| Countryside and Rights of Way Bill
|
|
Miss Anne McIntosh (Vale of York): The amendment goes to the heart of the Bill. It is a rather serious omission that the Bill contains no reference to designated access points. As has been said, we are here to improve the Bill and to try to reduce the potential conflicts that might result from its implementation and application. I welcome the amendment, as it would correct a serious omission. It would also help those who need access to know what is access land and what differentiates that from land that is not access land. My constituency includes only a small part of the North York Moors national park. The Vale of York is rather flat, as its name suggests; it does not include any of the moors, only a small part of the national park. The first parliamentary seat that I fought was Workington in Cumbria, which includes part of the northern lake district. That area includes part of the original John Peel hunt, and when I was a candidate for that seat, I became an aficionado of the hunt. I have received a letter from the national park officer of the Lake District national park authority on the subject of access. He writes:
I believe that the Under-Secretary will be minded to accept the amendment, but if for any bizarre reason he is not, the policing of the Bill's provisions, particularly in the national parks of north Yorkshire and the lake district—[Interruption.] It seems that a lake district informant is now speaking to the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mrs. Brinton) to inform her of the seriousness of this point. Mrs. Helen Brinton (Peterborough): I am aware of the hon. Lady's seriousness, which is why I was so swift to stop my pager. I know that Conservative Members, too, have pagers, and I hope that, when I speak in Committee, the hon. Lady will do the same. The Chairman: Order. Pagers should, of course, not be audible. Miss McIntosh: I assure the Committee that I am online and on-message; I do not need a pager to remind me what to say. I hope that the Under-Secretary will respond positively and that the Government will adopt the amendment. The national parks are aware of the material increase in the use of recreational 4x4 vehicles. I should like to speak later about the impact of the use of such vehicles at night, but it would not be appropriate to make such comments now, so I shall confine my remarks to 4x4 vehicle access during daylight hours. If the Under-Secretary is not minded to accept the amendment, how will he enable national park officers to police the new arrangements introduced by the Bill and to inform users of the designated access points to access land? Clearly designated access points might deter people from climbing walls and fences, especially when a gate is only 50 m away. Other hon. Members have mentioned the problems involved in such activities. The amendment would help the Government by reducing the likelihood of injury or damage being caused by climbing walls and fences. If it could prevent such injury or damage, there would be one less source of conflict and fewer potential claims against parties such as national parks officers. I shall reserve my other points for our discussion of amendments dealing with night access. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Chris Mullin): We have had a sensible debate in which the difference between the Government and other parties might not be as great as some hon. Members imagine. The Government recognise the importance of many of the points made about the desirability of access points and the need to encourage them. The difference between us and other parties lies in whether access points- are made a condition of access, but I shall come to that in a moment. When one hears descriptions of the horrors that lie in wait for unsuspecting walkers, one has to pinch oneself to recall that the type of access that is proposed is already available on millions of acres in Britain, some of which are situated in the constituency of the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh). Such areas are accessed without any of the difficulties that have been described. Points were made about the north York moors, which come close to the hon. Lady's constituency, which do not have designated access points and which are also not so far from where I- live. A walker can set off from almost any location on them, and, as far as I know, none of the serious problems anticipated by some hon. Members have occurred in the North York Moors national park. I have no doubt that that is true of many of the other thousands of acres where open access is currently available. However, I acknowledge the seriousness of some of the issues raised. For example, the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire spoke about walkers coming into contact with people engaged in hunting or culling deer, and I shall try to address some of those serious issues. The hon. Member for Cotswold said that walkers would cause damage to SSIs, but the main damage to SSIs is caused by farmers ploughing them up, not by people walking. There are problems with SSIs, but difficulties tend to be caused more by landowners than by people seeking quiet enjoyment of the countryside. Mr. Gray: The Under-Secretary makes a contentious point. Let us imagine that he is right and that farmers cause damage to SSIs in the way that he describes. Such farmers are breaking the law. The Bill proposes that there should be a new means of causing damage to SSIs—walkers. It seems flawed logic merely to say that farmers break the law and cause such damage anyhow, so yet another means of disturbing SSIs will be found. Mr. Mullin: I was not really making that point, but it is true that we are not in favour of damage being done to SSIs, whether by landowners or anyone else. Mr. David Lepper (Brighton, Pavilion): In view of what my hon. Friend has just said, I remind him of an incident to which I have often referred in debates on this issue. At Offham down, near Lewes, it was walkers, concerned about the damage being done, who made public the fact that the farmer was ploughing up the SSI. I understand that the restoration programme is now almost complete. Mr. Mullin: I am grateful for that example. It is possible that we know a little more about what happens in areas such as SSIs that have hitherto been closed to the public, the outcome will be beneficial. My hon. Friend gives an interesting example. The idea of designated access points is a good one. There is not an enormous difference between us on this. Certainly, the Government wish to encourage the provision of relevant information and guidance. We support—as do the Countryside Agency and nearly all the other agencies involved—the provision of information points where people could go—and be advised to go—to find out about the access opportunities in an area, including any restrictions that may be imposed from time to time. The Countryside Agency is looking carefully at the idea along with other, off-site information sources such as the internet, telephone information services and local information outlets. Information points that are on the land concerned should be seen as only one—albeit an important one—means of getting information to the public. The provision of information points would be helpful in managing access in the more popular areas, and I would expect such points to offer a means of entry on to access land. The Bill already provides powers in clauses 19 and 32 for local authorities to enter into agreements with landowners to construct means of access and to erect notices at access points. However, and here I come to the difference between us, such means of entry should not be mandatory. Were the legislation to require people to enter and leave by statutory access points, that would greatly reduce the opportunities provided by the legislation freely to wander across open country and registered common land. Such a requirement would be susceptible to abuse by those intent on frustrating the purpose of the legislation. Used restrictively, such a measure would greatly curtail the freedom provided by the new right and could in practice allow landowners to deny effective access to large areas of open country and common land. Such a requirement would also be impractical. It suggests that anyone gaining access to access land other than by a designated access point would become a trespasser. In many areas, this would be nonsense—for example, where, as is often the case, open moor runs alongside a highway. The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire raised some important points about safety, and gave shooting as an example. There was some misunderstanding about that on Second Reading. I think that everybody now understands that landowners will be able to close land for 28 days without having to meet any conditions, or restrict access to particular routes. The Bill provides for further closures and restrictions on application for land management or safety reasons. We will need to ensure that there are effective ways of communicating to people when land is subject to closure or restrictions. That will depend in part on the nature and type of closure. The Countryside Agency is exploring various mechanisms, which could include physical signs, local guides, the internet and a telephone answer point. All those things are in use to a greater or lesser degree where access is already permitted. For example, deer and grouse are hunted on land crossed by rights of way without great difficulties. A modus vivendi has been worked out in such areas. I have walked along public rights of way that cross grouse moors and seen red flags up or come to a sign saying that one should not proceed because there was shooting that day. I have walked all around the Otterburn military range. I saw none of the cadets that the hon. Member for North Wiltshire seemed to think stood guard, but did see the odd red flag and heard the boom of the guns, which was sufficient.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2000 | Prepared 30 March 2000 |
