| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
2.49 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Angela Eagle): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) and I am grateful to him for the opportunity that he has afforded the House to discuss this subject, which is one to which many people attach great importance. As he said, the subject has a long history and a deep resonance in our country. Many people hold strong views about it; it therefore attracts lively and, if some of the phrases that my hon. Friend used in his speech have passed others' lips, sometimes offensive debate.
My hon. Friend's address demonstrates his knowledge and interest in access issues and his commitment to them. I am grateful to him for setting out his views so clearly and I hope that I shall be able to outline the Government's position in equally cogent terms.
While there may be arguments about how best to provide access to the countryside, I would hope that most of us--clearly, from what my hon. Friend has said, not all of us--are agreed about the value of such access. The Government's position in the manifesto, and the support that we subsequently gained at the general election, support that.
Walking in the countryside brings tremendous benefits to people's well-being--physically, spiritually and mentally. It offers the chance for people to enjoy
healthy exercise while experiencing the wonders of our countryside, its landscape, its wildlife and its history. The countryside is an invaluable national recreational resource. Now, more than ever, people need to be able to escape from the stresses and strains of everyday life.
It is difficult to overstate the importance of maintaining and enhancing opportunities for access to the countryside in terms of the benefits that this most popular form of recreation brings to millions of people. It is therefore right that we should wish to ensure that people have the opportunity to benefit from access to parts of our most beautiful countryside.
As my hon. Friend said, our manifesto makes it clear that we wish to promote greater freedom for people to explore our open countryside. My hon. Friend rightly reminded us that that is something to which the Labour party has long been committed. We shall honour that commitment. It was a Labour Government who, under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, gave local planning authorities and landowners some means to provide public access to open country for quiet enjoyment. It is fair to say that the achievements gained from that Act in terms of promoting greater access did not live up to the optimism of the immediate post-war years. But we have much to celebrate in the Act, particularly the national parks.
The reason we need greater freedom to open countryside is clear. Although some use has been made of existing access provisions, generally, they have not been implemented sufficiently widely. There is also confusion about the de facto access that has grown up in some areas.
Some people argue that, given this country's extensive rights-of-way network, we do not need to extend access over open countryside. However, rights of way do not cater for every demand for access to the countryside. Some people seek a different experience in more open country and there should be opportunities for them to do so. Others are excluded from open land because there are no existing rights of way and no other provision for access. That is why we are intent on issuing a consultation paper setting out our proposal for extending access opportunities in open countryside.
I realise that many organisations and individuals are keen to know when we shall issue our consultation paper, and I know that my hon. Friend will understand that our proposals raise several important issues, which must be considered carefully within Government. However, I am happy to assure him that the Government intend to issue the paper as soon as possible.
My hon. Friend will also understand that I cannot tell the House yet what the consultation paper will say. What I am able to do, and wish to do, is to take the opportunity to explode a few myths about what our commitment to greater access is--or, perhaps more accurately, is not--about. It is not about allowing people to trample over farmers' crops or land, or through people's back gardens. It is not about sheep stealers, horse slashers, drug dealers and any other number of the parade of villains that some members of the Country Landowners Association appear to be talking about.
I must say, having listened to my hon. Friend, that the Country Landowners Association does its argument no good by making such ludicrous exaggerations and
offensive and insulting caricatures of those who wish to make use of access. If we are to have a debate about this, we must respect one another's positions, not resort to caricature or insult.
Access is not about giving people unrestricted rights to do what they like. It is certainly not a charter for rural crime. Our commitment is about giving people greater access to open countryside for their quiet enjoyment and relaxation. It is about balancing the rights and responsibilities of those benefiting from greater access, and of those affected by it.
For example, it is vital to reconcile the interests of walkers with those whose livelihoods may depend on open countryside. Visitors who use and enjoy the countryside must recognise the rights and needs of those going about their daily business. Our commitment is about balancing the need to promote greater access with the need to conserve and protect our landscape, wildlife and archaeological legacies.
Providing greater access to open countryside is not an attack on the countryside, as some would have us believe. It is not about town versus country. Just as many people living in towns and cities wish to explore the countryside surrounding them, so do rural dwellers. Providing greater access may bring more custom for businesses that supply facilities and refreshments in rural areas.
The benefits of greater access will be widespread. Visiting the country is the most popular out-of-home leisure pursuit, and walking is by far the most popular activity in the countryside. Nearly half of all adults regularly go for a walk of two miles or more. Of course, we wish to improve access for other groups, and we shall consider carefully any proposals for achieving that, but our consultation paper will be aimed primarily at benefiting the millions who go walking.
More generally, the Government will be open to views and suggestions about the best way of securing our aim of greater access. Experience does not suggest that it will be very costly, but we shall carefully consider the financial implications. The key requirement is that, whatever approach is chosen, it must deliver substantially greater access in a practical and cost-effective way, which is of lasting benefit to the people of this nation.
We need a system that not only extends access, but creates greater certainty and understanding of areas that are subject to access. For example, large areas are covered by de facto or other forms of access arrangements, yet information about that is not always readily available, and often there is confusion about the extent and nature of rights and responsibilities.
We shall need to consider carefully the results of the consultation exercise, including arguments for and against the voluntary approach. We shall give both the voluntary and statutory route to greater access proper consideration, but the principle of greater access is not open to argument. With the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle, I hope to reach the stage when we issue the consultation paper and the stage when we can move to put into effect the principle in which we both believe.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to Three o'clock.
| Index | Home Page |