| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
7.15 pm
Mr. Mullin: It is perfectly sensible to direct people to the most logical points of access. I can only repeat that we expect the Countryside Agency to provide information about the most appropriate access points. The hon. Gentleman will have to think about it, but I honestly think that we have met that point.
Amendments (a) and (b) to Lords amendment No. 24 would amend the provision in clause 23 for landowners to exclude dogs from fields and enclosures if they believe it to be necessary in connection with lambing. Amendment (a) would broaden the exclusion of dogs for the purposes of lambing so that dogs could be excluded for the purposes of any livestock breeding. Amendment (b) would extend the six-week period to eight weeks.
I shall deal first with amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 24. It is not necessary to provide blanket powers to exclude dogs where livestock breeding takes place. The Countryside Agency has recently produced a report on the impact of public access on livestock management. The report supports our view that sheep are significantly more likely to suffer disturbance from the mere presence of dogs at sensitive times of the year than are other livestock such as cattle. The cattle are much more likely to pose a danger to walkers and their dogs than the other way around. Sheep are by far the most common livestock to be found in open countryside. It is inconceivable that bison or alpaca would be raised in open country rather than on improved pastures, but if restrictions are needed, directions may be sought from the relevant authorities.
Mr. Damian Green (Ashford): I am not clear about the logic of the Minister's argument. It does not seem a strong argument to say that sheep and lambs will be more affected by interference than cattle and that in the latter case the danger would be to walkers. That seems a strong
argument for widening the restrictions, as we propose. To do so would protect walkers. I am puzzled that the Minister advances that argument in favour of keeping the restrictions narrow.
Mr. Mullin: As a walker, when I come across cattle, particularly--
Mr. Llwyd: Of the male variety.
Mr. Mullin: --or of the female variety when they have calves, I steer a wide circle round them, and I recommend any other sensible walker to do the same.
The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) asked whether the local access forum could extend the restriction to ban dogs. I repeat that it would be for the relevant authority to impose tighter restrictions on dogs, but it must have regard to any representations made by the local access forum.
Let me emphasise that, under schedule 2, dogs are required to be on leads in the vicinity of all livestock at all times. We have introduced an amendment that provides that leads should be short; so on any access land on which livestock was present, dogs would already be under tight control. Where there is a genuine case for stronger restrictions, or even a complete ban, the Bill provides for local arrangements to be put in place.
Clause 23 is intended to provide a simple and quick mechanism for those landowners who are most likely to need to exclude dogs to do so with the minimum of red tape. It is not the only mechanism whereby dogs may be excluded, and I believe that it is right that it should be targeted. Therefore, if the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy will forgive me, I cannot support that amendment.
As for amendment (b) to Lords amendment No. 24, I do not believe that it is necessary to extend the period that dogs may be excluded from six to eight weeks, but I think that I can answer the point made by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy. I appreciate that six weeks is not sufficient to cover the entire lambing season, and it is not intended to be.
I understand that the way in which lambing is managed means that sheep in any one field or enclosure would have been grouped according to their likely delivery date, and would be expected to lamb within a three-week period. In any one field or enclosure, therefore, it would be rare for the entire six-week closure allowance to be needed, and it would, of course, be open to farmers--this is the key point--to close different fields for different six-week periods.
We believe that the provision is more than adequate to allow farmers to continue with existing lambing practices unhindered by walkers' dogs. As I have already said, where, exceptionally, closure beyond six weeks was required, landowners could apply to the relevant body.
We believe that clause 23, in conjunction with the other controls on dogs for which the Bill provides, comprises an effective package of measures for the control of dogs near livestock. We do not believe that it is necessary to go further.
Mr. Paice: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I fear that some of those responses were wholly
inadequate. When the appropriate moment arrives, I should like formally to move amendment (b) to Lords amendment No. 19.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is quite acceptable.
Lords amendment No. 5 agreed to.
Clause 11
Lords amendment: No. 6, in page 6, line 44, after ("authorities") insert (", local access forums")
Mr. Mullin: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 13, Lords amendment No. 16 and amendment (a) thereto, and Lords amendments Nos. 27, 127 and 128.
Mr. Mullin: These Lords amendments together deliver the Government's commitments, expressed in another place, to give statutory status to local access forums. This is a matter to which the Liberal Democrats gave high priority.
We had from the outset intended that forums, whether statutory or non-statutory, should play a key role in helping to improve public access to the countryside. We were persuaded, however, that unless we made them statutory, there would be concern that forums would not be set up everywhere they ought to be, and that the weight accorded to their views might be less. We accordingly tabled an amendment on Report, writing local access forums clearly into the Bill.
The role of local access forums will go wider than part I. They will have a key advisory role in helping access authorities determine how best to make the countryside more accessible and enjoyable for recreation, in ways that take proper account of social, economic and environmental interests. Forums will, for example, be involved in improving the rights of way network and in the development of local recreation and access strategies.
We are keen to ensure that forums should be sufficiently flexible in their make-up and operation to take account of varying circumstances and needs in different areas of the country. For example, the issues relevant to a heavily populated area with relatively little open countryside might be very different from those in a more remote rural area.
The amendments place a duty on access authorities to establish forums in their area. Forums will need to include a balanced representation both of users of the right of access under part I and rights of way generally, and of landowners, managers and occupiers of land.
Due weight will be given to the forums' advice. The amendments require relevant decision-making authorities to have proper regard to forums' views in reaching decisions--for example, in relation to draft maps, the imposition of byelaws, proposals for long-term restrictions and closures of access land, as well as on wider access issues contained in new right of way improvement plans.
In providing their views, forums will need to take into account relevant guidance issued by the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales. The amendments demonstrate the central role that we intend forums will play in advising on the operation and implementation of the new right of access.
Mr. Green: I shall comment briefly on the wider issue of local access forums and speak particularly to amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 16.
Broadly speaking, we welcome the improvements that their Lordships have made to the Bill. Local access forums will provide a useful injection of local knowledge into the administration of access land and will help the access authorities to ensure that decisions are taken at a suitably local level.
Amendment (a) calls for the local access authority to
- consult the local access forum about the adequacy of the provision of wardens.
Clearly, different areas will require differing amounts of wardening, and that will be an easy cut for a local access authority to make, as wardening will be one of the more expensive procedures involved in creating an adequate new access regime. In local authorities that cover both urban and rural areas, the focus on the rural areas may well go by default.
It is crucial for a wardening system to be adequate not just in the early stages of the new regime, but throughout. If the Bill is successful, many new people will be attracted to walking in open country.
"Warden" is an unfortunately negative term. Perhaps we should have spoken of rangers throughout.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |