Freedom to Roam (Access to Countryside) (Hansard, 22 March 1994)

§ Mrs. Margaret Ewing (Moray)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for codification of law to ensure public access to the countryside and to define obligations and responsibilities for the public and landowners alike; and for connected purposes. I was born the daughter of a ploughman. From the earliest years, my brother and I were taught not only to love our countryside but to respect it. Basic codes of conduct have been ingrained in our minds—codes that are observed by all sensible people. Therefore, I grew up with an instinctive feeling that my country—Scotland—is beautiful, that I and others have freedom to enjoy it, and that the correct pattern of behaviour should automatically accompany that freedom.

It is a view shared by colleagues living elsewhere in the United Kingdom—the Bill applies to all the United Kingdom and is endorsed by all who love the countryside, whether in England, Wales, Northern Ireland or Scotland, although it is of Scotland that I can speak with some clear knowledge.

The Bill is particularly relevant at this time, because of various factors that are converging.

I refer first to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill. The clauses dealing with aggravated trespass—originally clauses 52 and 53, now clauses 58 and 59 as the Bill has emerged from Committee—have been interpreted by many organisations as a threat to the legitimate leisure pursuits followed by about 60 organisations. There is a general perception—I think a wrong one—that these fears are expressed only by those involved in hill walking or mountain climbing, in which I have a particular interest. But the fear is much more widespread.

Leisure pursuits cover a wide range of activities: orienteering, angling, photography, cataloguing of flora and fauna, pony trekking, horse riding, geology and archaeology, to name but a few: there are a host of others. Those involved in all these legitimate pursuits respect the countryside, and have no wish to destroy it or to enter into conflict with landowners.

The threat of criminal trespass could be interpreted under such a new law as denying access to that most precious of any country's assets: its land. The land and the people need an harmonious, not an acrimonious, relationship. The few should not deny the rights of the many.

In Scotland, the possibility of a change from civil to criminal law of trespass is seen a break with existing legislation, which describes criminal trespass as exceptionally exclusive of civil action", as defined in the second edition of Professor D.M. Walker's "Delict", resting on the common law of Scotland and the Trespass (Scotland) Act 1865.

There is also great concern about proposals to encourage the sale of Forestry Commission lands. The Forestry Commission has developed sensible and welcome rights of access. It has enhanced facilities for leisure pursuits and has helped to develop tourism, in addition to its highly regarded creation of direct and indirect jobs, which are important not least in constituencies such as mine.

138 On 30 March 1993, the Secretary of State for Scotland announced a forestry review group to consider options for ownership and management of Forestry Commission land. In England, there are about 700,000 acres of Forestry Commission land; in Wales, there are 350,000, and in Scotland, 1,830,000, representing about 10 per cent. of Scotland's land area. Fifty million visitors a year enjoy the freedom to roam in these lands, but, over the past 12 years during which Forestry Commission land has been sold, it appears that access agreements have become largely ignored.

Many new owners believe that private ownership and public access are incompatible. Research undertaken by the Ramblers Association this year showed that only 14 per cent. of new owners observed the commission's freedom-to-roam policy. One hundred and seventy-five councils throughout the United Kingdom have called on the Government not to jeopardise access any further. If the Government really claim to listen to the voice of local democracy, this must surely be a deafening condemnation of present policy.

One of the greatest problems we have faced is the secrecy surrounding the operations of the review group. Certainly, consultations were requested, and many submissions were made, but even now the Scottish Office, which is responsible for Forestry Commission land, is retaining the final document so that it can make its own recommendations in due course—perhaps in a few months' time. Is it therefore any wonder that there is some scepticism about the deliberations of the review group, given the contradictory statements that have emerged?

On 3 April 1992, the Prime Minister said: There is no intention to privatise the Forestry Commission. That sentence was later said to have been written in the heat of election battles. This strange situation was exacerbated when the Secretary of State for the Environment said: Although there would be hurdles to overcome, the key benefits are that it would raise money and get the forestry estate out of public hands. We know, of course, that a further 100,000 hectares of public land are to be disposed of by the year 2000. That seems to show that there is a clear lack of open debate, a failure to define clear policy and a clear contradiction of the Scottish Office paper of May 1992, which emphasised on page 14 the freedom to roam as part of green rights and responsibilities. Any move to sell further Forestry Commission land and the non-definition of genuine access agreements would be a monumental denial of that freedom to roam.

The continuation—and, indeed, the expansion—of the Forestry Commission is vital both for the industry and for access. It may be useful to remind the House that the percentage of forests that are publicly owned in Canada is 90 per cent., in the United States of America and France it is 28 per cent., and in Germany it is 58 per cent.

I and my party support the continued public ownership of Forestry Commission land in the light of its importance to our economy. Four million visitors to Scotland each year inject £400 million into the Scottish economy.

The third aspect is the continuing investigation by Scottish Natural Heritage into the issue of access. It was recorded in The Scotsman on 10 March that, in a recent letter, the chairman of Scottish Natural Heritage, Sir Magnus Magnusson, apparently warned the Secretary of State for Scotland against aggravated trespass, but, at the 139 same time, said that it would be difficult to balance all interests. There is a fear that that means that there will be a bias towards landowners.

My fear, and the fear of my colleagues who support the legislation, is that a sensible approach will be lost. The Bill seeks co-operation, not confrontation. I have studied examples in other European nations of the codification of the obligations and responsibilities of landowners and those who seek access. In all those examples, particularly those in Scandinavia, a common-sense code has been established. Everyone knows and respects one another's rights—that is what I want my Bill to achieve.

I am aware that, in my constituency, many landowners have a responsible attitude towards access to land, but many fears are caused by the fact that tracts of our land are being bought by faceless bureaucrats and conglomerates who have no interest in enabling and encouraging access to land. That is particularly important at a time when many people require access to leisure facilities.

People and the land are national partners. Let us prevent separation or divorce, and build a lasting, respectful mutually beneficial relationship.