| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham): My point of order, of which I have given you notice, Madam Speaker, is similar to that of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). Clearly, the decision to include Liberal Democrats on a Cabinet consultative Committee means, in effect, that Liberal Democrats are moving from the Opposition Benches to the Government Benches. That has an important impact on the role and status of Liberal Democrats in this House. For example, when they seek to catch your eye, should not they be treated as Government Back Benchers, and when they seek places on Committees of this House, should not they be treated as sitting on the Government Benches?
The matter goes further. Who represents the minority parties? Surely not the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), who is in effect on the Government Benches. Indeed, it goes even further than that. For example, there are the questions of Short money and of party political broadcasts. That is a matter on which you, Madam Speaker, might wish to summon a Speaker's
committee so as to ensure that allocation to Liberal Democrats came out of the allocation that would otherwise go to the Labour party.
Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst):
Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker:
I am happy to listen to points of order. One day we might have a debate on these matters.
Mr. Forth:
I welcome your advice, Madam Speaker. Following the point of order of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), may I ask whether you were consulted before this rather unusual and, as far as I know, unprecedented step was taken? Was your advice sought with regard to the implications for the House of what is apparently being done in terms of the status of Members of Parliament and political parties in the House? If not, certain rather arrogant presumptions seem to have been made by both the Prime Minister and the leader of the Liberal Democrat party, taking the rest of us--perhaps including you, Madam Speaker--entirely for granted.
Madam Speaker:
There is no need for any Government to consult me on such a matter. The relationship between the Government and another political party is not a matter for me, nor do I think that it is a matter that requires a statement to the House. However, I have noted the points of order raised by hon. Gentlemen, as no doubt have Ministers. Perhaps at business questions tomorrow, other hon. Members may seek to catch my eye, so that they may put questions to the President of the Council.
Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark, North and Bermondsey):
Further to the point of order of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), Madam Speaker, of course there is an issue as to access to Government facilities. If the matter is to be debated or listed for the public and the House, I hope that you, Madam Speaker, will ensure that all the facilities to which the official Opposition have access--cars for the leader, civil servants in the Whips Office and additional resources--are listed. We are happy for resources available to Opposition parties to be listed.
The two points that must be recorded clearly are, first, that I have not said anything to suggest that a constructive dialogue with the Government is not available to all parties, if they ask for it and if they are willing to come to an agreement about it. Secondly, for all the years that I have been in the House and longer, facilities have been
afforded in different ways by different Governments to Opposition parties and funded by the state. We would rather have access to information than access to goodies.
Mr. Alasdair Morgan (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale):
Further to the point of order relating to the statement, given that the Dearing committee set up a special sub-committee to examine the position in Scotland, given that there were only two lines relating to Scotland in the ministerial statement, and given that the grant system in Scotland has always been in the purview of the Scottish Office, rather than of the Department for Education and Employment, may I ask whether the Secretary of State for Scotland has applied to make a statement on the Dearing report?
Madam Speaker:
The simple answer is no.
Mr. John MacGregor (South Norfolk):
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have just been to the Vote Office to get a copy of the Dearing report, and I am told that only a 54-page summary will be available to hon. Members from the Vote Office. It is a pretty skimpy summary. Those of us who want to study the full report during the recess expect to be in our constituencies, not in London. I was told that the only way of seeing the full report was to go to the Library. I hope that I have been misinformed, but if that is correct, I hope that you will make it clear that the Dearing report will be available through the Vote Office to hon. Members in the usual way.
Madam Speaker:
Of course, the right hon. Gentleman is correct. I know that up to 1 o'clock today 250 copies of the summary were available in the Vote Office, but I would expect the full report now to be available. I will see to it when I leave the Chair, when I am allowed to. It is right that the full report should be available to hon. Members.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours (Workington):
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Will you confirm, on the basis of reports that you have seen, probably in the media, that the debate going on about the position of the Liberal Democrats is being wildly exaggerated? They will not form part of the Executive. They are simply being drawn into a forum where they are being consulted. As a Member, I cannot see what is difficult about that proposition.
Madam Speaker:
That is not a point of order for me, and I am a wise enough Speaker never to make comment about media comments.
4.38 pm
Mr. Paddy Tipping (Sherwood): I beg to move,
- That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law on trespass and to enable members of the public to resort on foot to open country in England and Wales for their recreation; and for connected purposes.
Fifty years ago this week the post-war Labour Government received the Hobhouse report. The majority of its recommendations were agreed. As a result, we now have national parks, the Countryside Commission, long-distance footpaths and a right of way network recorded on the definitive map. Unfortunately, the fifth, important recommendation--a right to roam over open country--was dropped because of obstacles placed in its path, and lack of parliamentary time.
The right to roam in the wild places has been called for in Parliament for more than a century. The Liberal Member of Parliament James Bryce introduced the first access Bill in 1884. Unfortunately, that Bill and many of its successors were blocked or emasculated by landowning interests in Parliament.
Despite that, the demand and need to protect and extend the public's freedom to wander on foot over uncultivated land is greater than ever. We now have another radical, reforming Labour Government, whose achievements I believe will match those of the 1945 Government. There are high expectations that this Government will deliver greater access to the countryside. Labour's manifesto at the general election promised greater access to mountain, moorland and common land. However, those rights to roam were coupled with responsibilities for the walker.
This Bill provides a framework for what I think can be achieved. I do not see it as the definitive article, but as a vehicle for debate and discussion. There are many voices in the country and many demands on the countryside. We must seek to balance them, although it will be difficult to find the right balance. We must remember that the countryside changes, and, as it changes, attempts must be made to lift the landscape and enhance the environment. The countryside will never be a museum.
The Bill seeks to build on previous similar measures that I have introduced. I thank the Ramblers Association--particularly Jerry Pearlman, its honorary solicitor--for its help and support. I put on record the fact that I am an enthusiastic walker and vice-president of the Ramblers Association. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will acknowledge that the focus of the Bill has been narrowed to bring it into line with what I believe to be Labour party policy.
The Bill confers the right to roam on mountain, moorland, common land, heath and down. However, it is not an unrestricted right to roam: exclusions are granted to take account of shooting and conservation interests. There are many stakeholders in the countryside, and I have consulted fully about the Bill. Meetings have taken place with the Country Landowners Association and the National Farmers Union. All agree that there is a need for greater access, but there are different views about how to achieve that aim.
As a result of those discussions, positive obligations are imposed in schedule 1 on persons who want to walk the open spaces. Rights are clearly linked to responsibilities:
freedom to walk places a responsibility on the walker to respect the countryside. In addition, the rights of those who wish to shoot are safeguarded and strengthened. Dogs must now always be kept on a lead. Most importantly, a new clause has been added to assuage the fears of the Country Landowners Association and others that they could face insurance claims from walkers. Clause 10 makes it clear that landowners have no responsibilities in that regard. Another burden has been lifted from landowners.
I hope that I have made it clear that I have responded positively to countryside concerns. There can be no justification for any claim that the measures would be imposed on the countryside without discussion. The Bill has its opponents, but they should accept it at face value and in good faith. To characterise it as somehow allowing unrestricted access to the countryside reveals prejudice and vested interest. The Bill attempts to address all countryside interests without causing substantial harm to any.
I say bluntly to the British Association for Shooting and Conservation that, before writing to all Members of Parliament expressing concern about the Bill, it would have been wise to read it. Its ill-informed criticism does it no favours. Many issues it raises have already been addressed.
I understand the Country Landowners Association's view that access should be voluntary and managed. Nevertheless, 50 years ago, the Hobhouse report and the subsequent National Parks and Access to Countryside Act 1949 provided a framework for negotiating voluntary access. Unfortunately, progress has been painful and pitiful. For instance, large parts of the Peak district and the Forest of Bowland remain out of bounds. The CLA has received money from the Countryside Commission to help with voluntary access work. It will be judged on what it can achieve. Unless progress is made, legislation is inevitable.
Judgments will also be made on assessments of the costs of access to the country. I seek to persuade the Minister that the costs are minimal and can be met from existing budgets.
I contrast my approach with the work of the Country Landowners Association, which commissioned a report that purports to show that the provisions in the Bill will cost landowners £2 billion. I challenge the CLA to publish this secret report, so that its methodology can be scrutinised. I am inclined to say at this stage that this is yet another example of scaremongering.
To put the £2 billion into context, I calculate that it could purchase 10 million acres of mountain and moorland at an average cost of £200 per acre. The Minister and the House need to be reminded that there are only 12 million acres in total of mountain and moorland in England and Wales. The CLA's claims are therefore clearly exaggerated.
It seems to me that the Ramblers Association and others promoting greater access have made proposals that are practical, reasonable and follow English legal precedent. Moreover, they have shown their willingness to compromise.
The Bill is practical in the sense that it provides draft legislation that can be implemented on the ground. All that is required is parliamentary time. The Bill is
reasonable in that it is not a Utopian demand for everything that the access lobby would wish for. Difficult decisions have already been made.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |