HC Deb 21 April 1939 vol 346 cc719-24
Mr. Creech Jones

I beg to move, in page 9, line 13, to leave out from "that," to "during," in line 14.

This Amendment must be read together with the following Amendment. The Clause is intended to enable the Minister by order temporarily to close land and prevent access. Where he is satisfied, by reason of exceptional weather conditions, danger of fire is likely to result from such access, it is necessary to have some provision to deal with any persons who may be disposed to disregard such temporary order. The Amendment is designed to meet that position.

1.54 p.m.

Brigadier-General Brown

I beg to second the Amendment.

This provision is very necessary, as during dry periods there is great danger of fire taking place. This provision is on the same principle as that which obtains when the Minister makes an order to deal with foot-and-mouth disease. He can act at once, and the order can be taken off whenever he thinks fit. We think that this suggestion is the safest way of dealing with the one great danger to forestry and timber.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Creech Jones

I beg to move, in page 9, line 15, at the end, to insert: no person shall, without lawful authority (proof of the possession whereof shall lie upon him), enter upon the fend or upon any particular area therein specified in the order. This Amendment relates to the Amendment I have just previously moved.

Mr. Marshall

I beg to second the Amendment.

1.55 P.m.

Mr. Stephen

The promoter of the Bill ought to have told us a little more about this Amendment. Suppose he does not know that an order has been made in respect of the land, and he goes on to the land as he has been in the habit of doing. What will be his position? He may be told: "You have no right to be on that land; you have not the permission of the proprietor." People may have been in the habit of going on to certain land without getting permission from the proprietor, and I should like to know whether that position is covered. The explanation which we have had so far is inadequate. Are we to take away privileges that people have had in the past and are they to be faced with the possibility that heavy penalties may be imposed upon them under this Bill?

Mr. Creech Jones

There are no existing rights in respect of the land in question.

Mr. Stephen

No, but there are privileges. They are not definitely legal rights but they are privileges which have been long enjoyed. Because those privileges are not legal rights I do not want us in this Bill to take them away and to put thousands of people in the position that every week they may be fined, on summons, by obnoxious proprietors.

1.57 p.m.

Mr. Creech Jones

I share the hon. Member's desire in the point of view he has expressed, but I would point out that this Clause relates to the prevention of fire. It is a very restrictive Clause and has been drafted in the public interest as well as in the private interest. A great deal of land covered by the Bill is land to which the public has no access at the present time. A great deal of land will for the first time be thrown open to the general public. Therefore, no question of existing privileges or rights will arise. In these circumstances we feel that it is very important that if the danger of fire exists there should be some adequate way of dealing with the danger. This is not a general Clause designed to modify in any respect the common law of trespass. It is an effort made to impose a sanction in respect of deliberate violation of an order regarding land which has been temporarily closed because of the danger of fire. I hope that in these circumstances the hon. Member will accept the explanation and will not press his objection.

1.58 p.m.

Mr. Silverman

It may be the case that this Amendment is not designed to alter the law of tresspass, but I do not think it will be contended that it does not actually alter it. It may be a justifiable, alteration, but, obviously, it does alter and extend the law of trespass and make it apply where it would not otherwise apply. It involves criminal penalties which are not involved now. The onus of showing that such an extension of the criminal law is necessary lies, I suggest, on those who seek to extend it. I do not understand what is meant by saying that the presence of people upon land causes danger of fire. I do not think that walking across land ever set it on fire. If people walk across certain types of land at certain times and they happen to be careless with matches and other things, they may do a lot of damage. Why not make that the criminal offence?

What is suggested here is that a man should be prevented from peacefully walking over land, even without a pipe, or without matches, and he is to be prevented from doing so because there is a fear that some fool, over whom he has no control, without his knowledge or consent, does something which no sensible person would do. If we introduce this restriction into a Bill intended to increase the facilities for walking over open spaces, we shall introduce something which is difficult to justify. I do not see any necessity for the Amendment. If it is necessary to make it a criminal offence for people to be grossly negligent or grossly careless in dangerous situations, I should have no objection to that, but we ought to define the offence and not seek to prevent the commission of one kind of offence by creating into an offence something which is not an offence.

2.1 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell)

It is clear that the Amendment is moved simply to meet an exceptional case where, owing to exceptional weather conditions, the danger of fire exists, with the result that it has been felt right that certain areas should be temporarily excluded by the Minister from public access. I note what the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) said, but he must realise that under this Bill new areas are open to access, and these include areas in which there are the possibilities of fire, particularly in very dry weather. Some people may not be as careful as the hon. Member and may throw away a burning cigarette or a match. I remember that I once spent two or three weeks in the Rocky Mountains in Canada, where there was great danger of forest fires, and it needed a terrific effort of concentration on my part not to throw away a match and to remember to put out my cigarette before throwing it away.

Mr. Silverman

You need not have smoked.

The Attorney-Generals

I need not have smoked and a great many people need not do so, but in fact they do.

Mr. Stephen

You did not do anything that was dangerous.

The Attorney-General

That is so, but there were exceptionally dangerous conditions there. There was a big forest fire raging at the time, and the danger was very present to my mind. The danger of fire may not be present to the mind of people who go on to these particular lands covered by the Amendment. The hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) spoke of a man wandering into an excluded area, not realising that it was excluded. In that case he will not be liable to penalty. He will be covered by a proviso to Clause 7. If he could show that all he had done was to be present on the land, quietly, and that he did not know of the order, then he would not have committed an offence.

Mr. Silverman

Is that quite so?

The Attorney-General

Yes, I think that is the case.

Mr. Silverman

The proviso to Clause 7 certainly makes that defence available in the case of an offence under Clause 7, out this would be an offence under Clause 5.

The Attorney-General

If the hon. Member will look at Sub-section (1) of Clause 7 he will see: Any person who in or upon any land contravenes or fails to observe any of the provisions specified in the last preceding section that have effect in relation thereto or any condition specified in relation thereto in an order made under Section three of this Act, Shall be guilty of an offence under this Section. That, I think, covers the point. At any rate, it is the intention of the promoters that the proviso should apply to the case, but if it does not, I will look into the matter again. As at present advised I think it does.

Mr. Silverman

The right hon. and learned Member has drawn my attention to the fact that Sub-section (1) of Clause 7 refers to the previous Clause.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Clifton Brown)

I must remind the hon. Member that he must not make a second speech.

Mr. Silverman

I am only asking a question. The offence which is created by the proposed Amendment is an offence under Clause 7, and not an offence under Clauses 6 and 5. Therefore, is it not true that the proviso provides no defence for an offence committed under Clause 5?

The Attorney-General

I think the hon. Member is right as the Bill stands at present, but I will look into the point again, as I know it was intended to cover the case.

2.8 p.m.

Mr. Noel-Baker

I should like to say that if there is any further ambiguity in the Clause we will look into it again and see that it is rectified in another place. Of course, there will be notices posted up if an area is closed, and anyone who goes there unintentionally is not liable to a penalty. I hope in the light of these explanations that hon. Members will allow the Bill to go through without further opposition. This point was considered carefully in Committee upstairs and was adopted without dissent. The danger of fire is very great indeed. Last year there were more than 1,000 fires which did great damage all over the country, not only to private owners but even more damage to those who desire to go to these places for the purposes of pleasure and exercise. There is literally no way of preventing fires in times of exceptional danger except by keeping people off. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) asked why he should suffer because some fool of whom he had no knowledge does foolish things. We have to deal with the fool, and you cannot deal with him by saying that he is not to smoke or that he must put out his cigarette. You are not there when he is, and it is impossible to have people supervising him all the time. Even with the best will in the world you cannot be satisfied as to whether he has thrown away a cigarette which has started a fire, because there are cases in which 24 hours have elapsed before any visible fire broke out. This is a very limited restriction, it applies only to a very small part of the land to which we are trying to get access, and it will apply only for a very short period. In view of the great danger of fire, I hope hon. Members will allow the Amendment to go through.

2. 11 p.m.

Mr. Mander

This matter was considered very thoroughly upstairs and there was general agreement upon it. It seems to me a reasonable way of dealing with the problem, and I hope it will be allowed to go through. I want to make one comment, and it is that I hope we shall hear no more in the discussions on this Measure that no alteration whatever is being made in the law of trespass. Of course a fundamental difference is being made. It may be quite right and a wise and proper thing to do. That is not the point. Do not let us pretend that the law of trespass is not being altered. In this case it is being done, and perhaps rightly done.

Amendment agreed to.