Standing Committee B
Thursday 30 March 2000
(Afternoon)
[Mr. Humfrey Malins in the Chair]
2.30 pm
Mr. Mark Todd (South Derbyshire): On a point of order, Mr. Malins. As I was not present on Tuesday for the sittings motion, I want to declare a notional interest. I own about four and a half acres of property that has a public footpath running across it. I derive no income from it, but it will be affected by the Bill.
Clause 1
Principal definitions
Amendment moved [this day]: No. 86, in page 2, line 9, at end insert—
```designated access point'' means a means of access to access land shown on a map in conclusive form issued by the appropriate countryside body for the purposes of this Part:'.—[Mr. Paice.]
The Chairman: I remind the Committee that with this we are taking the following amendments: No. 92, in clause 2, page 2, line 24, at end insert—
`( ) he enters by means of a designated access point,'.
No. 97, in schedule 2, page 40, line 6, at end insert—
`( ) leaves access land by means other than a designated access point,'.
Mr. James Paice (South-East Cambridgeshire): To assuage any concerns that the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) may have about not declaring an interest earlier, it has occurred to me that I have a non-declarable interest that I should like to mention. When I listed the various bodies to which I belong—there is no pecuniary interest; I acted in the spirit of openness—I forgot to include the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, which is also worried about the Bill.
Information about the control and management of access is central to the Bill. Although we will have an opportunity to discuss its impact on wildlife in subsequent debates, there is one aspect that should be highlighted now. Users of open country should be provided with information on what they might see when they walk across land so that there are no misunderstandings or serious actions taken.
The Game Conservancy has produced a chart outlining the main periods of gamekeeping activity on grouse moors. It is clear that there is significant activity during every month of the year. It is not, as the Minister implied, something that happens only on shooting days. Grouse moors are permanently managed. Trapping, fox control and heather burning, which occurs in March, April and October, could worry walkers who are not informed. The only way to ensure that such information is adequately provided is to position it where people enter open land. That is why access points are necessary.
Although Labour Members give short shrift to anything connected with gamekeeping or grouse shooting, studies show that there is a huge increase in other bird life on moors that are keepered. For example, there are three breeding pairs of curlews per 100 hectares on a keepered grouse moor and only 1.5 breeding pairs on an unkeepered moor. That is twice the number of breeding pairs on keepered moors. Those birds are not part of the shooting system but are beneficiaries of gamekeeping practice.
Mr. Gordon Prentice (Pendle): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Paice: Only if the hon. Gentleman is going to make a sensible comment.
Mr. Prentice: Far be it from me to admit to such a thing, but do the figures include birds of prey? Documented evidence suggests that the population of hen harriers has fallen dramatically in the Forest of Bowland. There is anecdotal evidence that gamekeepers have been targeting birds of prey.
Mr. Paice: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. I do not have the figures for birds of prey, but I am an avid reader of the type of document to which he refers. I know that there are concerns about that activity. Let me make it clear: birds of prey are protected in this country. No gamekeeper or landowner has any justification for killing them, and I would condemn them for breaking the law. There is a variety of opinion on the effect that they have on the number of grouse and other birds. The Langholm study, which was carried out by the Game Conservancy, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and other groups, produced mixed results. There was no positive conclusion that all the organisations could sign up to, which is a pity. As the law stands, there is no doubt that birds of prey are protected. My point relates to protected birds that are typical of moorland. The picture is similar for the curlew, lapwing and snipe.
My example illustrates the need to provide information for people who walk on moors. I hope that the Minister will agree that that should be provided at points of access. We can talk about the detail another time. However, if he does not agree, how does he anticipate informing people not only about their responsibilities and schedule 2 restrictions, but about the localised aspects, which will vary in each location?
Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome): I feel a sense of inadequacy because, unlike the landowning classes on the Government Benches and the conservationists on the Opposition Benches, I have no interest to declare.
The amendments deal with an important aspect of the practical workings of the Bill. Amendment No. 86 is sensible. However, I am less convinced that it would be appropriate to make it an act of trespass if someone did not use a designated access point. The Bill's purpose is to provide access not only to people who are equipped with the best of maps and knowledge of how to read the circumstances of the countryside—the ``professional'' walker or rambler—who will have the wit and ability to find out about restrictions, but to the general public. They will also want access to important areas of the country but, because of the many restrictions that will be imposed, they will need information about what they can do and when they can do it. They need to know where public access land stops and starts, and when it is closed for a purpose. I am at a loss to understand how that would happen. As the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) said, it is impossible to envisage how the general public will know that unless there is a process of signage, which requires a recommended point of access. Otherwise, the countryside will be littered with notices posted on every farm gate, and that is profoundly to be deplored.
Bodies that manage our best landscapes have to cope with countryside access. I used to sit on the Exmoor national park committee. Clear signs to show when one entered the park, and the provision of information on recommended access points to Exmoor, caused some difficulties, but there were also benefits. Such signs do not have to be an expensive business, as simple way-marks located at the point of entry to indicate that one is entering access land are often all that is needed. Unless the map that is drawn up for such purposes defines points of access, there is no way of knowing where the signs should be located or how the arrangements can be policed. There is an ancillary argument about whether the resources that the Government are making available to countryside bodies, national parks authorities, local authorities or individual landowners are sufficient to meet the requirements involved in making the Bill work adequately. However, that is a separate matter and must be addressed later during our consideration of the Bill.
What matters is that people who want to walk on access land know where they can enter that land, where it starts and what they are allowed to do while they are there. I cannot envisage a mechanism that will prevent people from unwittingly breaking the law and becoming trespassers if such information is not available. Perhaps the Under-Secretary can envisage an alternative mechanism. The proposed arrangements would help to protect the countryside and its habitat and would benefit people who own or farm the land and who have to advise people. Mostly, however, it is intended for the benefit of the people who want to visit the land. The Bill currently contains a glaring deficiency, which the amendment would address by ensuring that designated access points were shown on the map. If the Under-Secretary is not disposed to agree to the amendment, will he suggest another mechanism that would stop people becoming unwitting trespassers and would operate in the context of the provisions set out in the Bill?
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold): The democratic will of the large majority of hon. Members is that the Bill should be enacted. The purpose of the Committee is to see how it can be improved and made to work better. I echo the sensible comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire and commend the measured way in which the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) approached the subject.
Having been brought up in the countryside and having lived there all my life, I believe that it is eminently sensible to introduce designated access points. During the previous parliamentary Session, I was glad to have the opportunity to visit a number of our national parks with the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs. The visits demonstrated that if one did not go to the places where the majority of walkers started off and obtained the information that was available there, one could easily get lost and perhaps encounter considerable dangers. Many of the areas in question contain downland, moorland and mountains and are dangerous even in the summer, let alone in winter. Unless designated access points are specified, the number of walkers who get lost or into other difficulties will increase and the task of the rescue services that have to find them will be made more difficult.
The amendment would benefit walkers, farmers and landowners, mostly through the provision of information at access points. A considerable amount of information can be supplied, not only about safety, but about the interesting places to walk. Unless people bother to read up about the area that they are visiting, they could miss the interesting features that they have come to see, whether they are geographic features or natural features. At particular times of year, it will not be sensible to walk in some places because birds are nesting or because certain farming operations are being carried out. Access to our great national parks and other areas could be made more sensible if everyone exercised a little sense and took a detour rather than walking in certain places.
I come from an area of the Cotswolds where there are miles of dry stone walls. They are a very welcome feature of the landscape, considerably enhancing it, but are expensive to maintain. It would make sense if people stuck to designated stiles over the walls, rather than trying to climb them indiscriminately at other points. The soft Cotswold stone is easily crumbled; it is easy to damage the walls by climbing over them at unsuitable places.
2.45 pm
The tenor of the Bill is not only improved access to the countryside but improved protection of some of our precious and most rare wildlife. Again, it would seem that the prime purpose could be defeated unless there were access points with proper information. How might people entering a national park containing sites of special scientific interest otherwise know where they were? They might blunder into an SSSI and do huge damage without realising what they were walking over. The measure seems totally pragmatic and would only enhance the Bill. Unless we have designated access points on maps, many problems will occur.
Many people visit our national parks to walk, and that involves many cars. By and large, it is better if cars are parked in designated car parks. When I visited some of the parks, I found that many of the roads were narrow and twisty. If cars are parked all over the place, access to the parks for buses, which we wish to encourage, will become more difficult. On a summer's day, it will be impossible for buses to enter some places. I hope that the Minister will consider the sensible and practical amendment. If he will not, I hope that he will explain the way in which the difficulties that I and my hon. Friends have raised will be dealt with.
| 
