| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Gray: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the speech of the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) stands in sharp contrast to the thoughtful and worthwhile speech of the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), who advanced the arguments in a much better tone?
Mrs. Shephard: My hon. Friend pre-empts what I was about to say. While clearly sharing the views of his
hon. Friend the Member for Pendle, the hon. Memberfor Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) nevertheless demonstrated an understanding of the countryside, and a willingness to accept that there could be arguments on both sides of the divide and that those arguments needed to be explored in a less feverish atmosphere.
Mr. Bennett: Conservative Members chastise some of us for not being conciliatory. What about some conciliatory action from those on the Conservative Front Bench? Would it not be much better if they joined us and agreed that access legislation is necessary? They say that they want more access to the countryside. Would not such cross-party support take matters forward?
Mrs. Shephard: I shall go on to describe to the House the way in which we think that the matter could be taken forward. Perhaps I shall have the good fortune to convert the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish.
We believe that the matter is of wider importance to our country than the politics of class envy. Our broader approach is shared by the many organisations that we consulted, including the Countryside Commission, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, Friends of the Earth and the National Farmers Union.
In their responses to the right hon. Gentleman's consultation paper, English Nature and the Council for the Protection of Rural England pointed out that the context of the debate should be broader than that set by the Government. In its response, Friends of the Earth criticised the Government for focusing almost exclusively on the social implications of increased access, not the broader implications.
The CPRE summarised the issues well in its response by stating:
The hon. Member for Pendle and the Government--after all the skirmishes and briefings, we understand from the hon. Gentleman that they are to be regarded as one--are fond of quoting the finding that 80 per cent. of people polled want to see more access to the countryside. What they often fail to add is the further information that emerged from the Country Landowners Association's research and polling.
It is, indeed, the case that 80 per cent. of people want to see more access to the countryside, but most people are not aware of the extent of the current rights of way network. That point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) and by the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox). In his statement to the House on 8 March, the Minister gave some brief information on the Government's intentions on the clarification of rights of way and the further information to be given about their existence. I think that some of the proceeds of the national lottery were to be used. It would be useful to have further information on that matter, if the right hon. Gentleman is able to give it this morning.
Many people are vaguely aware that there are more rights of way networks than they know about. If the Government were prepared to give more publicity to those
rights of way--as I believe that they are--that would make a large contribution to furthering people's desire to enjoy and use the countryside.
The CLA survey also indicates that 63 per cent. of people prefer to walk on clearly marked paths; 41 per cent. of people want new access within five miles of their homes; and 92 per cent. want restrictions to protect wildlife. This March, in the Contemporary Review, Lord Buxton pointed out:
How can a balance be achieved? We believe that the best way forward is to create a secure legal framework, which defines rights and responsibilities, and considers owner liability in respect of dangerous dogs and so on. Trust could grow within such a framework and voluntary co-operation could develop. The overwhelming majority of those who go out to enjoy the countryside are highly responsible people--as has been pointed out many times this morning. Voluntary agreements on the part of landowners are fast proliferating. We think that the Bill and the Government's intentions should have built on that responsibility and co-operation, fostering trust by pursuing the voluntary route.
Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough):
In 1990, I piloted the Rights of Way Act through Parliament. That was based on a report published by the present Deputy Speaker, my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Sir A. Haselhurst), who is in his seat now. The Act was based on consensus. It opened up the existing rights of way network and made it easier for people to gain access. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is the right approach? It is possible to achieve consensus between the National Farmers Union, the Country Landowners Association and the ramblers, if we are positive about those matters.
Mrs. Shephard:
It is a more constructive way forward. That is the basis for our arguments. It is never constructive to try to impose co-operation; it is a waste of an opportunity if we do not use a bridge-building approach.
Mr. Gareth R. Thomas:
Is the right hon. Lady aware that consensus has already been achieved in Scotland? On 9 March, Mr. Murdo Fraser, land reform spokesman for the Scottish Conservative party, said:
Mr. Bennett:
Does the right hon. Lady accept that the voluntary principles were enshrined in legislation in 1949? She says that progress has been made recently, but, partly because of the spread of towns and partly because of the actions of some landowners, there is now less access to the countryside than there was 50 years ago.
Mrs. Shephard:
Since 1991-92, there has been an increase of 25 per cent. in the acreage available for people's access to the countryside, and a 23 per cent. increase in paths. That was all achieved through voluntary means.
I believe that the hon. Member for Pendle and the Government are wasting an opportunity. They could have increased the sense of trust between all sides in this argument and they should have begun by establishing a definition of demand for increased access--how much more demand, how much more access? I believe that they should have set their own objectives, and clarity in both those respects would have done much to dispel the suspicion with which the Bill and the Government's response are regarded in some sections of the countryside.
In England and Wales, 7.5 million acres and 210,000 miles of path are available, and 80 per cent. of the land area and 32 per cent. of path access are accounted for by voluntary agreements. The hon. Member for Pendle and, indeed, the Government might have taken this opportunity to clarify and define the rights and responsibilities of those who use the land and those who own it, but we could learn more in that respect when the Government's proposals are introduced. The same must be said of owner liability. The Bill, although it nods at the issue, is not reassuring and I hope that the Minister will take note of the many, perfectly legitimate, concerns before his legislation is drafted.
When the Minister made his statement to the House on 8 March, he was, sadly, dismissive on the matter of compensation for landowners. He said that
It is understandable that a private Member's Bill should not seek to identify or allocate resources implicitly, but the Government's legislation will have to define their
objectives so that the costs may be quantified. The Local Government Association, the NFU, the Tenant Farmers Association, the Moorland Association and the statutory wildlife and conservation organisations--including the national parks--have calculated those costs and are rightly anxious about the Government eventually making a commitment to giving them the resources to do the job.
A lot of other practical problems will be raised in the debate and as the Government take the legislation forward, including mapping, definitions, closures, the impact on land values, access to island sites and the timetable for all the changes. It may not be possible for the Minister to refer to them all, but he may be able to speak about some of them.
Conservative Members believe that the hon. Member for Pendle and the Government have been guided more by party ideology than by concern for the countryside and those who use and work in it. English Nature's response to the Government's consultation paper says that
It is a matter of regret that the Bill and the Government's statement should make such scant reference to the implications for wildlife and biodiversity of increased access to the countryside. We hope that, when the Government come to draft their legislation, they will take careful note of the wise words of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds in its response to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions paper of June 1998. Those words apply with equal force to the Bill. The RSPB said:
"Those who live and/or work in the countryside and those who visit it all have a legitimate voice in the access debate alongside other interests."
Alongside those interests, we would list sustainability, the protection of the environment and security for those using and working in the countryside.
"One could more likely get 100% answering 'no'"--
to increased access--
"if the question was 'Are you in favour of tramping on skylarks' and curlews' nests or scaring off lapwings?'."
[Interruption.] Well, the House must obviously consider that point. It illustrates that we need to find a balance between those arguments. The final figure given by the CLA was that 85 per cent. of people want restrictions to protect farming and livestock. Although many people are keen for access to the countryside to be extended, many are equally aware of the implications for biodiversity, wildlife and the livelihoods of those who work in the countryside.
"We do not have a problem with a general right to roam."
26 Mar 1999 : Column 667
Is the policy of the Scottish Conservative party different from that of the English Conservative party?
Mrs. Shephard:
The legal position of landholding in Scotland is completely different from that in England and Wales. It is a waste of time to try to draw comparisons between them.
"independent research shows that landowners generally will not suffer costs significant enough to warrant compensation."--[Official Report, 8 March 1999; Vol. 327, c. 25.]
He should talk to one or two upland farmers, whose land lies in some of the most attractive parts of our country and whose incomes have plummeted because of the policies of his Government. They most certainly could not be expected to afford the extra management costs of access. The Bill ignores that and the Government's Human Rights Act 1998, under which the rights of property cannot be damaged without compensation being paid. Clear intent to deal with those questions and the provision of a legal framework for all involved would have encouraged voluntary co-operation, thereby increasing and enhancing access.
"the underlying purpose of the Government's proposals needs to be clearer and that access to open country should not be the starting point of any review or overhaul of access provision. Instead greater emphasis needs to be put on improvements to the existing public rights of way network, more use of existing tracks and permissive paths and the provision of opportunities for everyone to enjoy green space near to their homes. Any new arrangements should be the subject of a strategic level environmental appraisal prior to adoption, and be developed in the light of Government policies on integrated transport, sustainable development and biodiversity."
We agree with that statement from the Government's own advisers, English Nature.
"In the absence of audit as to the status of access to open land, the absence of adequate research investigations from which to assess the implications . . . of access to open land, and the consequent lack of a comprehensive environmental assessment, the RSPB believes that the Government should proceed with caution in developing and implementing its policy for access to open land. Open land contains some of the habitats of greatest wildlife interest. Getting it wrong could be costly . . . to our wildlife heritage".
Sadly, we believe that the Bill is getting it wrong. It fails to build on the co-operation already in place; it fails to take account of the practicalities of land use; it fails to make a case for its proposals beyond that of party ideology; and it fails to safeguard our countryside and environment. It is a wasted opportunity.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |