| Countryside and Rights of Way Bill
|
|
Mr. James Gray (North Wiltshire): The amendment moves to the heart of the Bill, addressing the means by which we want walkers and others to enjoy the countryside. The Government know well that the Opposition have argued in favour of sensible managed access for many years. We have accepted that we have lost the argument—the right to roam will be introduced because the Government have a substantial majority. As my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire said, the important point for the Committee to consider is making the right to roam work as well as possible, despite our fundamental reservations. Providing properly arranged designated access points seems central to the issue. I should touch on a couple of points that hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome did not raise. I was struck by a good quote in the standard letter on the Bill from the National Farmers Union that, I dare say, all members of the Committee were sent. It said that the Bill went ``some way'' to balancing the interests of walkers and farmers, but that it appeared
By stipulating the way in which designated access points would work, the amendment would go some way towards rebalancing those parties' interests. First, surveys show that most walkers—90 per cent., I think—seek circular routes along clearly marked tracks within a mile or two of their house. The exceptions are the many people who take longer hikes across the countryside, but they constitute a small percentage of the total. I know from personal experience—I do a lot of hill walking in Scotland in particular—that even those who venture on to mountains and moorlands, whom the Bill is designed to accommodate, prefer to walk on a track. They do not necessarily want to walk across the heather because, apart from anything else, it is much more difficult to walk on, although one can enjoy the scenery and the atmosphere. So although people will have the right to go wherever they wish across moorland, it seems sensible to encourage them to stick to relatively clear tracks. One of the Bill's aims is to encourage greater access to the countryside for the disabled, which could be done by providing gates, clearly marked spots and clearly marked tracks. It seems unlikely that someone in a wheelchair would want to trudge across the more rugged heather lands. We are encouraging easy and convenient access to the countryside and the use of particular tracks and routes. That will have benefits for walkers, who can be encouraged to go to areas that have the best views and where they can see the most interesting wildlife, as well as for landowners. There will be less risk to the walkers because the track will take them along relatively safe routes, which means that there will also be less risk of damage to property. My hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) mentioned Cotswold stone walls. I would claim that my constituency is in the Cotswolds, although doubtless he will say that it is peripheral to the Cotswolds. None the less, there are many Cotswold stone walls in my constituency. I played a part in the recent study by the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs of field boundaries, which emphasised the risk to dry stone walls both in the north of England and in the Cotswolds. Unless we find some way of giving people properly managed access points, the risk of damaging dry stone walls, Cotswold stone walls and farmers' ordinary fences is considerable. The Bill stipulates times of the year when access will not be available to walkers. We believe that the period of 28 days, in addition to the management period, is insufficient, although we welcome the fact that the matter is included in the Bill and look forward to discussing the relevant provisions at a later stage. However, there is no point including provisions on the exclusion of walkers during certain times of year unless there is some mechanism by which to exclude them. That is the central problem of not having designated access points. Some moorlands—I can think of one in Scotland, but I am sure that there are others in Northumberland, Yorkshire, Wales and elsewhere cover tens of thousands of acres, so there could potentially be thousands of designated access points, especially if the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) has his way. In those circumstances, there is no way that the landowner, local access forums or anyone else could possibly pass on the information that walkers need. My hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire mentioned deer stalking, but the same applies to shooting of all kinds and a variety of farming activities. It would be dangerous for walkers not to know that those activities were taking place. The only way that walkers could know would be if there were a notice on the path. It is not possible to inform them by putting a notice in the local paper because they might not read the local paper and it cannot be done by putting up a notice up in the town hall; it cannot be done by putting a fence around the land because most of the areas are very large and it would probably spoil the land. The only way to exclude walkers for the periods specified in the Bill is to put up a notice saying: ``You are not permitted to enter this land between the 1 March and 28 March,'' or whatever it might be. One cannot have notices without proper access points. Mr. Clifton-Brown: I meant to raise in my speech the point that the Bill is surely intended, if possible, to reduce the tension between walkers and those who make their living or get their recreation from the countryside. Without access points, conflict could be considerably increased. Mr. Gray: That is precisely right. Walkers will enjoy themselves less, because they will do things that are not allowed by walking on land during excluded periods, and landowners will suffer significant stress and hardship as a result. Tension between them will increase rather than decrease. One way of addressing the problem would be to establish properly managed access points, as has been described. Another pretty good example of possible approaches, which was, I think, mentioned earlier, is the way in which access to Ministry of Defence land is now managed. The previous Government passed a law encouraging access to Ministry of Defence land for recreational purposes. Now people can walk, ride or do whatever else they want to do on more or less all MOD land, apart from the impact areas and other particularly dangerous areas. A small number of access points—redettes, in military language—are used. They have gates, soldiers in charge when, for example, the range is live, and fences that go down across the road. When the barrier is down, people cannot enter the range, and when it is up they can. There are also flagpoles at the redettes. When the red flag is flying one may not enter, and when it is down, one may. That is proper management of access. The message it gives is that people are welcome on Salisbury plain and may by all means go to see the stone curlews—without disturbing them. They may go to Otterburn or to the Welsh mountains, but not when they are being used to fire live, because people who do that will die. The way to stop people doing it is a barrier across the road. It is reasonable that people will not want to go on to Salisbury plain while the barrier is down or the red flag flying. Unfortunately, the sensible, commonsense way that access to Ministry of Defence land has been managed for many years is not adopted in the Bill. There will be no mechanism to tell walkers that it is dangerous to walk over a grouse moor because of shooting. Walkers will not know about that unless they have taken precautions in advance, by consulting the local paper or the local forum. The next question that arises was highlighted in the intervention by the hon. Member for Pendle, the very absurdity of which was perhaps useful. He suggested an access point every 10 ft, although he might as well have said 10 in. It was a useful intervention in that we need—and perhaps the Government will agree to—detailed discussion of the number of access points available. The answer is of course that that will vary from place to place. There would be no point in setting an interval of 10 ft for the Yorkshire moors, which cover tens of thousands of acres. There would be hundreds of them. By contrast, I think we discovered last week that Clapham common will be covered by the Bill; I may be wrong about that. It might be sensible to provide many access points for small areas of land in the south to which many people want entry. The Under-Secretary wrinkles his nose; I have perhaps chosen a bad example. My point was that in the south of England where many people want to access land, and where there are several possible places to do that, it might be sensible to provide more access points than for bigger areas where control would be more difficult. They would require small access points, at the road, the car park, the view point or the notices about scenic views. Probably the bigger the area, the fewer access points would be appropriate. It should not be the Government, but local people—the local access forums— who decide about the access points. They should have the right to assess the land and decide that it would be logical to put an access point on a particular road or over a particular fence and to ask the landowner to build a proper stile. At the moment they do not have that right. Local bodies, including local access forums, local landowners, local walking groups and local rambling associations are unable to arrange proper access points of the sort that we have described. I therefore ask the Government to think again about the merits of properly organised access points, and about the upsides for walkers as well as for landowners. The Under-Secretary might want to respond to this point at a later stage, but the Government should consider how such access points should be managed. Should they be like the MoD access points on Salisbury plain, with vedettes and red flags, or should they be every 10 ft, as suggested by the hon. Member for Pendle? How else could they be organised, or should the matter be left entirely to local access forums? Those are important points. If the Bill makes no stipulation about access, it will be unworkable.
3 pm
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2000 | Prepared 30 March 2000 |
