| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
10.18 pm
Miss McIntosh: Let me, in the same spirit as the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), congratulate those on both Front Benches on having conducted the Committee proceedings with such good humour. At least we all know now where Somerton and Frome and Merionnydd Nant Conwy are.
There is a certain irony in today's debate. In a week in which the introduction of the right to roam was introduced, it was also announced that the ancient right to hunt was to be abolished. There is a further irony. Why--the Minister has not satisfied me in this regard--is it appropriate to provide a statutory right of access when it is thought that a voluntary arrangement is not appropriate, when the Government fall short of providing statutory protection for local wildlife sites? There is a certain lack of logic in the Government's thinking.
I shall certainly find it very difficult to justify to my constituents night-time access, which will be the most difficult part of the Bill to administer. Equally, the lack of compensation for those who will be adversely affected will detract from the many positive elements of the Bill. I shall therefore support the reasoned amendment.
10.20 pm
Mr. Hogg: I support the reasoned amendment and shall concentrate on part I of the Bill, for whose provisions I very much doubt that there is a need.
I have been a walker all my life. Walking is my chief recreation. I have never felt constrained in my access to the countryside. The existing network of footpaths is largely adequate for the purpose. Where it is not, it can be improved by voluntary agreements.
Part I of the Bill is cavalier about private property. I deeply regret that. The business of the House is in part to defend private property, on which the Bill intrudes to an unwarranted extent. Moreover, the Bill imposes unreasonable costs and obligations on landowners and farmers. That is wrong in principle, and especially wrong at this time.
I deeply regret the absence of proper compensation. The Minister for the Environment yesterday referred the House to clause 33, but I shall remind him of what I told him last night. The compensation payments under clause 33 depend on the existence of a voluntary access agreement, in the absence of which there would be no payment. In any event, clause 33 does not entitle the landowner or others affected to require provision of payment to be incorporated into an access agreement. In reality, therefore, there are no statutory rights to compensation.
I am against part I of the Bill. It is wrong in principle, and I am sorry that it will become law. I hope that it is looked at further in the other place.
10.22 pm
Mr. Swayne: The reasoned amendment is cogent and sums up my feelings about the Bill, but I want to air one other issue very briefly--namely, the opportunity missed by the Bill in respect of national parks.
Under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, the Minister has power to create a national park without creating a national park authority at the same time. Ministers have received representations from the local authorities in the New forest asking for him to do precisely that. The Minister could have used the Bill to lay new responsibilities on local authorities to discharge the duties otherwise discharged by the national parks authority.
When I asked the Under-Secretary whether new clause 4 offered the appropriate vehicle for that, I did not even get an answer. I intervened on him later, and his response then was that I had not been in the Chamber for the debate. Perhaps he suffered a momentary lapse of attention when I made my contribution, or perhaps it was so unmemorable that he missed it. Strange though it may seem, he is uncharacteristically absent from the Chamber at the moment. However, I hope that the question will be revisited in the other place, as I think that it deserves proper attention.
10.23 pm
Mr. Gray: Those of us who live and work in the countryside, and who love it, have always been keen that as many people as possible can be found room for to enjoy the countryside as we do. It is for that reason that many people have worked so hard for so many years to arrange managed access to the countryside.
That was achieved successfully on the Templars Firs estate, just outside my constituency. Over a number of years, everything possible has been done--including redirecting rights of way and promoting horse riding--to encourage people from Swindon and Bristol to visit the estate. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the Ramblers Association have acknowledged the estate as an exemplar of all that should be done to open up access.
However, the Templars Firs estate has succeeded because it has achieved a balance between, on the one hand, the rights and interests of the landowner and of the farmers who grow our food, and of the walkers on the other. That is a very delicate balance and only by getting it right could the Bill possibly work. In a variety of areas, the Bill fundamentally upsets that delicate balance.
Instead of providing a way in which landowners and walkers can get together to arrange proper access to the countryside, the Government have set up a confrontational approach. The walkers' approach is to say from the start that they believe that landowners will prevent access, and the walkers want access despite the fact that landowners have their farming interests at heart. What is more, the walkers want that right by law.
There is no requirement for a provision that will allow walkers to do what otherwise they would not do. I am not aware of vast hordes of walkers ready and determined to go on to the moorlands, uplands and commons mentioned in the Bill and I would be very surprised if they existed.
Mr. David Lepper (Brighton, Pavilion): If there are no vast hordes, why have Opposition Members made such a fuss about the provision on access?
Mr. Gray: If there are no such vast hordes, why are we wasting parliamentary time passing a law to allow them access? There is no demand for that right. The Bill
is more about ideology. It is about saying, "These landowners will not give us what we want, so we will show them." This week, the Government have taken steps towards banning fox hunting, but that has nothing to do with animal rights or the countryside. It is about saying, "We are going to show the landowning classes that we are still the old Labour party." That is also what lies behind the Bill. If that were not the case, the Government would have considered various issues more carefully, such as the 28-day exceptions, which appear wildly inadequate to anyone who knows anything about the countryside. They would take the lambing season more seriously, but they have dismissed it airily. It is in fact vital, but it will be disrupted in the areas involved. The Government would also consider how we can keep our uplands going through shooting. They do not understand shooting, but it is the only way to preserve the uplands as they are at the moment. [Interruption.] Labour Members find that humorous, and the Minister laughs, but it is true.The Government do not understand the countryside. They do not understand the areas to which they will give people access. The Bill is driven by ideology. For example, several hon. Members have described this as a historic day. If what we were talking about was a few people going for a walk in the countryside, it would not be historic. Labour Members say it is historic because they view it as an ideological triumph of the left over the landowner.
The Bill is badly drafted and the Government have missed opportunities in what has been the first countryside Bill for many years. The Minister has also admitted on several occasions that much more work needs to be done on the Bill, and I hope that that will happen in the other place. The reasoned amendment makes sense because it shows up the Bill for what it is. It has nothing to do with encouraging people to enjoy the countryside and much to do with an ideological hatred of those of us who are lucky enough to live there.
10.28 pm
Mr. Paice: I am always pleased to follow my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray), because it makes me seem so moderate. However, I do not disagree with some of his views. I concur with all the thanks and plaudits that have been expressed, but nobody has yet mentioned the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), who astounded me and many others in Committee with his incredible knowledge of countryside issues and legislation. He was of great benefit to the Committee.
From the outset, we have welcomed the changes to the rights of way legislation, and I was interested to note that the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) referred to outdated legislation and the need for the ability to divert footpaths. I agree with him, although his view was not shared by all his hon. Friends or the organisations which have supported the Bill. They feel that every footpath should be sacrosanct for ever and a day, and that no account should be taken of changing needs.
As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) said, it is part I that has caused immense concern in the countryside.
I suspect that the Minister for the Environment regards the Bill as his big political memorial, but I do not criticise him for that. The Bill is his great opportunity to put a
significant piece of legislation on the statute book, and it is right that he should take credit for it. It is just a great shame that the Government did not seek to create a much more comprehensive network of footpaths across the country. Such a network would have been closer to people's homes, and would have increased accessibility for them much more than open access will.In Committee, the Minister asserted--he has kindly done so again today--that the Opposition have approached the Bill constructively. At times, so did he, and I am grateful to him for that. I make it clear that the Opposition do not want to deny any responsible person the opportunity to enjoy the countryside. However, we believe that that could have been achieved in a different and better way, making access more convenient for constituents such as mine and those of many other hon. Members representing constituencies in the south-east who do not live close to open country.
There is a great difference between linear access and open access. Many problems that do not result from linear access--such as landowners' liability--most certainly will result from open access.
Many Labour Members have demonstrated a mindset that is against the interests of landowners and land users, and which is indifferent to the legislation's impact on agriculture, on wildlife--especially ground-nesting birds, including our waders in the uplands--and, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire said, on sporting use and landowners' ability to use their own land without encumbrance.
As I said in earlier debates, there are also serious clashes between the Bill's provisions and the Government's own action plan for farming policy document.
Many amendments were tabled to the Bill. In Committee, many amendments were supported by all the Opposition parties but were rejected. My noble Friends will have to address the issues dealt with in those amendments in the other place. Yesterday, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) moved an amendment on the issue of compensation, but the Minister dismissed it as legalistic. Not only would I expect an eminent lawyer to make a legalistic speech, but we are talking about making a law. It seems odd to say that one should not be legalistic in passing legislation.
The Bill's most serious default--on top of all those described by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) in opening our first debate today--is perhaps its failure to provide for information to walkers. Much information will have to be conveyed to those who want to use the rights provided to them in the Bill--such as which parts of a moor are closed, and, for those who do not have an appropriate map, the limits to the open country.
Walkers will also have to know the boundaries of land owned by different individuals, as they will be subject to the absurd notion that, if they transgress schedule 2 provisions, they would have to leave that specific land for 24 hours. As those who are familiar with open country will know, the boundary between the land of different owners may not be easy to perceive. People may also have to know the rules on dogs, such as the dates on which they have to be on leads. The Government, however,
rejected the eminently sensible approach of creating access points to the open country at which such information could be displayed.Labour Members seem to think--the attitude has come through again in the past two days--that all walkers are responsible people and that all landowners will seek to thwart the legislation. I do not believe that either group can be so characterised. Sadly, some people will try to abuse the rights being provided to them, and some landowners will probably--because of the Bill's compulsory elements--be less than enthusiastic about those rights.
Despite what the right hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) said--with respect to him, he has not been in the Chamber for most of the debates--in our consideration of the Bill, including in Committee and in the past two days, we have seen at best an ignorance of countryside and land management activities, and at worst a barely concealed contempt on the part of some Labour Members for those who earn their income from the land or enjoy their sport, quite apart from those who own the land. It is not just the wealthy landowners who will be affected, as Labour Members have sought to portray, but countless thousands of men and women who work on the land in the countryside, in all manner of ways, will find their occupations affected by these rights. Those effects have not been countered by measures in the Bill.
It should not surprise us that there is this ignorance and intolerance of farmers and landowners from a party which is essentially urban. Labour Members may claim to represent rural seats--they may, temporarily, actually do so--but there is a gulf between representing rural seats and the countryside, and understanding what it is all about.
I commend our amendment to the House.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |