Standing Committee B
Tuesday 2 May 2000
(Afternoon)
[Part II]
[Mr. Humfrey Malins in the Chair]
[Continuation from column 488]
8.30 pm
Mr. Mullin: The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome kindly said that he did not disagree with the purpose of the clause; I think that, as always, he was trying to be helpful.
In the context of directions made for the purposes of fire prevention, amendment No. 478 would remove any requirement for the risk of fire to have arisen because of exceptional weather conditions. The hon. Gentleman suggested that conditions of high fire risk can occur independently of exceptional weather—for example, peat moors may remain vulnerable to the outbreak of fire long after the end of a drought. However, the cause of the high fire risk would remain the exceptional weather, even if those conditions no longer prevailed. The relevant authority would therefore still be able to make a direction if it were necessary for the purpose of fire prevention.
In other circumstances, the risk of fire may not arise in exceptional weather conditions. For instance, some types of vegetative cover may be flammable even in an ordinary summer. Such circumstances are not exceptional. By definition, they are not caused by unusual weather conditions; they are part of the normal fabric of the open countryside. I am not satisfied that they give rise to sufficient reason to restrict access to the land.
Referring to amendment No. 479, the hon. Gentleman said that the use of the word ``done'' was ambiguous and might not include contemporary operations. I am advised that the Bill does apply to contemporary operations.
Mr. David Heath: I agree that ``done'' must include that which is contemporaneous. My objection was that it could also include that which is historic, whereas the wording that I suggest makes it absolutely clear that we are talking about operations that take place at the time of the restriction.
Mr. Mullin: I have been advised that such an eventuality will be covered by the Bill. Indeed, all reasonable possibilities are covered. No real benefits would flow from amendment No. 479. If the hon. Gentleman reads the clause again, he may agree with me.
Amendment No. 480 has the opposite effect to amendment No. 479, in that it opens up the scope for directions to be made under paragraph (b) of subsection (l). It allows for closures or restrictions because of exceptional prevailing conditions, whether or not they relate to the weather. Clause 29 provides for exclusion or restriction of access in an emergency. It will allow the Secretary of State to make regulations providing for directions in respect of emergencies for up to three months. I refer the hon. Gentleman also to clause 2(3), which preserves the effect of any orders made by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food under the Plant and Animal Health Acts if there is an outbreak of a virulent disease. We do not think that we need go any further than that. It is for members of the public to exercise caution and to take responsibility for their own safety. For those reasons, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that there is no need for the amendments.
Mr. Heath: I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for his comments. However, he did not quite address the issue of whether the hot, dry summers that can prompt exclusion on the grounds of fire safety can be construed as exceptional if they happen every year. That was my only problem with the provision, and I wanted to ensure that the Bill dealt with it. I shall not go to the wall on amendment No. 479 and the construction put on the word ``done''. The Under-Secretary asked me to read the clause and told me that I would then realise the truth of his remarks. I did read the clause, which is why I tabled an amendment and also why it would not be unreasonable to assume that I did not agree with the construction put on the word in question.
In respect of amendment No. 480, I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for drawing attention to a clause 2 provision that provides the answer in relation to animal health restrictions. I hope that clause 29, which relates to emergencies, deals with the range of possibilities that I had in mind when I tabled the amendment.
Mr. Mullin indicated assent.
Mr. Heath: The Under-Secretary assures me that it does, and I am quite happy to accept that assurance. I shall, however, reflect on the provision further and endeavour to identify any circumstances that would not constitute an emergency but would pose a danger to public health and merit exclusion. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments made: No. 443, in page 13, line 15, leave out `access'.
No. 444, in page 13, line 23, at end add—
`(5) Where an application under this section relates to land which is not access land at the time when the application is made, the relevant authority shall not give a direction under this section unless they are satisfied that it is likely that the land will be access land during all or part of the period to which the application relates.'.—[Mr. Meacher.]
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Heath: I am sorry to take up the Committee's time, but I do not think that the Under-Secretary answered my questions on the previous group of amendments. I expressed concern about the application of subsection (4) to restrictions on fire made previously. I asked on what grounds the relevant authority would take into account the extent to which an applicant had exercised or proposed to exercise rights under clause 21, which appears to be entirely irrelevant to whether an exceptional fire risk has developed over time. Will the Under-Secretary comment on that issue?
Mr. Mullin: I regret that I shall have to write to the hon. Gentleman. I do not perceive any problem, but I shall reflect on the matter. If the hon. Gentleman helps me to understand what he thinks the problem is, I may be able to help him on the answer.
Mr. Heath: The problem is simply this: subsection (4) requires the relevant authority to take into account the degree to which the owner or user of the land has used the discretionary powers of closure contained in clause 21. That does not seem a relevant consideration in respect of fire risk due to exceptional weather. Why is such qualification necessary? It appears to be nonsense.
Mr. Mullin: I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman why that qualification sits within the clause, and I agree that it is unreasonable in the circumstances that he describes. I am sure that the relevant authority would not take into account the extent to which the optional days had been used in relation to the potential for a natural hazard such as fire. I am sure that that would not count against—[Interruption.] Yes, the relevant body could take into account the use of the 28-day period, but if it could not foresee the emergency, it would not be expected to place much—if any—weight on the issue. The hon. Gentleman is as well informed as I am on this matter.
Mr. Heath: Is the Under-Secretary asking me to accept that the relevant authority will be required to take account of something that will be nugatory because no one can foresee the exceptional circumstances?
Mr. Mullin: No. It is a consideration. It is reasonable to expect land that has to be closed as a result of exceptional weather conditions not to be counted as part of the 28 days. It would be unreasonable for the relevant authority to hold that closure against the applicant.
I am told that clause 23(4) applies to clause 23(1)(b), which is foreseeable, as well as clause 23(1)(a)—let that stand on the record.
Question put, and agreed to.
Clause 23, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 24
Nature conservation and heritage preservation
Mr. Green: I beg to move amendment No. 335, in page 13, line 24, after `direction', insert
`, on an application made by a person interested in any access land, or by the relevant advisory body, or otherwise,'.
The Chairman: With this we may discuss the following amendments: No. 336, in clause 28, page 16, line 14, leave out `or 23' and insert
No. 338, in clause 28, page 16, line 19, after `applicant', insert
No. 337, in clause 28, page 16, line 28, leave out `or 23' and insert
Mr. Green: I hope that the amendments produce greater elucidation than we received on the previous clause.
It is a particular pleasure to reach the clause 24. Its purpose is
Nature conservation and heritage preservation,
which many of us believe should be the main purpose of the Bill. It is a relief to be able to debate such matters. The clause introduces an important safeguard for wildlife and for heritage conservation of features found on open country. Wildlife and heritage features might be damaged by excessive or over-concentrated public access. At sensitive times or at sensitive locations, sites might be disturbed by a level of use that would not be enough to disrupt land management, which we discussed in our debate on clause 22. Clause 24, therefore, deals with more sensitive matters. For example, ground-nesting birds are known to be intolerant of disturbance, especially by dogs. Even with the Minister's oft-repeated point that we are simply talking about people who walk their dogs across open land, that activity could disrupt wildlife preservation.
I shall be interested to hear the Minister's response on the following issues. He will be aware that the Conservation (Natural Habitats, etc.) Regulations 1994 implement the EU habitats directive and the birds directive. They charge the competent authorities, which include the national park authorities and the countryside bodies, with ensuring that their consents will not have significant effects on the integrity of sites notified as special areas of conservation in the habitats directive or special protection areas in the birds directive.
That could be a broad requirement. The directives and regulations do not define significant effect, but Environment Agency guidance interprets it as an impact that excludes merely trivial or inconsequential effects. I would be grateful for clarification from the Minister on the way in which he would guide the relevant authorities to grant restrictions or closures to the right of access in the light of the legislative precedents already in place. Does he envisage such restrictions being commonplace? When we assess the effect of this potentially important clause, it is important for us to consider how often it will be invoked and for us to deal with the specific amendments tabled by me and my hon. Friends.
The express purpose of the provision is the protection of nature and the heritage. The important mechanism should be facilitated in every possible way. Amendment No. 335, to which amendments Nos. 336 and 337 are consequential with regard to clause 28, would protect the rights of all those involved to draw the relevant authority's attention to the needs of an area regarding closure or restriction for the purpose of protecting nature or the heritage. To leave the measure to the relevant authority, as the clause does, could lead to unintentional oversights. Such oversights could be insured against by the involvement of landowners, managers and others with an interest in the land. The Minister will surely agree that many of those people are likely to be the most sensitive to the needs of an area in terms of nature and heritage conservation.
The purpose of amendment No. 335 and the consequential amendments Nos. 336 and 377 is to widen the scope of the existing protection and to make it more likely that it would be effective in defending nature and heritage features. We all want to see them protected. I hope that the amendments are helpful to the Government's aim.
The one amendment that I have not discussed is amendment No. 338, which simply says that, if an applicant has an appeal refused, the response should come in writing. I am sure that the Minister would agree that that would be a simple courtesy, which should be a normal part of the act of any public body.
I hope that the Minister will take the amendments in the spirit in which they are offered. We agree with the Government that clause 24 provides an important set of protective measures for our natural environment and heritage. We simply seek to strengthen them by ensuring that landowners and other with an interest in the land on which sensitive features are situated can play a role in the features' protection.
8.45 pm
| 
