| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Green: I hope not warders, although the Minister seems to take a rather insouciant view of people committing offences, as his reaction to the previous group of amendments showed. Perhaps he thinks that warders may be necessary, but rangers would have been a better word to use, as it gives the impression of help, rather than control.
Whatever the terminology, it would be helpful to have experts around the access areas, and local access forums would be a powerful voice encouraging that.
The Minister will know that the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors has stated that so far, in land where there is access, one warden for every 400 hectares is a sensible use of resources. It is equally clear from all our debates on previous stages of the Bill that the amount of money that the Government have put aside for implementing the new system would not allow such a wardening effort.
Mr. Bennett: In most national parks that have a ranger service in place, a large proportion of that service is
provided by volunteers. Although there is a cost in training and supervising, it is not the same as the cost involved in paying wages to those people.
Mr. Green: The hon. Gentleman is right. However, the number of volunteers is, by definition, limited, and those who are most enthusiastic have probably already volunteered. The new access regime will cover an enormously expanded area of land. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that it is unlikely that people will volunteer to the extent that they do for national parks.
The hon. Gentleman almost encourages me to argue that if one wanted to pay small sums to encourage people to volunteer--they would be semi-volunteers, semi-paid--the minimum wage legislation would prevent that. However, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I expect that you would not want me to go down that route.--[Interruption.] The Minister says that he would be happy with that. I think that other hon. Members would be less happy.
Wardening is clearly an issue. We will need far more wardens than previously. With due respect to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), I suspect that there will not be enough volunteers. Therefore local authorities will have to find the money, or the Government will have to subsidise them. We need a powerful local voice to say, "To make this work properly and to encourage people to behave safely and well, a large-scale effort should be made to provide wardens"--or rangers, or whatever we wish to call them. That would be yet another practical improvement.
Throughout the passage of the Bill we have sought to improve it in small, practical ways. The amendment is just another effort in that direction, and I hope that the Government can accept it.
7.30 pm
Mr. David Heath: I am delighted with the Government for accepting the proposition that local access forums should be referred to in the Bill. I am even prepared to forgo the opportunity of a debate on what is the proper plural of forum--a matter which we considered at some length in Committee.
It was obvious to me from the start that we needed to have a statutory reference to local access forums if they were to be established throughout the country and to succeed. That reference has been put in place, and that I wholeheartedly welcome, although it might have been nicer if it had been included a little earlier.
Since we last discussed these matters, I had the opportunity to attend the local access forum for the Exmoor national park at Dulverton. It was extremely useful to exchange with its members experiences of how they work. It was clear that there was no unanimity of view. People were representing different interests, some of which were occasionally in conflict with those of others. However, there was respect between landowners, land users and those seeking to use land for recreational purposes. Surely that is at the core of what we are trying to achieve.
I admire the ingenuity of the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) in finding an opportunity to discuss the important issue of wardening and ranger services at this stage in our deliberations. I do not think that anything will stop local access forums talking about warden and ranger
services in their areas. That issue will be at the forefront of their considerations, and much of the discussion will be led by people who are employed or who volunteer to do the work. That is the experience in the national parks. However, there is real concern about whether local authorities throughout the country will be able to devote sufficient resources to enable a specific job to be done if we are to make a success of the Bill.I suspect that we shall not see the amendment pressed to a vote, but I hope that the Minister will clearly understand the concerns that have been expressed by Members on both sides of the House about the adequacy of warden services and the adequacy of the funding that will underpin those services, and about whether it will be possible to achieve the results that we want to see. I wholly welcome this group of Lords amendments.
Mr. Llwyd: I add my voice to what has just been said. Statutory life has been given to the concept of local access forums, which I welcome. However, the Government should ensure that authorities are guided to implement proposals in consultation with key interests such as farmers and landowners within a pre-determined time scale. Experience of the Countryside Agency's so-called name-and-shame approach has not proved an effective method of maintaining implementation pressure on authorities. For example, in preparing rights of way improvement plans, authorities are not required to consider the potential for creating, diverting or stopping-up, or otherwise improving the network on a local scale. That is a significant omission.
Individuals should be able to propose such works during the preparation of plans. It is vital that local authorities consult farmers and landowners, especially as the status of the plans is to become a material consideration in highway authority decision making. I am pleased that the argument has prevailed and that local access forums appear in the Bill. They must work properly if the Act is to work properly. Proper consultation will ensure the minimum potential for conflict, as we would all wish to see when the Act is implemented.
I fully support Conservative amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 16, which seeks to implement occasional consultation between the access authority and the local access forums about the provision of wardens. It is eminently sensible and most desirable.
Mr. Mullin: I am grateful for the general welcome that has been accorded to the amendments. It will not come as a surprise to hon. Members that the Government will resist amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 16. It is not necessary. Lords amendment No. 16 places a duty on access authorities to consult the relevant local access forums before exercising their power to appoint wardens to help manage the right of access, and from time to time after that. That ensures that local access forums will be appropriately consulted. We do not need a further duty to consult access forums on the adequacy of the provision of wardens. We would expect consultation between forums and access authorities about the provision of wardens as part of the normal consultation about the operation and management of the right of access. That is already provided for in the Bill.
There has been debate in the House and in another place about whether the access authorities should be under a duty to appoint wardens. We have made it clear that authorities should have a power, not a duty, to decide whether to appoint wardens, and if so, how many.
The amendment would not impose a duty, but I suspect that it is yet another attempt to exert pressure on access authorities to appoint wardens, even where they may not be needed. We must remember that the sort of land that will be subject to the new right of access is often in the more remote areas, which will remain inaccessible to all but the most adventurous. We do not want or need a veritable army of wardens in such areas. Instead, all that may be needed is a few signs or information boards placed at the appropriate entry. I am sure that the party of deregulation, the Conservative party, would not want me to labour that point.
In the areas that are subject to the most pressure from walkers, more intensive management measures may be appropriate, including wardening services. We intend to provide adequate funding--I mentioned some figures earlier--to help to ensure that the right of access is managed effectively and avoids interference with day-to-day management. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will accept that the amendment is not necessary.
Clause 13
Lords amendment: No. 7, in page 8, line 6, leave out ("("the 2000 Act")").
The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): 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. 8, Lords amendment No. 9 and amendment (a) thereto, and Lords amendment No. 10.
Mr. Meacher: I am conscious that time is moving on fast, and I will be as brief as I can be.
The group of amendments deals with the extent to which occupiers should have liability for harm sustained to other people exercising a right of access to their land. Lords amendments Nos. 8 and 9 remove liability in relation to personal injuries suffered by people climbing over, through, or under a wall, fence or gate, except by the proper use of the gate or stile.
The amendments respond to the concerns that have been expressed by landowners that there would be problems with people hurting themselves when climbing over man-made features that are extremely common in open country, such as dry stone walls. We do not believe that the courts would hold landowners liable in such cases, but we accept that in this increasingly litigious age there might be people who tried to bring cases, however unjustified. It is therefore reasonable that we should reduce the risk of the consequent hassle by excluding from liability particularly common features that are unlikely to cause injury to anybody but the careless.
Lords amendment no. 9 removes liability regarding any river, stream, ditch or pond, whether or not it is a natural feature, and addresses concerns expressed by landowners
and conservation interests that occupiers should bear no responsibility in relation to such features, even when they have been made or changed by man. In particular, we accept that it may often be difficult to tell whether a pond was originally man-made or is partly man-made.Lords amendment no. 10 does two things. It confirms that an occupier retains a minimal liability when he does something that creates a danger on his land with the intention of creating that risk, or is reckless as to whether such a risk is created. The provision requires the courts to have regard to the particular importance of not placing an undue burden--whether financial or otherwise--on the occupier. It also requires the courts to take into account the need to maintain the character of the countryside, including features of historical, traditional or archaeological interest. We want to make it clear that we do not want the countryside littered with forests of signs and miles of fences.
Finally, the courts are required to have regard to any code or guidance issued by the countryside bodies--for example, a warning in the code to walkers to inform themselves about hazards and be on the lookout for them. That should make it even more unlikely that a landowner would be held liable except in the most exceptional circumstances. I hope therefore that the amendments are acceptable.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |