process easier for farmers, but does it make it easier for the walker? It would make life immeasurably more difficult for the walker than if a longer period of complete closure was specified. If walkers find that a different piece of land, defined by the landowner, is closed each time they want to walk--perhaps on consecutive days--does that not lay the system open to all the abuses that worry the Minister?
If I were a landowner who wanted to be difficult, I should close ribbons of land across my estate for consecutive 28-day periods. That would thus give complete closure to access; it is a worrying lacuna in the proposals. A complete closure for a longer period would be better both for the farmer and for the landowner.
The other argument put by the Minister related to clause 22--closure for land management--to which the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire also referred. There are two problems with that provision. The first is that it requires anticipation of the event. The restriction is not immediate; it must be applied for--we do not yet know by what mechanism or what delays might occur. However, it would certainly not be much help if lambing went on longer than the farmer anticipated. If a field was still in use on a Friday night, the farmer could not rush down to his friendly local access authority to ask for a clause 22 closure.
The second problem relates to the point that the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire touched on: the definition of land management. Under clause 22, what does that comprise? At present, it is clear that the definition would have to be stretched beyond what is reasonable in order to encompass some of the activities that a landowner or farmer might properly want to undertake on their land.
In Committee, the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) asked how a rock concert could be organised so that it took place on a Saturday or a Sunday. Motor sport meetings were mentioned. They too would involve closure--usually at weekends. How would they be dealt with? Such events are not land management as defined under clause 22. They cannot take place within discretionary closure periods because of the weekend exemptions. That is a real difficulty.
This aspect of the Bill will cause problems. The Government have not thought it through; they have not related their good intentions to agricultural practice or to the practical effects on people trying to work the land. They should reconsider the matter.
My final point is about Government amendment No. 152. Again, it is a matter that I raised in Committee and, again, the Government have responded positively by tabling an amendment. The insertion of the words
"a specified person" will improve the Bill. I commend the Government for listening to the few words that I said in Committee on this point.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley (Caernarfon): I am glad to have the opportunity to take part in the debate. I am not sure whether I should declare an interest, but my local newspaper described me as a landowner because I have six modest acres of land adjacent to my house. It will not be affected by the Bill, so perhaps a declaration of interest is not necessary.
The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) mentioned the forays that he had undertaken to my part of the world. I represent a rural constituency where many of the issues that we are debating are important. There are 93 villages in my constituency and I know that he has diligently rambled around them. Perhaps he has even hunted for votes in them. I am sorry that he was not more successful, but I am sure that he enjoyed the experience of visiting my constituency.
The farming fraternity, particularly upland farmers and the sheep farmers in Snowdonia, are concerned about many aspects of the Bill and the issues raised by the amendments. I stress their concerns in supporting the amendment even though I warmly welcome many aspects of the Bill. They will be worth having on the statute book. That is why it is important to strike the right balance.
The amendment raises the question of whether we have achieved the right balance. My hon. Friend the Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) is on parliamentary duties, and he is sorry that he cannot be here tonight. However, I have read the debate in which he took part in Committee. When the Minister for the Environment responded, he said that he accepted that the period of 28 days was a matter of judgment.
Lambing causes a problem for the Government's proposal. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) spoke about people who stick to the footpaths, and if there were linear access, that problem might be much less serious. Although such access was debated in Committee, we are not returning to the point now.
I love walking in the hills and I can identify with the people who do that. I am concerned not about 99 per cent. of ramblers, but about the 1 per cent. of them who can create mayhem. I receive representations from hill farmers and sheep farmers about the nuisance that they have suffered and we have to take their concerns on board if we are to reach a settlement that will stick.
The period of 28 days is too short. A period of 40 days is a modest extension, and it is nothing like the suggestion of 90 days that was made in Committee. To build in flexibility, it might have been an idea to stipulate the number of days by order. With experience, the period could have been varied without the need for primary legislation. That might have allowed us in the National Assembly in Cardiff to vary the period in line with circumstances in Wales.
Lambing now takes place over an extended period because of the marketing patterns that have developed to respond to the difficult times faced by hill farmers. I press the Minister to follow the logic of his comments when he condemned the suggestion of 90 or 180 days that was
made in Committee. He said that we should debate a more modest period, and 40 days is precisely that. The Government could accept that proposal.My hon. Friend the Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy made another important point in Committee. He talked about the effect that the clause could have on highlands and on certain birds that nest and produce their young in such areas. He referred to birds such as the curlew, the stone curlew, the golden plover and others which would be vulnerable for more than the period of 28 days if no protection were provided. That aspect of the problem is another argument in favour of extending the period to 40 days, as suggested in the amendment.
Even at this late stage, I hope that the Government will take on board the modest nature of the amendment and will respond positively to it. I am glad to support it.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |