Access to the Countryside (Hansard, 23 July 1997)

§ Mr. Paddy Tipping (Sherwood)

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law on trespass and to enable members of the public to resort on foot to open country in England and Wales for their recreation; and for connected purposes. Fifty years ago this week the post-war Labour Government received the Hobhouse report. The majority of its recommendations were agreed. As a result, we now have national parks, the Countryside Commission, long-distance footpaths and a right of way network recorded on the definitive map. Unfortunately, the fifth, important recommendation—a right to roam over open country—was dropped because of obstacles placed in its path, and lack of parliamentary time.

The right to roam in the wild places has been called for in Parliament for more than a century. The Liberal Member of Parliament James Bryce introduced the first access Bill in 1884. Unfortunately, that Bill and many of its successors were blocked or emasculated by landowning interests in Parliament.

Despite that, the demand and need to protect and extend the public's freedom to wander on foot over uncultivated land is greater than ever. We now have another radical, reforming Labour Government, whose achievements I believe will match those of the 1945 Government. There are high expectations that this Government will deliver greater access to the countryside. Labour's manifesto at the general election promised greater access to mountain, moorland and common land. However, those rights to roam were coupled with responsibilities for the walker.

This Bill provides a framework for what I think can be achieved. I do not see it as the definitive article, but as a vehicle for debate and discussion. There are many voices in the country and many demands on the countryside. We must seek to balance them, although it will be difficult to find the right balance. We must remember that the countryside changes, and, as it changes, attempts must be made to lift the landscape and enhance the environment. The countryside will never be a museum.

The Bill seeks to build on previous similar measures that I have introduced. I thank the Ramblers Association—particularly Jerry Pearlman, its honorary solicitor—for its help and support. I put on record the fact that I am an enthusiastic walker and vice-president of the Ramblers Association. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will acknowledge that the focus of the Bill has been narrowed to bring it into line with what I believe to be Labour party policy.

The Bill confers the right to roam on mountain, moorland, common land, heath and down. However, it is not an unrestricted right to roam: exclusions are granted to take account of shooting and conservation interests. There are many stakeholders in the countryside, and I have consulted fully about the Bill. Meetings have taken place with the Country Landowners Association and the National Farmers Union. All agree that there is a need for greater access, but there are different views about how to achieve that aim.

As a result of those discussions, positive obligations are imposed in schedule 1 on persons who want to walk the open spaces. Rights are clearly linked to responsibilities: 972 freedom to walk places a responsibility on the walker to respect the countryside. In addition, the rights of those who wish to shoot are safeguarded and strengthened. Dogs must now always be kept on a lead. Most importantly, a new clause has been added to assuage the fears of the Country Landowners Association and others that they could face insurance claims from walkers. Clause 10 makes it clear that landowners have no responsibilities in that regard. Another burden has been lifted from landowners.

I hope that I have made it clear that I have responded positively to countryside concerns. There can be no justification for any claim that the measures would be imposed on the countryside without discussion. The Bill has its opponents, but they should accept it at face value and in good faith. To characterise it as somehow allowing unrestricted access to the countryside reveals prejudice and vested interest. The Bill attempts to address all countryside interests without causing substantial harm to any.

I say bluntly to the British Association for Shooting and Conservation that, before writing to all Members of Parliament expressing concern about the Bill, it would have been wise to read it. Its ill-informed criticism does it no favours. Many issues it raises have already been addressed.

I understand the Country Landowners Association's view that access should be voluntary and managed. Nevertheless, 50 years ago, the Hobhouse report and the subsequent National Parks and Access to Countryside Act 1949 provided a framework for negotiating voluntary access. Unfortunately, progress has been painful and pitiful. For instance, large parts of the Peak district and the Forest of Bowland remain out of bounds. The CLA has received money from the Countryside Commission to help with voluntary access work. It will be judged on what it can achieve. Unless progress is made, legislation is inevitable.

Judgments will also be made on assessments of the costs of access to the country. I seek to persuade the Minister that the costs are minimal and can be met from existing budgets.

I contrast my approach with the work of the Country Landowners Association, which commissioned a report that purports to show that the provisions in the Bill will cost landowners £2 billion. I challenge the CLA to publish this secret report, so that its methodology can be scrutinised. I am inclined to say at this stage that this is yet another example of scaremongering.

To put the £2 billion into context, I calculate that it could purchase 10 million acres of mountain and moorland at an average cost of £200 per acre. The Minister and the House need to be reminded that there are only 12 million acres in total of mountain and moorland in England and Wales. The CLA's claims are therefore clearly exaggerated.

It seems to me that the Ramblers Association and others promoting greater access have made proposals that are practical, reasonable and follow English legal precedent. Moreover, they have shown their willingness to compromise.

The Bill is practical in the sense that it provides draft legislation that can be implemented on the ground. All that is required is parliamentary time. The Bill is 973 reasonable in that it is not a Utopian demand for everything that the access lobby would wish for. Difficult decisions have already been made.

I am conscious that I have spent time talking about the restrictions and exemptions of the Bill. I have described the compromises that have already been made. I am keen to stress the need for further dialogue and consultation. I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment has confirmed that he will carry out his own consultation exercise later this year, with a view to introducing legislation.

I am confident that my Bill will provide a foundation stone on which future legislation can be built. It is a measure whose time has now come. It is a Bill that looks to the future, not the past. It is a Bill that provides access for the many, not just the few. I believe that, by the millennium, we will at last truly be able to say for the first time, "This land is our land."

§ Mr. Tom King (Bridgwater)

I rise to oppose the Bill, but not because I wish in any sense to oppose access to the countryside. Everybody who lives in towns and in the country knows the value of our wonderful countryside, and all hon. Members should share the determination that people should have the maximum possible access to it.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) on his persistence. He has been here before, and I have read the speech that he made on 30 January 1996, in which he sought to bring in a very similar Bill.

I do not quite understand why we are here today, because I heard the Under—Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle), say last week in the House that the Government would introduce legislation on this subject and would conduct a wide-ranging consultation exercise later in the year. Without anticipating whether legislation will prove to be necessary, I am sure that this is an issue on which the widest consultation arises.

The hon. Gentleman was absolutely frank with the House when he said that he was vice-president of the Ramblers Association. He said that the Bill has the support of ramblers. I shall seek to persuade the House that a vastly wider range of interests has to be accommodated in such a complex measure.

I challenge the House to recognise its responsibility. It has the power to legislate on virtually anything, but before it embarks on a particular course, it has a heavy responsibility to decide whether that is the right route to take to achieve the objectives that many right hon. and hon. Members may wish to achieve. The hon. Gentleman says that there is a balance of interests to be determined, that there must be full consultation, and that he does not wish to predetermine any issue, but his Bill predetermines the key issue: that we will now abandon the voluntary principle, and move to the world of prohibition, of enforcement.

We have an advantage that I do not think we had on 30 January 1996. I have a copy of the previous Bill. I do not know how many hon. Members have had a chance to read the earlier Bill, but those who have will have found that the enthusiasm they may feel is much greater when they stick to its broad principle, and rapidly declines when they examine the complex details.

974 Schedule 1—which may be altered in the new Bill—lists the people who will not be allowed the right to roam. It refers to a person who

"(a) drives or rides any vehicle;
(b) lights any fire or does any act which is likely to cause a fire;
(c) takes, or allows to enter or remain, any dog not under proper control;
(d) wilfully kills, takes, molests or disturbs any animal, bird or fish or takes or injures any eggs or nests;
(e) bathes in any non-tidal water in contravention of a notice …
(f) engages in any operations … connected with hunting, shooting, fishing … taking or destroying of animals …
(g) wilfully damages the land …
(h) wilfully injures, removes … any plant, shrub, tree …
(i) obstructs the flow of any drain or watercourse …
(j) affixes … any advertisement, bill, placard …
(k) deposits any rubbish or leaves any litter;
(l) engages in riotous, disorderly or indecent conduct;
(m) wantonly disturbs, annoys or obstructs any person engaged in any lawful occupation".

I like (n), which refers to a person who holds any political meeting or delivers any political address". That will have brought home to hon. Members what we did not know when the Bill was first introduced. It demonstrates the complexities involved.

The hon. Gentleman said that the measures in his Bill would not be imposed without consultation; they would be imposed after consultation. That is what he proposes, and what he hopes will happen. However, given the complexity of the issues, I believe that we abandon the voluntary principle at our peril.

I hold no brief for anyone, although I have seen the brief from the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, and I know that the Country Landowners Association has advocated the voluntary approach. Perhaps I approach the issue as the then Minister who introduced the Bill that became the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, and carried it through to enactment.

I also represent a rural constituency, and I see the pressures on the countryside. I challenge the hon. Gentleman to recognise that the issue does not affect only ramblers. It is not just a question of ramblers against landowners; a host of interests are involved. Certainly ramblers and all walkers are affected, but we must also consider mountain bikers, and the awful "mystery tours" by four-by-four clubs that turn up in the countryside and show no interest in discovering where there is a legitimate right of way.

Then there are horse riders—in my constituency, in the Quantocks, there are even camel riders—bird watchers, naturalists and fishermen. We must also bear in mind the interests of conservation. Pressure is put on the countryside by balloonists, hang gliders and scramble motor cyclists. Many of those involved are competing with each other.

I see this Bill as the first of a row of such Bills. Hon. Members may know about the issuing of temporary prohibition orders. Every three years, under the Bill, every ancient monument that English Heritage wants to protect from those who demand a right of access must be given a temporary prohibition order. The same applies to landscapes and areas that are important to conservation— 975 sites of special scientific interest, I suppose. It is a continual process. That is what hon. Members are going to support today.

Opposing the earlier Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) described it as a legislative dinosaur, and I agree. It provides unlimited scope for disputes, and I think that it could cause great damage. I accept that the voluntary principle needs improvement, but I will fight hard to keep it. I want to warn hon. Members of the dangers before they rush instinctively into what they think must be sensible measures.

Who looks after the countryside? Who are its stewards? Farmers, foresters and those with sporting and conservation interests, along with organisations such as the Woodland Trust, are trying to preserve a countryside in which people can enjoy walking and rambling. I would never defend those landlords who have a fortress mentality, but nor would I support a militant and aggressive assertion of rights, which could cause great trouble.

The House has the power to legislate on anything. It has a reputation not for legislating too little, but for legislating and then having to legislate again and again. My plea to hon. Members is that, before going down the route that the hon. Gentleman invites us to follow, they consider carefully whether the voluntary principle could be made to work, so that a balance can be struck between the different interests without creating a bureaucracy. Local government would have to enforce this legislation, which would introduce two new criminal offences. Access to our countryside should be agreeable and achievable. I beg the House to be fully conscious of those arguments, and not to support the Bill.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 23 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business), and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Paddy Tipping, Mr. Andrew F. Bennett, Helen Jackson, Ms Sally Keeble, Ms Jackie Lawrence, Ms Chris McCafferty, Mr. Colin Pickthall, Mr. Chris Pond, Mr. Gordon Prentice, Mr. Chris Ruane, Mr. Stephen Timms and Ms Joan Walley.