| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
'in paragraph 1(8), the words "62(1) and".'.--[Mr. Meacher.]
Order for Third Reading read.--[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, and Prince of Wales's Consent, on behalf of the Duchy of Cornwall, signified.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I must inform the House that Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
9.51 pm
Mr. Meacher: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
As we come to the end of our debates on the Bill, may I say again how much I have enjoyed them? Our debates have, on the whole, been positive and constructive, and all parties have improved the Bill in the process. I should like to thank the Clerks, the Hansard staff, and all the other staff of the House on whom we rely so much. I should like to thank parliamentary counsel, who have produced some complex provisions in a short time. I should also like to thank my Department's officials, who have dealt, as I well know, with amendments extremely promptly and efficiently and have provided comprehensive back-up support.
Making the provisions work well will involve a wide range of people, including the staff of the Countryside Agency, English Nature and the Countryside Council for Wales, and I am grateful to them for all the work that they have been doing to advise on the provisions and to prepare for their implementation.
My thanks go wider. There has been a tremendous input to the Bill--I cannot remember a similar impact on any recent Bill in my experience--from a large number of non-governmental organisations representing a wide range of interests concerned with the use, protection and enjoyment of our wonderful countryside. Even without the massive amount of correspondence with which members of those organisations have flooded my postbag, I know full well how strongly people feel about the issues dealt with by the Bill.
I pay a warm and genuine tribute to my colleagues, and extend that to right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition Benches for the balanced and thoughtful manner in which they have represented their views and for the generally constructive approach taken throughout our debates.
It would, of course, have been impossible to satisfy everybody on every issue on which strong and opposing views are held, but I believe that we can claim that we have been a listening Government and that we have considered the issues carefully.
The Bill is, by any standards, historic. It increases everyone's ability to enjoy the countryside and enhances the protection of our hugely valuable natural heritage. Our debates have inevitably concentrated largely on areas of controversy, but there is a great deal in the Bill that is supported by everybody. This is a good Bill. It has something in it for everybody who loves our priceless countryside and wants to enjoy the many benefits that it brings to the nation. In that inclusive spirit, I commend it to the House.
9.54 pm
- That this House declines to give a Third Reading to the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill because the Government has rejected proposals which would reduce the impact of the proposals for a right of access to open country upon land management and other users of the land, because the liability placed upon land owners arising from any man-made features of the land contains no exclusions for ancient or historical features, because there are no provisions for compensation for those affected by the Bill in this way, and because, whilst there are welcome improvements to rights of way legislation and wildlife protection, the Bill fails adequately to protect biodiversity, Special Protection Areas and local wildlife sites.
Having said all that, I must also say that the Bill falls lamentably short of the Minister's desire, which he expressed on Second Reading and again tonight, to enact an historic measure. Its three parts contain serious deficiencies. I shall spend a short time detailing them.
On the access provisions in part I, let me say that we oppose unrestricted compulsory access to private land, but we recognise the reality of the Government's majority. We have therefore sought to make the regime as practical as possible. In doing that, we are selflessly trying to prevent the Government from digging themselves ever further into the hole of profound unpopularity in rural areas. However, the Government are determined to resist our efforts.
Mr. Edward Garnier (Harborough): Last night, we discussed one of the holes in the measure and in the Government's thinking: the complete absence of provision for proper compensation for those who will be adversely affected by the Bill. The Minister regrettably failed to understand, or respond to the arguments that we presented--
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman cannot make a meal of an intervention. That is my way of saying that he has finished.
Mr. Green: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for his brief intervention. He is right about compensation. That affects not only those who own land in the countryside, but poses the question whether the Bill breaches the Human Rights Act 1998. I suspect that the measure will be tested in the courts before long.
The Government have determinedly resisted our efforts to stop them becoming ever more unpopular. Despite our efforts, part I constitutes further confirmation that those who live and work in rural areas are no priority for the Government. I shall list part I's manifold failures in no particular order. It is unfair. The penalties for transgressions by farmers and landowners are wildly out of kilter with those for walkers. Walkers can become trespassers, who are taken off land for a few hours, whereas farmers and landowners can be criminalised.
The Bill is impractical. The Government have insisted that access can be restricted for only 28 days and that the restriction cannot apply to weekends. We will therefore have to breed new sheep, which know not to have lambs at weekends. After we get used to that, we will have to train them not to lamb on bank holidays. I look forward to hearing the Government's strategy for achieving that.
The Bill is confusing for farmers. For what are they liable if walkers injure themselves on their land? If a walker is injured climbing over or through a hedge, the occupier is not liable. However, if a walker is injured while climbing over a wall, there is liability. Indeed, if a walker damages a wall when climbing over it, the farmer
is responsible for repairing not only the wall but the walker. That is not sensible proposed legislation. NFU News stated:
- Gilbert & Sullivan would have enjoyed writing a satirical operetta about the absurdities . . . including the charming point that an occupier will not owe a legal liability to a visitor who falls in a natural lake--but would do so if it was a reservoir!
Part II, which deals with rights of way, is not as bad. However, although it has been radically revised, it still contains glaring errors. Members of the Green Lanes Environmental Action Movement--GLEAM--who wish to protect green lanes from the inappropriate use of motor vehicles, will be unhappy about the Government's rejection of the cross-party amendments that my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) moved. I think Ministers will also find that the horse world is not happy with them.
It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),
- That, at this day's sitting, the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.-- [Mr. Jamieson.]
Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Mr. Green: The many people who have problems driving to their own front door across a common will be fearful that the Minister's failure to give any commitment to rectify that problem in the other place will condemn them to years of uncertainty and misery.
Part III on wildlife protection should be the heart of the Bill. For many months, we argued that we would give a fair wind to a decent wildlife protection Bill. The SSSI protection is welcome, but it is not enough. We should have better protection for local wildlife sites, and proper backing for biodiversity action plans. We should also have proper protection for our wildlife outside the SSSIs. There should be better protection for areas of outstanding natural beauty. That is in many ways the most important area for Government action. The Government's response was to issue a press release yesterday.
While our deliberations on the Bill have been going on, I have been able to read on the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions website what the Minister proposes, and I have been able to read in the press what he proposes, but the one place I have not been able to get any information about what he intends is on the Floor of the House of Commons when we debate the very Bill in which he proposes to introduce these measures. That is a scandal, and it is not the way to promote decent legislation.
I am not clear why the Minister is so afraid of the House. On Second Reading, he referred to additional funding for areas of outstanding natural beauty and said:
- I promise to make a statement soon about further measures.--[Official Report, 20 March 2000; Vol. 346, c. 731.]
The Bill misses its most important targets. It is too timid when it should be bold on wildlife protection, and it is too dogmatic when it should be practical on access measures. If it is in any way historic, it is an historic missed opportunity.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |