Standing Committee B
Tuesday 2 May 2000 (Morning)
[Mr. Humfrey Malins in the Chair]
10.30 am
Mr. James Paice (South-East Cambridgeshire): On a point of order, Mr. Malins. You were not present at our 13th sitting when we discussed amendments relating to the definitions of the phrase "natural features". The Minister for the Environment said:
One of the many letters that I received was written jointly by the Country Landowners Association and the British Mountaineering Council. It proposed excluding liability from
natural features of landscape.
That is their drafting, not mine.--[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 18 April 2000; c. 394.]
Committee members will have received a letter from the Country Landowners Association and the Mountaineering Council pointing out that that statement is untrue. The original letter did not include the word "natural"--the proposal was to exclude liability from "features", not "natural features", of the landscape.
I am concerned because this is the third time that I have had to pull the Minister up for being at least ill prepared. On 18 April, I pointed out that he had wrongly attributed a remark to the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, and that he had discussed an amendment that had not been called.
I inform you, Mr. Malins, and the Government Whip, the hon. Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes), that we cannot tolerate being palmed off with inaccurate responses that have not been thought through. If the situation does not improve, our good will may evaporate.
I hope that the Minister will withdraw his remark and apologise to the Committee. He must accept that the letter removes the last vestige of whatever fig leaf he may have used to cover the word "natural", which has been widely condemned in Committee and outside. He should find new phraseology that meets the needs of the CLA, the British Mountaineering Council and the many other organisations that are involved.
The Chairman: Order. That is not strictly a point of order for the Chair, but the Minister may care to respond briefly.
The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): The Minister does wish to respond briefly.
The comments of the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) on the wording of the letter, which was sent to Committee members, were entirely correct. I shall return to that in a moment. However, he made a meal over the other issues that he raised--they are exceedingly minor. He said that I responded to an amendment that was not before the Committee, but I suspect that my response was helpful because the amendment had been tabled. I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman is not interested in extra, although perhaps unnecessary, advice.
In this context, my understanding--I shall check on this because I speak from recollection, and I do not want to mislead the Committee--is that there was a change in the letter's drafting and that the original drafting contained the phrase "natural features". However, the wording was changed by those who wrote the letter--the CLA and the British Mountaineering Council--to omit the word "natural".
The hon. Gentleman was perfectly correct to say that the letter as received did not contain the word "natural". I therefore apologise for referring to the phrase "natural features". I did so on the basis of the letter's original draft rather than the version that was sent out. However, this is not a terribly serious issue. On the other hand, I make it clear that, although the hon. Gentleman may think that there is a widespread view that the phrase "natural features" should be removed and replaced with "features", that is not so. There are at least two divisions on the matter. We are certain that the phrase "natural features" has sense and purpose. However, I accept that the letter sent by the CLA and the British Mountaineering Council did not contain the word "natural".
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd (Meirionnydd Nant Conwy): On a point of order, Mr. Malins. During last Tuesday morning's sitting, I intervened on the Minister to say that the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs had taken evidence from Forest Enterprise in which it had said that it could not allow greater public access because of insurance problems. I was wrong about that, and I unreservedly withdraw the remark. The evidence was given by a private forestry company.
The Chairman: The Committee will be grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that clarification.
Clause 17
Byelaws
Mr. Paice: I beg to move amendment 324, in page 9, line 26 after 'may', insert
'on application by any person interested in access land, or otherwise,'.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 276, in page 9, line 27, at end insert--
'() for securing compliance with the general restrictions in Schedule 2 and any other restrictions imposed in relation to the land under Chapter II.'
No. 369, in page 9, line 36, at end insert
', and with such bodies as appear to them to be representative of persons who will be affected by the byelaws, including persons with an interest in the land.'.
Mr. Paice: The amendments address two issues relating to byelaws. Amendment No. 324 is straightforward. Under the Bill, it appears that access authorities are the only organisations that can initiate or make byelaws. While it may be right that they are the only bodies that are allowed to make byelaws, the Bill contains no opportunity for anyone else to be involved in initiating them.
The amendment therefore proposes that anyone with an interest in the land should have the right to request an access authority to initiate certain byelaws. It is important that the Bill should contain that power. The amendment would not change the fact that only the access authority can make the byelaws, but would give others with an interest the opportunity to apply for them.
Amendment No. 276 would slightly extend the scope of the byelaws to ensure that they covered the existing restrictions in schedule 2 and the rest of part II, which deals with exclusions. I hope that the Minister appreciates that the byelaws must be substantive and give the force of law to the restrictions that we have debated during previous sittings.
I do not know whether the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) intends to speak to amendment No. 369, but, if so, I assure him of our support.
Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome): I welcome you back after our short break, Mr. Malins.
Amendment No. 369 deals with consultation on the selection of byelaws. During previous discussions, the Minister has been loath to accept that local access fora should be included in the Bill as a means of discussing such issues. It would therefore be appropriate for access authorities to be required, when drawing up byelaws, to consult bodies that represent people who are likely to be affected by those byelaws. That works on both sides of the fence. Those who seek access will want to know what further restrictions are to be placed on them, to consider whether they are reasonable and to have the opportunity to make representations. Equally, those who own or have an interest in the land will wish to make representations. The amendment seems entirely sensible, and I shall not labour the principle that lies behind it, as it is self-explanatory. I should be grateful to hear the Minister's views.
Mr. Meacher: The Bill reflects careful consideration of the role that byelaws should have in helping to ensure effective management of the new right of access.
I shall deal first with amendment No. 324. As we have discussed in previous sittings, the Bill already contains numerous restrictions on the new right. Any criminal penalties under existing legislation will apply to access land as they apply elsewhere. We do not envisage that byelaws will be needed in many places, because the provisions in the Bill and in existing legislation will generally be sufficient, and because most users will be law-abiding. However, we recognise that there may be certain circumstances, especially in busy areas, in which byelaws might be needed to control activities. That might include--to give an example that I have used before--byelaws prohibiting bathing, if that were shown to present a special problem in a particular place.
If there are particular problems, those with an interest in the land will be able to draw them to the attention of the access authorities. Some bodies, such as the National Trust and English Nature, already have powers to make their own byelaws and may choose to do so on access land. It is not necessary for there to be a special right of application for individual landowners, and to set up a special procedure--as the amendment proposes--could have the undesirable result of encouraging hundreds of applications for individual byelaws in different areas. We expect access authorities to take an overall view of what, if any, byelaws are needed in their area. We would expect them, in so doing, to take account of the views and needs of local landowners, users and others with relevant interests.
Amendment No. 276 seeks to allow access authorities to make byelaws for securing compliance with the restrictions in schedule 2 and imposed under chapter II. That would allow access authorities to create criminal sanctions for any breach of the restrictions in schedule 2, and would also allow the criminalisation of trespass. As I have said, we do not expect byelaws to be needed, other than in specific circumstances in which they may assist in addressing a particular problem. There is no need for a power to make byelaws that criminalise any minor breach of a restriction.
The purposes set out in clause 17(1) are the purposes for which any byelaw should be made--that is, to deal with real problems of preserving order, to prevent damage or to stop disruption. If an access authority considers that one or more of the tests in subsection (1) has been met, it may make byelaws for that purpose. If the tests cannot be met, I see no reason why byelaws should be made. Again taking swimming as an example, there might arguably be justification for a byelaw in exceptional circumstances in which real harm was being done. However, that does not mean that we should allow for the possibility of swimming being made a criminal offence everywhere.
Amendment No. 369, tabled by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, would require access authorities, before making byelaws, to consult bodies representing those who would be affected. Although the amendment makes specific reference to consulting representatives of those with an interest in the land, it would also include representatives of users. We have provided that access authorities should consult the appropriate countryside body, before making byelaws. Such a body will, of course, bear in mind the interests of those affected by the byelaws. The byelaws will have to be confirmed by the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales, who will wish to ensure that there has been full consultation in the drafting of the byelaws. Indeed, the Secretary of State may wish to invite the public to submit comments on the byelaws, if any novel or controversial issues arise.
I hope that hon. Members will agree that the provisions will serve their purpose well, as the similar powers in the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 and the Countryside Act 1968 have done. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be happy to withdraw the amendment.
10.45 am
| 
