| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Sir Peter Emery (East Devon): I shall be brief. I have sat through the whole debate and I have only one query that I would like the Minister to elucidate. It relates to the five-year limit for the ban on dogs on a grouse moor. Obviously, that will be either possible or not possible to implement. I happen to believe that if one is to manage a grouse moor sensibly, it will not be possible. I cannot therefore understand the proposed limit of five years. The Minister appeared to shake his head when my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) asked whether there would be such a limit. I should be delighted if the Minister explained why.
I shall not detain the House much longer. Any Government who guillotine debate on 280 amendments are expecting a great deal of the House. I speak as someone who was Chairman of the Procedure Committee for many years. No Leader of the House believes that such guillotines are good. Every Leader of the House, whatever his or her party, would attempt to ensure that legislation was not dealt with in that way.
Mr. Mullin: On the final point made by the right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery), the guillotine is rather fortunate for the Conservative party, because he is its only Back-Bench Member present.
Sir Peter Emery: At this moment.
Mr. Mullin: At this moment and through most, although not quite all, of the debate. We have spared Opposition Members the embarrassment of having to scrutinise us in too much detail. I believe that the time allocated will be quite sufficient.
On the question of the five-year limit raised by the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), every landowner will have to take certain steps after five years to renew the exclusion--for example, by notifying the Countryside Agency that the moor is still used for grouse. We would not want suddenly to find that the moor had stopped being used for grouse some time ago, but that the exclusion still prevailed. The landowner will have to demonstrate that the restriction is still needed, and, provided that he can do so, it can be renewed. I do not think that Opposition Members--who are as keen as we are to dispose of unnecessary regulation--would want that to happen every year. We therefore chose a period of five years. The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire at least agrees that that is reasonable, and I am grateful for that.
Sir Peter Emery: The Minister makes the point that if the moor has ceased to be a grouse moor, the restriction will be lifted, and that is absolutely right. However, if the same conditions exist as existed when the licence was originally granted, would the Minister expect it to be extended?
Amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 4 would provide that the loss of a statutory right of access following a breach of the general restrictions in chapter II would extend not only to land in the same ownership but to adjoining land. Our concern is that the approach should be fair both to users of the new right and to landowners, and that it should be practical to enforce. The exclusion is going to be difficult to enforce in any case--let us be realistic about that.
The amendment is both impractical and unenforceable. It is very unlikely that the owner of the adjoining land would even know that the walker had breached a restriction on other land, and he would therefore have no reason to ask him to leave. Even a walker might not know of the breach, if the owner of the land on which the breach took place was not bothered by it and allowed the person to remain on the land. Let us remember that a breach of a restriction may amount to no more than giving a carrot to a horse or bathing in a stream. These are going be some of the most regulated walkers on the planet, and we do not want to extend the degree of restriction under which they will be placed.
Mr. Paice: Is the Minister really saying that if a landowner has not apprehended somebody committing a misdemeanour, that the individual is unaware that he has committed one, and that there has therefore been no banishment, that would be a justification for not including adjoining land? Obviously, we are discussing circumstances in which someone has engaged in one of the forbidden activities and has been apprehended by the landowner or his agent, who has told him that he must get off the land for 24 hours. The reason for our amendment is not so much so that adjoining landowners will know whether someone has been banned, but so that the individual who has been banned knows that he must get off all of that parcel of open country. As I tried to explain to the Minister, it is difficult--often impossible--to tell where ownership changes in open country.
Mr. Mullin: We are in danger of making fairly heavy weather of this. We want to ensure that the restrictions--penalties, one might call them--are both practical and enforceable, and that there is some clarity about them. We honestly think that if a walker moves on to land in different ownership, he must continue to abide by the restrictions or he will lose his rights on that land, too. It is a practical requirement that both landowners and walkers will understand. We cannot go further.
Mr. Paice: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Mullin: I understood that the hon. Gentleman was anxious to get on. We are making awfully heavy weather of this.
Mr. Paice: Any heavy weather is because the Minister does not seem able to accept what is blatantly obvious to us. If a landowner apprehends someone on his land who is contravening the obligations and he says, "Get off my land for the rest of today", or for 72 hours, and the chap wanders off across Snowdonia, how does the walker know when he has got off that landowner's land?
Mr. Mullin: No doubt the landowner will tell him.
Amendments (a) and (c) to Lords amendment No. 19 would give a duty to the countryside bodies to consult representatives of landowners and relevant conservation bodies before issuing codes of conduct under clause 19. We do not need to prescribe the way in which the countryside bodies should go about producing codes. They have considerable experience in producing such material. The Countryside Agency, for example, already has a duty to prepare a country code relating to national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty and long-distance routes. Clause 19 allows the agency to use the new code of conduct to fulfil the existing duty in section 86(1) of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, in addition to providing new information about the right of access. Similarly, the Countryside Agency is already under a duty to provide information about the countryside, including information about prevention of damage and a proper standard of behaviour on the part of those visiting the countryside.
The new countryside access forum will no doubt have views on the code, and the countryside bodies will undoubtedly want to listen to those views. Were we to give the countryside bodies a specific duty to consult landowners and conservation groups, we would invite questions as to why the Bill contained no duty to consult other groups, such as those representing walkers or local authorities. They, too, would have an interest in ensuring that the code was balanced and comprehensive. I believe that the countryside bodies are best suited to decide who should be consulted. We shall expect them to consult as broadly as possible. They are extremely experienced in undertaking duties such as that imposed by clause 19 and in consulting the relevant bodies. Amendments (a) and (c) are unnecessary.
I am pleased to be able to offer the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire reassurance on amendment (b) to Lords amendment No. 19, relating to appropriate points of access. Lords amendment No. 19 is explicit in placing a duty on the Countryside Agency to take steps to ensure that the public are informed of the situation,
extent and means of access to access land. The term "means of access" is given a wide meaning in the Bill. It comprises
- any opening in a wall, fence or hedge
Mr. Paice: I am grateful to the Minister for the conciliatory way in which he has approached our amendment. Will he explain a little more? The purpose of our amendment on points of access was that the information should indicate the best places to access the moor. That is where the code of conduct and all the rules and regulations would be displayed for the information of the public. As the Minister rightly said, the term "means of access" is much more widely defined. There may be many means of access. On an open moorland with a road through it, the whole lot is a means of access. We tabled the amendment to provide suggested, not statutory, access points at which walkers could be given information. I am not sure that the Minister has fully taken that on board.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |