---

Mr. Hogg: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a major matter of principle here? If one is going to move substantial amendments, it should be done in this place, not least because we represent the electorate who will be affected by the consequences of the legislative change? Although I willingly concede that the other place brings great expertise, it does not accurately reflect or represent those on whom the legislation will directly impact.

Mr. Paice: My right hon. and learned Friend makes a case with which I cannot disagree. I was planning on addressing the issue later, in relation to areas of outstanding natural beauty, but, as he has touched on it, I shall do so now.

AONBs are a major part of United Kingdom conservation legislation and, in Committee, my right. hon. and hon. Friends gently inquired why they were not included in the Bill. Ministers waited until the legislation was considered in the other place before moving copious amendments to establish not only the concept of AONBs, but conservation boards and all the paraphernalia that goes with them.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) said, as those matters are dealt with in new clauses and could be considered, if at

27 Nov 2000 : Column 686

all, only at the end of our consideration tomorrow, there is a risk that they will not be debated in the House. Before any hon. Member jumps up and seeks to intervene, let me make it clear that I hope that we consider those matters. I shall certainly not be responsible for preventing us from considering them.

Although the Home Secretary seems to be ignorant of it, everyone else seems to know that, tomorrow, there will be a statement on the White Paper. Therefore, it is likely that we will not start considering the Bill until 5 o'clock, leaving us about five hours to consider 16 groups of amendments, in at least six of which there are also amendments to Lords amendments.

Mr. Maclean: Although it is very important that we debate those provisions in part III, if we get to them, I hope that my hon. Friend, as a Front-Bench spokesman, is not suggesting that we skip over the vital amendments on improved or semi-improved grassland or the provisions touching on clause 13 and occupiers' liability, which would impose horrendous burdens on our constituents and which need to be dealt with properly in the House. That is to mention only a few amendments.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not respond in too much detail on those amendments, because that is not what we are dealing with.

Mr. Maclean: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was seeking a general, broad-brush response.

Mr. Paice: I agree with my right hon. Friend. I was about to refer to the matters that we will need to deal with before we get on to areas of outstanding natural beauty. I referred to them only because my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) mentioned them.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) mentioned some of the amendments. It is worth while considering Ministers' responses to points made in Committee. We had a considerable debate about the definition of curtilage. The Minister for the Environment said:

Curtilage therefore has a meaning that can be flexibly applied to the facts of each case--

Mr. Campbell-Savours: What has this to do with the motion?

Mr. Paice: A lot.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not appreciate such sedentary interventions. The Chair will decide what is or is not in order.

Mr. Paice: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am seeking to demonstrate that the Bill has had to be timetabled because of the Government's own incompetence during earlier stages.

The Minister for the Environment said:

Curtilage has a meaning that can be flexibly applied to the facts of each case. There is no reason to suppose that a statutory definition of curtilage will be any more helpful than the court's interpretation.--[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 4 April 2000; c. 144.]

27 Nov 2000 : Column 687

Despite all that, Lords amendment No. 153, a Government amendment, inserts


Land within 20 metres of a dwelling

as a definition of curtilage.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is now doing precisely what I asked him not to do. If he is not careful, he will attempt to have a debate today that we will probably have tomorrow.

Mr. Paice: There is of course the argument that there will not be much time tomorrow. I seek not to rehash the arguments but to demonstrate the fact that, if the Government had not taken such a bull-headed approach in Committee and rejected the selfsame amendments that they agreed to in the other place, we would not need to be having this debate, because proceedings in the Lords could have been completed and the legislation enacted some weeks ago.

Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend is on a very important point of principle. In view of the principle established in Pepper v. Hart, whereby a Minister's words can be used in interpretation, is not it vital that the Minister for the Environment comes to the Dispatch Box tomorrow to reverse what he said? Otherwise, when a court is faced on judicial review with a question concerning the interpretation of legislation, it will be faced with a Commons Minister saying one thing--

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not relevant.

Mr. Paice: I believe that my right hon. Friend is entirely right. I am sure that when Ministers consider what they said in the past and what they will almost certainly have to say tomorrow, they will want at least to show some shame-facedness.

We also discussed in Committee the definition of mountain, moor, heath and down. We had a long debate on semi-improved and improved grassland. The Minister for the Environment said:

let me be absolutely clear: the cultivated land exception is not intended to be the mechanism for excluding improved or semi-improved pastures and fields from a right of access.--[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 6 April 2000; c. 167.]

Yet Lords amendment No. 2 says that mountain, moor, heath and down does not include land that consists of improved or semi-improved grassland. That is a complete and utter volte-face.

I might be tempting providence if I read out countless more examples, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Hogg: One of the problems with the timetable is that we may not be able to probe Ministers about why they have changed their position so fundamentally. Does not that emphasise the injustice and lack of wisdom associated with a motion of this kind?

Mr. Paice: My right hon. and learned Friend is entirely right. Part of the House's duty is to challenge the Government about their reasons for tabling certain amendments, just as, in earlier stages, we challenged them about their reasons for opposing certain amendments. If their two positions are completely contradictory, we have to ask why, and we should have time for that.

27 Nov 2000 : Column 688

I would like to think that the change of mind was all down to the persuasiveness of our arguments or those of my noble Friends but, whatever the reasons, we have a right to know.

Mr. Maclean: It is not only ourselves but the thousands of people out there who will be affected who have a right to know. If a case turning on the definition of improved grassland goes to court, the court would have a problem. The European Court of Human Rights would have a problem--

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is repeating a point that he made earlier.

Mr. Paice: I apologise to my right hon. Friend if I did not answer his point adequately the first time. I agree with him, and his point is very important.

I will give one more example and--

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the House has now heard enough examples. The arguments are getting rather repetitive. I hope that some new points will be made soon.

Mr. Paice: If I may say so, these are all new points, because they concern different issues on which the Government themselves have caused time to be wasted. Had the Government agreed to the amendments in the first place, we would not have wasted all that time in the other place, which has led to the need for the timetable motion.

The Hansard report will show that the Government clearly misled the Committee over occupiers' and owners' liability and then accepted that they had done so. The Minister for the Environment made a statement that proved to be entirely untrue, and he accepted that when he was challenged on it later. On liability and dry stone walls, he said

Listening to hon. Members' comments on walls, one might think it remarkable that there are any walls left in Dartmoor, much of the lake district, Snowdonia or many other areas that already have statutory rights of access--[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 18 April 2000; c. 398.]

Surprise, surprise, Lords amendment No. 9 introduces an absolution for owners and occupiers from liability for

a risk of that person suffering injury when passing over, under--

believe it or not--

or through any wall, fence or gate.

There is a catalogue of examples of the Government's wasting the time of Parliament in its entirety: this Chamber and the other place. Had they introduced the Bill earlier and got it right, rather than doing it at the very last minute, and had they acceded in Committee to amendments to which they subsequently acceded in the other place, the motion would not be necessary.

Despite what the hon. Member for Walsall, North said, the Opposition have never sought to delay the Bill. Hon. Members need not take my word for that. The Minister and the Government Whip in Committee both put on record the statement that the Opposition were not wasting time. It is the Government's fault that we are in this

27 Nov 2000 : Column 689

position, and the Government should pay the price. I do not want the Bill to fail, but the Government should have allowed us time to complete the debate on it.

---