HC Deb 24 June 1968 vol 767 cc187-99

WARDENS

Lords Amendment No. 41: After Clause 37, in page 36, line 40, at end insert new Clause "F":

5 "F.—(1) A local planning authority whose area consists of or includes the whole or any part of a National Park may appoint such number of persons as may appear to the authority to be necessary or expedient to act as wardens as respects any land within the National Park to which section 193 of the Law of Property Act 1925 (Common land) for the time being applies, whether or not within the area of the local planning authority.
10 (2) Before a local planning authority first exercise their powers under subsection (1) above as respects any land, they shall, if practicable, consult the persons entitled to the soil of the land.
(3) The foregoing subsections shall be construed as one with section 92 of the Act of 1949 and shall be subject to subsection (4) of that section (saving for interests of landowners).
15 (4) The purposes for which wardens may be appointed by an authority under the said section 92 (as amended by this Act) as respects any land or waters are—
20 (a) to secure compliance with any byelaws, with the pro visions of the Litter Act 1958 and with any requirements imposed by or under section 193 of the Law of Property Act 1925,
(b) to advise and assist the public, and
(c) to perform such other duties (if any) in relation to the land or waters as the authority may determine.
25 This subsection shall have effect in substitution for subsection (2) of the said section 92."

Read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker

I suggest that with this Amendment we take Lords Amendment No. 57, in Schedule 5, page 52, line 29, column 3, at end insert "Section 92(2)".

Mr. Jopling

I think that it would be for the convenience of the House, Mr. Speaker, if we considered at the same time all three of my Amendments to the Lords Amendment, namely—

No. 9, in line 4, atfer 'respects' insert '(a)'.

No. 10, in line 6, at end insert: (b) any highway within the National Park. No. 11, in line 6, at end insert: (b) any open country within the National Park to which the public are entitled or permitted to have access without payment. I hope that it may be possible to take separate votes on them, if you agree, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Gentleman may move only one of them. I have not decided whether to let him have three separate votes. He will move one Amendment and speak to the three.

Mr. Jopling

Certainly, Mr. Speaker. I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, in line 4, after 'respects', insert '(a)'.

The new Clause coming from another place as Lords Amendment No. 41 changes the warden service in National Parks. First, it extends the area over which wardens may operate by including land subject to Section 193 of the Law of Property Act, 1925. Briefly, this consists of urban commons. Also, the new Clause changes the purposes for which wardens may operate by making the first purpose compliance with byelaws and the enforcement of the Litter Act, 1958 and the requirements of the Law of Property Act to which I have referred. These enforcement purposes are now first on the list as compared with the old 1949 Act.

The reference to the advice and assistance part of the purposes of the warden service deletes from the relevant section of the 1949 Act the words as to any matter for which byelaws can be made". This means that the advice and assistance part of the warden service purposes is much extended.

These changes are very much welcomed in the National Parks, but, the purposes of the warden service having been widened, it is important to widen the scope of its activities with reference to the land on which wardens can operate. I do not believe—I think that this view is fairly widely held in the National Parks —that to extend the scope by reference to Section 193 of the Law of Property Act, 1925, goes far enough. Certainly, in the Lake District it does not go far enough. There is evidence—I think that the Ministry has received evidence from other National Park Authorities—that the service ought to be further extended. I understand that representations to this effect have been made from the Brecon Beacons, Dartmoor, Exmoor, Snowdonia, North Yorkshire Moors, Yorkshire Dales, and the Peak District National Parks.

The Amendment seeks to extend the scope of the warden service to open country within the national parks to which the public are entitled or permitted to have access without payment. We still have enormous areas in our parks which are private land, but over which the public have access by tradition, where there are no access orders or agreements. They are found to be unnecessary. It is that open country definition in the 1949 Act that is contained in the series of Amendments. Most landowners will welcome this.

I hope that the Minister will not say that there is no statutory right of access and therefore he cannot agree to the Amendments, because he has already allowed this under the control of boating Clause. It is essential to allow byelaw enforcement and particularly enforcement of the Litter Act on wider sections of land than at present. The Litter Act uses the phrase "open country". We have put it into the Amendments and we hope that wardens will be allowed to apply it properly.

Amendment No. 10 also extends the scope of the warden service to highways within national parks, and includes footpaths, bridle paths and other highways. There is a great need for wardens to be able to operate on these minor highways used by visitors. They are the roads to the high lands and mountains where people want to go. They lead through the land where the warden service is most helpful, through the in-byeland as it is known in the North.

It is absolutely essential that the warden service be extended to these two groups of lands, and I hope that the Government will accept the Amendments.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I have given some thought to the matter since I last spoke. There will be only one Division on this group of Amendments.

Mr. Peter M. Jackson (The High Peak)

Clause 92 of the 1949 Act restricts the scope of wardens to land covered by access orders and agreements.

My hon. Friend has spelt out, but perhaps not in the detail with which I intend to spell out, the serious impediments which are put in the way of wardens in attempting to bring about the kind of conduct by the public which we think right and proper in national parks. In the majority of parks there are no wardens, because there are no access agreements or orders. The Pembrokeshire Park Authority, for example, must make do with the subterfuge of appointing a warden to police a car park, as there are no access orders—

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman must come to the Amendments, which seek to extend the scope of the power of wardens in these two respects. The hon. Gentleman can talk about wardens when we come to the Clause which the Amendments seek to amend.

Mr. Jackson

I must apologise, Mr. Speaker, but I am trying to develop my argument in respect of the Amendments.

Amendment No. 10 refers to a highway and land in national parks. The argument I am trying to develop is that wardens have no powers to police bye-laws in respect of areas in national parks not covered by access agreements or orders. I think that my hon. Friend will accept that the work of the wardens is seriously impeded. Nevertheless, I am very grateful, and I think that I speak for all hon. Members, that we have secured certain concessions. We now have provision for land which belongs to local authorities, land covered by access agreements and orders. We have common land for the first time, and we have the lakes.

10.30 p.m.

I would like to reiterate the point made by the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling). It is an anomaly that the byelaws provide such cover for lakes, but not for public highways in National Parks. I am sure that the infringement of byelaws or the country code is much more likely on the highway than on the lakes. I am pleased that we attempt, in the Lords Amendments, to secure compliance with the provisions of the Litter Act. I may be mistaken in my reading of the Amendments, but as I see it, wardens will only have powers in respect of the Litter Act on access land or areas owned by the local authority. This is an absurdity. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend corercts me, and I take it that wardens will have powers in respect of policing the Litter Act through the National Parks.

I would draw my hon. Friend's attention to a striking omission in the Clause —the fact that there is no reference to the Civic Amenity Act.

Mr. Speaker

Order. We are not discussing the Clause, but three Amendments, to which the hon. Member has put his name.

Mr. Jackson

I apologise, and accept that I was out of order on that point.

The powers are unsatisfactory. My hon. Friend has received representations from the National Farmers' Union, and I have sent him a document containing the policy of the Union, as distinct from their branches. It makes a reference to the remoteness from reality of the 1949 Act and the warden system, as it operates. A significant part of it says: In the first place most of the damage is done, not on dedicated land or on land which could be, but has not been, dedicated for access, but rather on 'in-bye' land, lower down the Valley or in the foothills. This is just the point of the hon. Member for Westmorland. The policy is not effective where most of the damage is done, because it is not covered by agreement.

The document goes on: There is no provisions in the Act for a warden service to operate officially elsewhere than on dedicated access land, or for the Second Schedule code to have effect. It goes on to argue for an extension of the warden system. It says: We feel that steps must be taken to strengthen the warden system and the powers of planning authorities to operate byelaws governing conduct not only in those few areas where formal dedication agreements have been made by owners, but also further afield. We realise that this raises legal and technical difficulties but they are not insuperable. Voluntary, part-time wardens should be properly trained … and should have the same powers as those possessed by special constables ".

Mr. Speaker

Order. We cannot discuss the training of wardens on these very narrow Amendments, to which the hon. Gentleman has put his own name.

Mr. Jackson

I apologise. I should have crossed out that section of the quotation. The next section refers to the Amendment. It reads: The area over which they, and any full-time, paid wardens patrol should be extended at the request of the occupiers of land which might not be formally dedicated, or might not even qualify under the Act for such dedication, but over which de facto public access has long been exercised, and where there is evidence of nuisance or damage. So I think I can say that this Amendment has the support of the National Farmers' Union. Since the publication of that policy document my hon. Friend has received, I understand, a further letter from the National Farmers' Union strongly supporting the terms of the Amendment to the Lords Amendment.

I would, very briefly, draw my hon. Friend's attention to another anomaly. We have had reference to the problems of inby land. There are operating in the Peak District National Park and in other national parks certain byelaws about dogs on leads. They create problems on inby land; they do not create problems on uplands—

Mr. Skeffington

I think my hon. Friend is getting rather wide now, because this inby land, which is not agricultural land, is not subject to the making of access orders in any event.

Mr. Jackson

Nevertheless I think my hon. Friend would agree that it would be proper for wardens to patrol such areas. If the last of these three Amendments to the Lords Amendment were accepted, wardens would be able to patrol such areas and would be in a position, such as they are not now, to restrain people who, while, quite rightly, walking along a footpath or a public right of way, allow their dogs to worry sheep.

Not only, as the hon. Member for Westmorland said, is the Amendment to the Lords Amendment supported by the National Farmers' Union. It is supported also by all the local planning authorities, and I understand that it has also the support of many parish councils. Certainly this is true in the Peak District. Many of them would like to see their villages and roads patrolled. The wardens are now restricted to such land as is covered by access orders.

There was some argument in another place when Amendments were proposed there similar in terms to these Amendments to the Lords Amendment. I think it right and proper to refer to some of the argument. I think Lord Kennet, when he replied, accepted the need for wider supervision, but argued that it would be improper to extend the scope of the wardens' service at a time when it was not possible to provide adequate coverage. That will be found in the Lords' HANSARD for 13th May, at col. 142. He quoted the figure of £1,200 a year for a warden, and said there would be several thousand miles of public right of way to police, and if we were to police all public rights of way we would obviously put the local planning authorities in an impossible position. I think there is some force in that argument, but I do not think it is a compelling one, in that we are in the Bill giving powers to local authorities to bring about many changes which we know, because of the stringent financial circumstances, will not immediately be introduced; but the Bill will probably remain on the Statute Book for the next decade or so without any amendment.

Nevertheless, one hopes that within the next 10 years—personally, I hope before then—the economic climate will be somewhat improved and that local authorities will be in a very much better position to make provision for wardens.

I have perhaps said too much already in supporting the Amendment to the Lords Amendment, but I just want to draw my hon. Friend's attention to the Clause dealing with policing and traffic regulations. I would ask him in all seriousness how he intends these should be policed. Obviously, they will not be policed to any extent by full-time policemen.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher)

I do not think that traffic regulations come into this Amendment to the Lords Amendment.

Mr. Jackson

I am referring to Amendment No. 10, which states that wardens shall have power to police and to enforce byelaws on any highway within the National Park. I think, therefore, that my comment is relevant. It is simply that I feel that the Clause, which deals with traffic regulations, will be a dead letter unless there is a body of full-time and voluntary wardens to police and enforce those parts of the regulations.

Therefore, I hope that the Minister will feel that a case has been made out for an extension of the provisions. I think that we have argued very convincingly that there are anomalies, so I hope that the Minister will accept the Amendment.

Mr. Skeffington

I am glad that a general welcome has been given to the new Clause, which honours the undertakings given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State that we would consider whether we could not only redefine the duties of wardens so that there was no doubt about what they could legitimately do, but also to extend the areas in which they operated. The fact that common land, to use a shorthand expression, can be brought in, as well as lands which are within the control of the park authorities and for which there are access agreements, is an extension of the operations of wardens—I will say something about powers later. That is generally welcomed and I hope that the House will approve of that in due course.

The hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) and my hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak (Mr. Peter M. Jackson) wanted further powers, and they have made further suggestions about areas where the wardens might operate. First, it is suggested that wardens should operate on any highway within the National Park. I have no doubt that they have in mind footpaths and bridleways mainly, but the Amendment to the Lords Amendment states "any highway". There may be some cases where a warden's service might be thought to be profitable on the highway.

This is a wide undertaking. I do not know how many hundreds or thousands of miles of road this would cover, but it would be a great deal. The House should realise that under the provisions of the Bill we are making grant aid available for the employment of wardens. I am not suggesting that the authorities will immediately say, if the new Clause is accepted, "We must have hundreds of wardens to police the new territory which has been provided for in the Act." But I suggest that in anything which the House does relating to a service which is to be grant aided, we must have regard to where the service will operate.

An even stronger point than that is that there is nothing to prevent the wardens now being on the highway. They have as much right to be on the highway as anybody. By saying that they can be on the highway does not give them any additional powers. The powers are defined in the new Clause. They can exercise those powers if they happen to be on the highway or anywhere else. Amendment No. 10 to the Lords Amendment would give no extra power of any practical form, so I could not advise the House to accept it.

Amendment No. 11 to the Lords Amendment provides for the service to operate in any open country within the National Park to which the public are entitled or permitted to have access without payment. I do not want to go in detail over the argument in another place. The fact is that unless we can get an access agreement whereby we can incorporate the appropriate conditions under which a warden can operate, we might find ourselves in considerable difficulty.

The hon. Member for Westmorland has a lot of land within his constituency to which the common land definition will apply. To that extent his problem is eased. The hon. Gentleman says that in his area the land owners do not take energetic steps to keep people off. If there is no legal right or obligation, we could be faced with the situation of a warden operating on private land and being told to get off.

10.45 p.m.

It would be impossible to base a grant-aided service on so precarious a basis as that. If there is a service of this kind, for reasons which I have given elsewhere we ought to make certain that the war- dens can operate with security and with the agreement of the land owner.

Mr. Peter M. Jackson

Would not my hon. Friend agree that in the vast majority of cases farmers will be happy to give this consent?

Mr. Skeffington

I find it difficult to generalise. I should be delighted if farmers were happy to give this consent, but there are farmers and farmers, and perhaps traditions and attitudes vary in different parts of the country. If a farmer or a land owner wants a warden service to operate, there are two things that can be done. First, he can make an access agreement. This will have all kinds of advantages for him and for those who operate the service. Secondly, if he does not want to make an access agreement, but wants to allow wardens to operate on his territory, there is nothing to prevent that being done with the agreement of the authority providing the warden service.

One cannot provide a warden service on the precarious basis that today a warden can operate, but tomorrow the farmer says, "I shall have no more of this". The only sure way of doing this —and this is particularly true in relation to a grant-aided service—is to have a proper agreement under which the warden's duties are known and they can be carried out with full legal rights, which are obtained by settling the question of access.

I am certain that the work which wardens can do in advising people and helping them in various ways is of great benefit, but I hope that the House will not over-estimate their powers and think that they are policemen, because they are not. They have no right to arrest anybody, and I am sure that the House would be very upset if they had that power. They have no right to take the name and address of an individual. They can ask for those details, but no one need give them. If someone committed a traffic offence the warden could take the number of the car and report it to the police authorities, but the House has always felt that if a matter may result in a legal prosecution the police should deal with it because they receive the necessary training for such eventualities.

For those reasons I could not advise the House to accept the Amendment.

We have gone a long way in providing a service in categories of land which were previously excluded, and this has been generally welcomed. There is no advantage in having this provision in respect of highways. As regards private land, I hope that the land owners who want the service of wardens will enter into access agreements, or make ad hoc arrangements with the local authority. The obligation on both sides will then be far less onerous. To say that the public have a right to go on to certain land because the farmer has not prohibited their entry would open the possibilities far too wide, and I could not advise the House to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Channon

I think that at this late hour the House wants to come to a decision on this matter. We have had a long debate, and all I can say is that we are disappointed with the hon.

Gentleman's answers to the questions asked by my hon. Friends and by the hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Peter M. Jackson). I think that the best course is to divide the House to test the feelings of hon. Members on this issue.

Mr. Blenkinsop

I hope very much that when my hon. Friend makes the regulations and when he has discussions with the national park authorities and others he will pay attention to the importance of this matter and will encourage authorities, in suitable cases, to make ad hoc arrangements which he has said might be possible. This is an important aspect of voluntary effort, and I want to see it extended as much as possible.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:

The House divided: Ayes 69, Noes 109.

Division No. 236.] AYES [10.49 p.m.
Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n) Hordern, Peter Pike, Miss Mervyn
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.) Hornby, Richard Pink, R. Bonner
Brewis, John Hunt, John Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Channon, H. P. G. Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) Price, David (Eastleigh)
Clark, Henry Jopling, Michael Pym, Francis
Costain, A. P. Kaberry, Sir Donald Royle, Anthony
Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.) Kershaw, Anthony Scott, Nicholas
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford) Knight, Mrs. Jill Sharples, Richard
Elliott, R. W. (N'c't1e-upon-Tyne, N.) Lane, David Silvester, Frederick
Errington, Sir Eric Langford-Holt, Sir John Smith, Dudley (Wwick & L'mington)
Eyre, Reginald Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry Smith, John (London & W'minster)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles Maude, Angus Speed, Keith
Foster, Sir John Maxwell-Hyelop, R.. J. Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)
Gibson-Watt, David Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C. Taylor, Edward M. (C'gow, Cathcart)
Glyn, Sir Richard Mills, Peter (Torrington) van Straubenzee, W. R.
Grant, Anthony More, Jasper Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Grant-Ferris, R. Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vickers, Dame Joan
Gurden, Harold Murton, Oscar Weatherill, Bernard
Hatl, John (Wycombe) Nabarro, Sir Gerald Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.) Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael Williams, Donald (Dudley)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) Onslow, Cranley Wilton, Geoffrey (Truro)
Hawkins, Paul Osborn, John (Hallam)
Hill, J. E. B. Page, Graham (Crosby) TELLERS FOR THE AYES;
Holland, Philip Percival, Ian Mr. Hector Monro and
Mr. Timothy Kitson.
NOES
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Dunwoody, Mre. Gwyneth (Exeter) Hazell, Bert
Alldritt, Walter Eadie, Alex Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Armstrong, Ernest Ellis, John Horner, John
Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham) Evans, loan L. (Bimt'h'm, Yardley) Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Blackburn, F. Faulds, Andrew Hoy, James
Booth, Albert Fernyhough, E. Hynd, John
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. Fletcher, Raymond (llkeston) Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan) Ford, Ben Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Buchan, Norman Galpern, Sir Myer Judd, Frank
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James Gourlay, Harry Lawson, George
Carmlchael, Neil Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth) Leadbitter, Ted
Coe, Denis Gregory, Arnold Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Concannon, J. D. Griffiths, Will (Exchange) Lestor, Miss Joan
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington) Grimond, Rt. Hn. J. Lomas, Kenneth
Dell, Edmund Hamilton, James (Bothwell) Loughlin, Charles
Dickens, James Hannan, William Lubbook, Eric
Dobson, Ray Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Doig, Peter Haseldine, Norman McCann, John
MacDermot, Niall Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.) Urwin, T. W.
McGuire, Michael Price, Christopher (Perry Barr) Varley, Eric G.
Maclennan, Robert Price, Thomas (Westhoughton) Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
MacPherson, Malcolm Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W. Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
Manuel, Archie Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.) Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Mendelson, J. J. Roebuck, Roy Wallace, George
Millan, Bruce Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.) Watkins, David (Consett)
Miller, Dr. M. S. Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne) Whitaker, Ben
Milne, Edward (Blyth) Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford) White, Mrs. Eirene
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire) Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich) Wilkins, W. A.
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe) Silverman, Julius (Aston) Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw) Skeffington, Arthur Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Murray, Albert Slater, Joseph Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.
Newens, Stan Spriggs, Leslie Woof, Robert
Orme, Stanley Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Oswald, Thomas Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Pavitt, Laurence Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff,W.) Mr. Joseph Harper and
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy Mr. Neil McBride.
Pentland, Norman Tinn, James

Lords Amendment agreed to.

Forward to