HC Deb 13 June 2000 vol 351 cc849-63
Mr. Mullin

I beg to move amendment No. 141, in page 7, line 36, at end insert— '( ) The use of any land by the inhabitants of any locality for the purposes of open—air recreation in the exercise of the right conferred by section 2(1) is to be disregarded in determining whether the land has become a town or village green.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 8, in clause 13, page 8, line 7, leave out "natural".

Government amendments Nos. 142 to 144, 189 and 211.

Government new clause 23—Effect of Part I on powers to stop up or divert highways.

Government amendments Nos. 220 to 224.

7.15 pm
Mr. Mullin

Amendment No. 141 was inspired by an Opposition amendment tabled in Committee to clarify the position on village greens. Under existing legislation, it is possible to register land as a village green where it has been used by local inhabitants for lawful sports and pastimes as of right for not less than 20 years.

The amendment makes it clear that the new right of access is not intended to result in prescriptive rights being acquired over access land. It ensures that the use of any land by virtue of the right of access under the Bill will not be able to support a claim for the registration of a village or town green under the Commons Registration Act 1965. The amendment makes similar provision in this respect for village greens as clause 12(3) of the Bill now makes for public rights of way.

Mr. Bennett

On amendment No. 141, has the Minister seen the briefing from the Countryside Agency, which suggests that the Government have made a mess of the amendment? Is he doing anything to meet its concerns on this point?

Mr. Mullin

I have not seen the briefing from the Countryside Agency on the subject, but if I get any further information, I shall come back to my hon. Friend.

Amendment No. 142 follows up a point raised in Committee. My right hon. Friend explained that in response to amendments tabled by the hon. Members for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) and for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), the Government would consider whether further clarification was needed regarding the liability position in relation to trees and plants. The amendment makes it clear that occupiers will bear no liability towards those exercising the right of access in relation to any plant, shrub or tree.

The need for amendments Nos. 143 and 144 was drawn to our attention by Opposition Members—we are nothing if not a listening Government. The amendments will exclude from the new right of access land to which there is already a public right of access under section 19 of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979—that is, monuments in the ownership or guardianship of the Secretary of State, English Heritage, or local authorities. This is in accordance with our policy of excluding from the ambit of Part I land to which the public has an existing statutory right of access.

Amendments Nos. 189, 211, and 220 to 224 will allow for the retention on the statute book of Part V of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. As many hon. Members will know, the 1949 Act was a landmark in the history of countryside access. As amended by the Countryside Act 1968, it provided for access agreements and access orders to be made over mountain, moor, heath, down, river and canalside, foreshore and woodland—a far more extensive interpretation of "open country" than is contained in the Bill before us. However, the 1949 Act failed to open up extensive areas of open country to the public. About 50,000 hectares of agreement land have been negotiated under the Act in the past fifty years, almost entirely over moorland. On the eve of a statutory right of access to mountain, moor, heath, down and registered common land, the 1949 Act still offers some merits that we wish to retain. That is the purpose of the amendments.

Finally, Government new clause 23 proposes to limit the effect of the new right of access created by part I on statutory powers to stop up or divert a highway or any highway. In a nutshell, the new clause proposes to stop the right of access being used as an excuse to stop up existing rights of way. I commend the amendments to the House.

Mr. Green

I rise to speak principally to amendment No. 8, but it would be churlish not to acknowledge our gratitude to the Government for accepting what the Minister described as the inspiration of some of our amendments—and, I hope, speeches to them—in Committee.

Like the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), I have an advantage over the Minister, in that I have seen the Countryside Agency's objection to the amendment. The agency makes the point that while it supports the aims of the amendment, as worded, the amendment could make it impossible to register access land as a green in future even where it has a long pattern of qualifying use by local inhabitants. Caselaw requires evidence of 20 years' qualifying local use right up to the date of application to register land as a green. The amendment as worded could prevent an application in, say, three years' time to register an established green from succeeding. A saving is required to avoid this unintended effect. Perhaps the Minister will wish to return to this matter.

I fear that Government amendment No. 142 may give rise to difficulties, rising possibly to absurdities. It says that

any plant, shrub or tree, of whatever origin, is to be regarded as a natural feature of the landscape. I do not aspire to the levels of expertise of others in the House about the natural world, but an amendment solemnly declaring plants, shrubs and trees to be natural features appears, on the surface, otiose. If not, I suspect that the practical effects may present difficulties.

One has a lurid vision of one of the few irresponsible landowners setting out closely planted rows of cactuses round the edge of one of the small parcels of access land that the Minister is keen on, thus making it impossible to gain entry. Since these plants would be natural features, they would be fine under the terms of the Bill. I know what the Government are seeking to achieve through the amendment, but I am sure that they will not achieve it. If they do, there will be some unintended bad consequences as well. I suspect that those in another place may wish to return to the issue.

Amendment No. 8 is a small amendment, in that it proposes to leave out the word "natural". This is an extremely important issue for the landowners and farmers who will be most affected by the clause. The amendment seeks to remove the uncertainty arising from use of the word "natural" in clause 13, referring to owners' liability. As the Bill stands, owners' liability is excluded only in relation to the so-called natural features of the landscape. The Government have sought to deal with this by giving a wide definition of natural features, to include any plant, shrub or tree.

I am afraid that that does not go far enough and does not solve the problem of the possible unintended consequences of this restriction on owners' liability. I am aware that the Government appreciate the problem of the liability of owners of access land and that they have made efforts to tackle the legitimate concerns of occupiers' liability.

The Minister will be aware that there have been some problems; his right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment wrongly quoted a letter from the Country Landowners Association and the British Mountaineering Council about the issue. The basic concerns of landowners, that the Bill should remove liability from all features of the landscape, cannot be coped with by the Bill unless the Government accept our amendment or something similar.

As the Bill stands, a walker could climb over a fragile stone wall to access land. He could damage the wall—paying no compensation—injure himself and then sue the owner for personal damages. That is patently an absurdity and an unfairness. Even the fear of that will have practical consequences. Insurance companies will see this eventuality as a possibility; that is what insurance companies are for. They try to anticipate the unexpected, quantify it and put a price on it. Owners will have to pay increased premiums, as well as paying for repairs to walls. Every wall will have to be subject to a risk assessment.

The situation is inequitable and goes against the grain of English law on liability. It may well weaken the Government's case on the compliance of the Bill with the Human Rights Act 1998. It is not just walls; there are other farming necessities, such as fences or ditches. As it stands, the Bill will give great pause to any farmer who wishes to use barbed wire fences on the sort of open land that will become access land. I cannot believe that that is the Government's intention.

If a ditch has to go because a farmer decides that he is not prepared to pay the extra insurance premium, presumably, after the ditch—which was there for drainage purposes—goes, a swamp will be created. I wonder whether the swamp that replaces the ditch if drainage is made worse will be regarded as a natural feature.

Mr. Hogg

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Surely landowners might decide to eliminate all manmade features—for example, bridges—on the grounds that they would not be liable if a person struggled across a stream, but would be liable if they went across a bridge which proved to be defective. The same would apply to stiles. The sensible farmer might remove what is currently provided for the benefit of those using the land.

Mr. Green

My right hon. and learned Friend is characteristically right. In Committee, we had discussions along these lines. The effect of the Bill is to induce perverse and damaging behaviour on the part of farmers and landowners. The Minister might find that the Bill was considerably improved by acceptance of the amendments.

If the Minister does not wish to take my word for it, I recommend that he read the advice of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, which says: If the public are given a new statutory "right of access" … they must accept that the countryside contains hazards and they might cause themselves injury. That is fair enough. People who damage themselves while trespassing are less likely to try and sue the estate than people who have a right of access. Suing is increasingly a problem because of the rise of the no-win no-fee solicitors who advertise their services widely. The Minister is in danger of creating a mare's nest; the combination of other factors with this inadequate part of the Bill could lead to an increase in insurance premiums which would badly affect hard-pressed farmers and lead to an increase in frivolous litigation. If the Minister and the Government admit—as they clearly do in the amendments they propose—that natural features should be defined so widely as to try to encompass everything on which walkers could injure themselves, why do they not go the whole hog and omit the word "natural"? Occupiers' liability would thus be removed if walkers damaged themselves on features of the landscape.

7.30 pm
Mr. David Heath

I thank the Under-Secretary of State for accepting the principle underlying the point I made in Committee on plants and trees. There was obviously a problem; a certain liability had not been considered. I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for doing as he said and introducing an amendment.

I remain concerned about the word "natural". I share many of the anxieties expressed by the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green)—although not when he says that, in order to avoid liability for the effects of plants and trees, landowners will create stockades of cactuses around their estates.

Mr. Green

I was making that point in relation to small parcels of land. Of course, people would not erect such constructions around estates, but they might do so around those small pieces of land that the Government do not want excluded from the Bill.

Mr. Heath

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that helpful explanation. However, the fact that there was no liability in respect of accidental harm to a person using the land would not remove responsibility for maintaining access if the land was designated access land; there would still be an obstruction. However, I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was making a serious point.

The key problem relates to natural features of the landscape. Everyone who has read the Bill dispassionately has latched on to that term and wondered what it would mean in law. We discussed the difficulties in Committee. We referred to man-made, but historic, features; for example, former mineral workings. Does a pit from which building stone or lead is being extracted form a natural feature, or does it not? Are we not simply creating work for lawyers?

I am indebted to the hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas), who was most helpful to us in Committee. He referred to the degree of liability that would apply under the measure as drafted. The hon. Gentleman is learned in the law and, in his view, the duty of care that would apply to a person using land for access would be that specified under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1984. He gave that definition as such care as is reasonable in all the circumstances of the case to see that he— the trespasser— does not suffer injury on the premises. We went on to discuss whether a greater duty of care would be implied under the measure, because it dealt not with trespassers but with people who had a right of access to land. Did that imply that a slightly higher duty of care would exist?

We did not receive a wholly satisfactory answer from the Minister for the Environment. He said that such liability would be at a very low level—the duty of common humanity—as set out in the case of Herrington v. British Railways Board.—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 18 April 2000; c. 391–98.] Is that a correct interpretation of the level of care required? What are the implications for a landowner? If the amendment is not accepted, how will a landowner ensure that he or she is properly undertaking that duty of care to a person walking on his or her land in respect of hazards that are not natural?

There would be some difficulty in complying with that duty. If the feature was something that could be repaired—for example, the bridge to which the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) referred—the best solution would be to remove it altogether. However, if something was not repairable—a hazard in its own right—presumably landowners would have a duty to provide warning signs, unless, of course, they were likely to find themselves in breach of clause 14 by erecting a notice that deterred people from access to the land.

There is a significant problem that has not yet been addressed. The word "natural" is unhelpful in this context; it merely provides the grounds for legal challenge. Ministers must reconsider the matter before it reaches another place, where people with far more knowledge of the law than I will dissect our considerations and come to a view that will, I suspect, not be helpful to the Government.

Mr. Simon Thomas

I too want to make a few remarks on amendment No. 8. I welcome the opportunity to discuss that important provision, because it tests the Government's thinking on the matter.

The farming communities in which we live are all man-made. The features of the landscape that we see every day are man-made—that is one of the joys of our countryside. It has an intimate link with the population that has lived there for many thousands of years.

There is an example on my doorstep. I live near an iron age Celtic fort. It is much walked and may well come under the provisions of the Bill—depending on the exact definition of cultivated land—because there is grassland around it. On top of the fort, there is a 19th-century structure. I am told that it is supposed to be one of Wellington's cannons—to commemorate the battle of Waterloo.

Sometimes students from the university try to climb up or abseil down that cannon. According to the definition in the Bill, the cannon would be a man-made structure. What liability would apply to its private landowner? If a person on that land was injured, how would the landowner be liable? Would it be for the fort, the dykes, the ditches, the cannon, or the access to the land—the fences, the stiles and steep grazing land?

More thought should be given to that aspect of the measure. There is a real fear that farmers will be liable for actions over which they have no control. When farmers have access land, they cannot control where individuals go on it. They might erect signs, but they cannot mark every danger on their land. If they put up a general sign, they might fall foul of other provisions, as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) pointed out.

There are other hazardous items on farmland—especially in upland areas—such as small reservoirs or abandoned farm buildings. Electric fences are sometimes used to move stock from one piece of grazing land to another. How would those be brought within the ambit of the Bill? Amendment No. 8 offers a considerable improvement by removing the word "natural". Unless the Government can produce a clearer definition of "natural", we shall have some difficulties.

Public liability insurance is another consideration. That may put an extra burden on farmers and landowners. I do not know how many farmers are able to keep up their insurance payments in these hard times; such payments may be the first to go. However, under the provisions of the Bill, there is no doubt that there will be an increase in public liability insurance payments. I hope that farmers will not face too large an increase in those payments. So that they do not, I hope that the Minister will give a more detailed explanation of the liability provisions in relation to man-made and natural features on a landowner's land.

Mr. Bennett

I shall be brief. I do not support the Opposition's amendment, which would remove the word "natural", but I think that the Government should give a little more thought to the issue. It is not a question of exempting the landowner totally from responsibility, but the Government should consider the possible application of health and safety legislation to this issue.

It is reasonable that landowners should take the precautions that are necessary to make their land safe for the people who work on it. Anything that makes that land unsafe for the people who work on it should be considered the liability of the landowner, but anything that occurs as a result of the activities of someone walking across the land should be a matter for which the walker should consider having insurance. One of the messages that the Bill should send out is that walkers should consider insurance cover for what they may do to others and for the accidents that may occur for which no reasonable landowner could be held responsible.

The Government should not accept the amendment, but they should give the matter a little further thought. The extent to which landowners should be liable should be based on the provisions in the health and safety legislation which say that the landowner should ensure that his estate is safe for the people who normally work on it.

Mr. Hogg

Rather to my surprise, I find myself agreeing with much of what the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) has just said. Walkers are primarily responsible for their own welfare and it is wrong to impose on landowners or farmers too high a standard of care. I speak from experience. For the past 30 or 35 years, my chief pastime has been mountain walking and easy mountaineering. Most of my climbing has been done in the Alps rather than in the United Kingdom, but similar principles apply.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) suggested that we should remove the word "natural" from the clause 13. One must face the fact that many features of hills, mountains and the uplands are in a grey area when it comes to defining them as natural or not. For example, are the slabs of rock used to cross a stream or to bridge a gulf a natural feature? The material is natural, but it has been put in place by humans. Cairns on a mountain—or steinmen as they are variously called—mark the track, but they are made of natural material. They are piled up in heaps and they can, and do, fall on the people sitting below them. Are those features natural or not? Such points need to be clarified if the Bill is to have a sensible and not a deleterious effect.

7.45 pm

My hon. Friend the Member for Ashford also suggested that the concept of a farmer's or landowner's liability is likely to have perverse consequences, and he is right. On mountains in the Alps and in the United Kingdom, safety can be improved by human introductions such as fixed ropes. People sometimes prefer to use steps or ladders as they go down steep scree slopes. In the Peak district, slabs of rock often go across boggy land so as to protect it. Bridges are used to cross streams and stiles are used to cross stone walls. If landowners have liability for those man-made facilities—which are provided as aids for those who visit the land—but not for the natural land, they will remove the aids. Why should they put up a fixed rope or bridge, or place slabs across boggy land, if they are liable for any defect in them? If they do absolutely nothing, they will not be liable. That is a perverse result and I hope that the Government do not intend it.

Mountains in the United Kingdom are working and farming areas. They are used for sheep farming and sheep very often need to be wired in. Inevitably, coils of wire are found buried in the heather; that is quite usual. In fact, barbed wire is frequently found buried in the heather. The idea that farmers can sweep an area clean of materials that have been there for many years—perhaps decades—to ensure that everyone is as safe as if the place were a bowling green is absurd. They cannot do that. I therefore fear that many landowners will face substantial claims from people who do not watch where they put their feet and who then litigate; or that many modest farmers, particularly in the uplands, will have to take out substantial insurance cover.

I am against the proposal, but we have to deal with it as it is. People like me visit the hills and they are basically responsible for their own safety and welfare. They should not look to anyone else to look after them save in a crisis, when they will be jolly pleased to receive assistance. However, when they approach a track or a bridge, they should exercise a bit of care and a certain amount of good sense. The Government's proposal is the nanny state writ large.

Mr. Jim Dobbin (Heywood and Middleton)

I wish to speak to amendment No. 141 and about village greens.

In June 1999, in an historic decision in the Lords, it was declared on behalf of Sunningwell parish council that a piece of land called the Glebe was deemed to be a village green and that legislation could apply to newly registered greens. That meant that if a local community had used a piece of land for sports and pastimes for not less than 20 years, the land would have a legitimate claim for village green status. That would protect the land from development.

I have such a village green in my constituency in the village of Castleton. I shall be guided by you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I spoke to the Principal Clerk this morning about what I want to say. The land, which is called Cowm Top, is the subject of a High Court appeal by a developer. He is appealing against Rochdale metropolitan borough council and a constituent, Cindy Huxley, who is the secretary of Castleton residents association.

The land has been designated as a village green by the local authority and is being registered as such. The Castleton residents association is 1,100 strong and has rightly pursued this case. It has right on its side, because an independent panel has deemed the land to be a village green. The fact that the developer has refused to accept the council's decision has resulted in Cindy Huxley, who represents the residents association, being identified as personally responsible for any court costs. That would mean financial disaster for her personally, so the association finds itself unable to contest the appeal. It is a case of a large developer using its financial power to try to smash a group of local residents who were pursuing what they deemed to be a correctly taken decision. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take account of the difficulties faced by local residents groups and other voluntary groups in the process.

Government amendment No. 141 should offer local communities some protection from big developers. My concern is that it may not do so. It would not offer my constituent, Cindy Huxley, any protection in her situation. I seek some assurance from my hon. Friend. For me, it is an issue of great public interest.

Mr. Desmond Swayne (New Forest, West)

It strikes me that there is something entirely inequitable in the situation of a landowner who previously enjoyed the land that he owned without encumbrances, and who now finds a duty placed on him to make that land available to the general public. One would ordinarily expect the landowner to receive compensation for the change in the status of the property that he enjoys, but on the contrary, he is penalised by having to take out expensive insurance in order to accommodate the change in the availability of his land.

I suspect that the problems to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) drew attention—the question of what constitutes a natural or a man-made feature—will be tested to the extreme in the courts, to the great profit of his own profession.

Given that the public will now enjoy a new right of access to the property, they should have an obligation to insure themselves against any liabilities that may occur as a result of their exercise of that new right. That would be much the best way forward. The landlord should be prosecuted only if he lays traps for the walkers and others who occupy his land, for which the existing common law would be sufficient remedy.

Mr. Green

I am grateful for the support for the principles behind amendment No. 8 from the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) and others, including the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas). I intend to press the amendment to a Division.

Mr. Mullin

Before I deal with amendment No. 8, I shall respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) about the Countryside Agency's briefing on amendment No. 141. He will not be surprised to hear that after mature reflection, we do not consider amendment No. 141 to be poorly drafted. We accept that it could prevent a village green from being claimed, if less than 20 years' use could be shown before the right of access came into force; but once the right was in force, there would be a public right of access in any case.

My hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Mr. Dobbin) also touched on amendment No. 141. The Bill does not affect the law on village greens generally. It simply stops the right of access giving rise to new greens. Therefore, I am not sure that it helps the case that he raised. My hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not go into the details of the case, although he has put on the record an important issue.

On amendment No. 8, there is a slight air of unreality about the debate. It was remarked several times in Committee, not least by me, that one must pinch oneself from time to time to recall that there already exists access to millions of acres of land, without any of the dire consequences that some Opposition Members foresee. I shall return to that point.

The liability that occupiers will owe to those exercising the new right of access has attracted considerable interest and debate both inside and outside Parliament. It is also an issue on which there is some convergence of views.

Let me reiterate the Government's position, which endorses the position in law that those walking in open countryside should bear primary responsibility for their own safety. There is no disagreement among us on that. People must accept that walking in open countryside carries risks, albeit usually relatively low ones. Mountains, crags and fast-flowing water are some of the more obvious examples of natural hazards that people need to respect and for which they should take sensible precautions. The Bill removes all liability of occupiers in relation to such features of the land. That is right, and I know that that provision has been widely welcomed.

I accept that some people want the Government to go further to remove all liability in relation to all features, whether natural or man-made. The Government have listened carefully to arguments put forward by the Country Landowners Association and by the Opposition for reducing occupiers' liability still further, but we were not and we still are not persuaded that occupiers should be absolved of all responsibility for man-made features of the landscape.

We heard reference—by the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas), I think, but I apologise if it was another hon. Member—to barbed wire concealed in the ground. People who leave rolls of barbed wire in a concealed position should be responsible for the consequences. I make no apology for that.

Mr. Hogg

The Minister is robust about that, but does he recognise that rolls of wire may have been left in the heather for many, many years, and that there is no realistic prospect of a farmer or landowner now discovering rolls of wire that have been left in the heather for the past 10 or 15 years?

Mr. Mullin

There is no getting away from the fact that someone who leaves barbed wire in a concealed position must take responsibility for the consequences. That example was given by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and as he said, I respond to it robustly. That is my view.

Do we want to eliminate all liability for things that are dangerous, particularly if hidden from view where people, including children, are known to walk? I do not believe so.

Mr. Grieve

Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Swayne

Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Mullin

If hon. Gentlemen relax for a moment, there will be an opportunity for them to get in.

I consider that it is right to retain some liability—albeit at a minimal level—so as not to encourage landowners to disregard the safety of those on their land.

Mr. Grieve

I am grateful to the Minister. Can he reassure me that the liability will remain the same as it was previously, and that it is the liability that a landowner would have towards a trespasser on his land? As long as that is the position, I for one would be wholly content. If the liability is being changed because there is to be a right of public access, the argument of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) is entirely valid.

Mr. Mullin

I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks. He has put his finger on the fact that the measure does not change the position, and I am grateful to him for pointing that out.

The courts have found that occupiers owe a "duty of common humanity" even towards those uninvited on their land. That is reflected in the Occupiers' Liability Act 1984. No prizes for guessing who was in government then.

We must remember that the duty of common humanity is set at a very low level. Let us take the National Trust as an example. The trust has extensive experience of managing nearly 1,000 square miles of open countryside and millions of visitors annually, and it has had only a handful of claims in any year.

The figures suggest that in 1997–98, the trust had about 50 million visitors, from which only 10 claims arose. We are not moving into uncharted waters. There is already access to millions of acres. We are not attempting to change the liability that applies. It is mistaken of hon. Members to conjure up dire problems that are likely to arise. They do not arise on the millions of acres to which there is already access, and there is no reason to suppose that they will arise on the land that will later be opened up to access. There is no evidence—

8 pm

Mr. Green

The logic of the hon. Gentleman's argument must apply to natural features as well as man-made features. If it is true about man-made features, it should be true also about natural features. Why are the Government moving all their amendments on natural features? The Minister cannot have it both ways, which he is seeking to do in deploying his argument.

Mr. Mullin

I am not seeking to have the argument both ways. We are not seeking to change the level of liability. We have no evidence that those who currently occupy open country subject to statutory rights of access are required to pay higher insurance premiums than others who occupy such land from which the public are excluded.

The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) talked about the encouragement of perverse behaviour by landowners. In my view, most landowners are reasonable and responsible people. However, I accept that one or two are perverse. The name of Mr. Nicholas van Hoogstraten comes to mind. We should not allow ourselves to be swayed because there are a few extremely difficult customers, and we shall not be. Overall, I think that once the provisions are bedded in, most landowners will be pleasantly surprised to discover that they do not face any serious problems.

The Government's decision to remove all occupiers' liability in relation to natural features will place occupiers of access land in a more favourable legal position than other landowners. Given that and the minimal duty of common humanity in relation to man-made features, I believe that we have struck the right balance between the interests of occupiers and the need to provide reasonable protection for the public. I believe that making a distinction between natural and man-made features is the right place to draw the line, and I therefore ask that the amendment—

Mr. Bennett

May I take my hon. Friend back to town and village greens? I suggest that he should have further mature reflection. He is saying that there will not be possibilities for registering more town and village greens in future, and that that does not matter because people will have access under the Bill, when enacted, as they would have had access under registration. The one advantage of registration is that it stops development. By leaving the amendment as it is, my hon. Friend is making it impossible to register new greens, and it will be possible for land to disappear for development. I think that my hon. Friend should reconsider the matter.

Mr. Mullin

On most issues, I take my hon. Friend seriously, including the general issue that is before us. I give him the undertaking that he seeks, and I shall reconsider the matter. I shall write to him after further reflection has taken place. I can make no commitment. I have concluded my remarks and I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

For the benefit of the—

Mr. Mullin

I may have misled you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. [Interruption.] No, I think that I was right the first time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. Amendment No. 8 will be taken after amendment No. 141 has been put to the House, which is a Government amendment. I am dealing now with amendment No. 141.

Mr. Green

The Minister has withdrawn it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I think that the Minister asked the Opposition to withdraw amendment No. 8. [Interruption.] Order. The Opposition expressed a desire to vote on it. The Question now is that amendment No. 141 be made.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed: No. 8, in page 8, line 7, leave out "natural".—[Mr. Green.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 149, Noes 282.

Division No. 229] [8.5 pm
AYES
Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey) Burnett, John
Allan, Richard Burns, Simon
Amess, David Burstow, Paul
Ancram, Rt Hon Michael Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy Cash, William
Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E) Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Baker, Norman
Baldry, Tony Clappison, James
Ballard, Jackie Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Bell, Martin (Tatton) Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Bercow, John
Beresford, Sir Paul Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Blunt, Crispin Collins, Tim
Body, Sir Richard Cran, James
Boswell, Tim Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W) Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Brady, Graham Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Brake, Tom Duncan Smith, Iain
Brand, Dr Peter Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Breed, Colin Evans, Nigel
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter Faber, David
Browning, Mrs Angela Fabricant, Michael
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset) Flight, Howard
Forth, Rt Hon Eric Moss, Malcolm
Foster, Don (Bath) Nicholls, Patrick
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman Norman, Archie
Fox, Dr Liam Ottaway, Richard
Fraser, Christopher Page, Richard
Garnier, Edward Pace, James
George, Andrew (St Ives) Paterson, Owen
Gibb, Nick Pickles, Eric
Gidley, Sandra Prior, David
Gill, Christopher Randall, John
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl Redwood, Rt Hon John
Gorman, Mrs Teresa Rendel, David
Gray, James Robathan, Andrew
Green, Damian Robertson, Laurence
Greenway, John Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Grieve, Dominic Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)
Gummer, Rt Hon John Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Hammond, Philip St Aubyn, Nick
Harvey Nick Sanders, Adrian
Hawkins, Nick Sayeed, Jonathan
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome) Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David Smith, sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas Soames Nicholas
Howard, Rt Hon Michael Spicer, Sir Michael
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot) Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Hunter, Andrew Steen, Anthony
Jack, Rt Hon Michael Streeter, Gary
Jackson, Robert (Wantage) Stunell, Andrew
Jenkin, Bernard Swayne, Desmond
Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey Syms, Robert
Tapsell, Sir Peter
Key, Robert Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)
Kirkbride, Miss Julie Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Kirkbirde, Miss Julie Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Laing, Mrs Eleanor Taylor, Sir Teddy
Lait, Mrs Jacqui Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)
Lansley, Andrew Tonge, Dr Jenny
Leigh, Edward Townend, John
Letwin, Oliver Tredinnick, David
Lidington, David Trend, Michael
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter Tyrie, Andrew
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham) Walter, Robert
Loughton, Tim Waterson, Nigel
Luff, Peter Webb, Steve
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas Wells, Bowen
MacGregor, Rt Hon John Whitney, Sir Raymond
McIntosh, Miss Anne Whittingdale, John
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Maclean, Rt Hon David Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)
McLoughlin, Patrick Yeo, Tim
Madel, Sir David Young, Rt Hon Sir George
Major, Rt Hon John
Maples, John Tellers for the Ayes: Mr. Stephen Day and Mr. Peter Atkinson.
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Moore, Michael
NOES
Abbott, Ms Diane Best, Harold
Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N) Betts, Clive
Ainger, Nick Blackman, Liz
Allen, Graham Blears, Ms Hazel
Anderson, Donald (Swansea E) Blizzard, Bob
Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Ashton, Joe Borrow, David
Atherton, Ms Candy Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Atkins, Charlotte Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Banks, Tony Bradshaw, Ben
Barron, Kevin Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Battle, John
Bayley, Hugh Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Beard, Nigel Browne, Desmond
Begg, Miss Anne Burden, Richard
Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough) Butler, Mrs Christine
Benn, Hilary (Leeds C) Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield) Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Bennett, Andrew F Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V) Hanson, David
Campbell-Savours, Dale Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Caplin, Ivor Healey, John
Caton, Martin Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Cawsey, Ian Hill, Keith
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S) Hinchliffe, David
Chaytor, David Hodge, Ms Margaret
Clapham, Michael Hoey, Kate
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields) Hope, Phil
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands) Hopkins, Kelvin
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian) Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge) Howells, Dr Kim
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S) Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Clelland, David Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Coaker, Vernon Humble, Mrs Joan
Coffey, Ms Ann Hurst, Alan
Coleman, Iain Hutton, John
Colman, Tony Iddon, Dr Brian
Connarty, Michael Illsley, Eric
Cook, Frank (Stockton N) Ingram, Rt Hon Adam
Corbett, Robin Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Corston, Jean Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Cousins, Jim Jamieson, David
Cranston, Ross Jenkins, Brian
Crausby, David Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Cryer, John (Hornchurch) Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland) Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Darvill, Keith Keeble, Ms Sally
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W) Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Davidson, Ian Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli) Kelly, Ms Ruth
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C) Kemp, Fraser
Dawson, Hilton Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Dean, Mrs Janet Khabra, Piara S
Denham, John Kidney, David
Dobbin, Jim Kilfoyle, Peter
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Donohoe, Brian H Kumar, Dr Ashok
Doran, Frank Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Dowd, Jim Lawrence, Mrs Jackie
Drew, David Lepper, David
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth Leslie, Christopher
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey) Levitt, Tom
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston) Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Ellman, Mrs Louise Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Ennis, Jeff Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen
Etherington, Bill Linton, Martin
Field, Rt Hon Frank McAvoy, Thomas
Fitzpatrick, Jim McCabe, Steve
Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna McCafferty, Ms Chris
Flint, Caroline McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)
Flynn, Paul
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings) McDonagh, Siobhain
Foster, Michael J (Worcester) McDonnell, John
Foulkes, George McIsaac, Shona
Galloway, George McNulty, Tony
Gardiner, Barry MacShane, Denis
Gerrard, Neil McWalter, Tony
Gibson, Dr Ian Mallaber, Judy
Godman, Dr Norman A Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Goggins, Paul Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Gordon, Mrs Eileen Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S) Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend) Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Grocott, Bruce Maxton, John
Grogan, John Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Gunnell, John Meale, Alan
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale) Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Hall, Patrick (Bedford) Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Miller, Andrew
Mitchell, Austin Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Moonie, Dr Lewis Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Moran, Ms Margaret Snape, Peter
Morley, Elliot Soley, Clive
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley) Squire, Ms Rachel
Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Mountford, Kali Steinberg, Gerry
Mudie, George Stoate, Dr Howard
Mullin, Chris Stringer, Graham
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood) Stuart, Ms Gisela
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen) Sutcliffe, Gerry
Naysmith, Dr Doug Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
O'Hara, Eddie Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Olner, Bill Taylor, David (NW Leics)
>Organ, Mrs Diana Temple-Morris, Peter
Palmer, Dr Nick Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Pearson, Ian Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Pickthall, Colin Timms, Stephen
Pike, Peter L Tipping, Paddy
Plaskitt, James Todd, Mark
Pollard, Kerry Touhig, Don
Pond, Chris Trickett, Jon
Pope, Greg Truswell, Paul
Pound, Stephen Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E) Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle) Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)
Primarolo, Dawn Turner, Neil (Wigan)
Prosser, Gwyn Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Purchase, Ken Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)
Quinn, Lawrie Tynan, Bill
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N) Vis, Dr Rudi
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff Walley, Ms Joan
Rooney, Terry Ward, Ms Claire
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W) Wareing, Robert N
Rowlands, Ted Watts, David
Roy, Frank White, Brian
Ruddock, Joan Whitehead, Dr Alan
Ryan, Ms Joan Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)
Salter, Martin
Sarwar, Mohammad Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)
Savidge, Malcolm Wills, Michael
Sawford, Phil Winnick, David
Sedgemore, Brian Wood, Mike
Shaw, Jonathan Woodward, Shaun
Sheerman, Barry Wray, James
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)
Shipley, Ms Debra Wyatt, Derek
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Skinner, Dennis Tellers for the Noes: Mrs. Anne McGuire and Mr. Robert Ainsworth.
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Question accordingly negatived.

Forward to