PUBLICATION OF DRAFT MAPS

HC Deb 13 June 2000 vol 351 cc840-8

Mr. Bennett

I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 3, line 37, at beginning insert— ;by the end of the period of 32 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed,'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 3, in page 3, line 38, leave out "the prescribed period" and insert— 'a period of six months beginning with the day on which the map is issued in draft form'. Amendment No. 4, in page 4, line 3, at end insert— '(2) Whether the map is confirmed with or without modifications, the map in provisional form shall be issued by the appropriate countryside body no later than six months after the expiry of the period during which representations may be received in respect of the map in draft form under subsection (1)(b)'. Amendment No. 61, in clause 6, page 4, line 8, at end insert— '(1A) Any person may appeal—

1. (a) in the case of land in England, to the Secretary of State; or
2. (b) in the case of land in Wales, to the National Assembly for Wales;

against the failure to show that land on a map in provisional form as registered common land or as open country.'. Amendment No. 82, in page 4, line 13, leave out from "brought' to end of line 15 and insert— 'on the ground or grounds that—

• ( ) the land does not consist of mountain, moor, heath or down, or
• ( ) the inclusion of the land would serve no useful purpose, or'.

Amendment No. 62, in page 4, line 19, at end insert— '(3A) An appeal relating to the failure to show any land as registered common land may be brought only on the ground that it is registered common land.'. Amendment No. 63, in page 4, line 19, at end insert— '(3B) An appeal relating to the failure to show any land as open country may be brought only on the ground that—

1. (a) the land does consist wholly or predominantly of mountain, moor, heath or down, and
2. (b) to the extent that the appropriate countryside body have exercised their discretion under section 4(5)(b) to treat land which is open country as forming part of an area which is not open country, the body ought not to have done so.'.

Government amendment No. 29.

Amendment No. 64, in clause 7, page 4, line 29, leave out from "hearing" to end of line 31.

Government amendment No. 139.

Amendment No. 30, in clause 10, page 6, line 26, leave out "ten" and insert "five".

Amendment No. 58, in clause 11, page 7, line 1, leave out— 'the period within which and'.

Mr. Bennett

This group of amendments deals with the matter of when it will all happen—which is the crucial issue for the Ramblers Association, the British Mountaineering Council and many other people. When the House was passing the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, great promises were made that all rights of way would be included on definitive maps within about five years of the legislation's passage, but 30 years later, that process had still not been completed. It was also promised that there would be many voluntary access agreements, but it took more than 10 years before any such agreements were established in the Peak district. Many national parks have never made any such agreements.

We are therefore greatly concerned at the fact that, at the beginning of the chapter on the right of access, absolutely no time limit has been provided. Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4 seek to include a time-limit mechanism in the Bill.

In Committee and in meetings, Ministers have said, "Don't worry, the Countryside Agency has the matter in hand. It is a dynamic organisation, and it will push through mapping with vigour." Although I am not totally convinced that the agency is a dynamic organisation, I shall not say more about that now, as the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee is about to take evidence from its representatives—who may be able to convince us that it is a dynamic organisation.

The Minister will undoubtedly tell us in his reply that the agency really is a dynamic organisation; that we have nothing to fear; and that access maps will be drawn up and issued very quickly. I therefore ask him to tell us the timetable for issuing the maps, and what powers he has to push the process along. I understand that he claims that he can give the Countryside Agency a direction to get on with the work. I am a bit sceptical about that, as I believe that the Ramblers Association has a legal opinion which says that the Bill does not give him that type of power.

The first three amendments in this group are simply asking the Government for a timetable; how that timetable will be enforced; and how soon I shall be able to tell my constituents and Ramblers Association members not simply that there is an Act of Parliament but that it provides them with the ability to go to those places for which maps have been published so that they can enjoy their right of access.

Our amendments Nos. 61, 82, 62, 63, 64 and 58 really deal with a matter of natural justice. The process should entail the Countryside Agency consulting on the question of which areas should be access land and then drawing up maps. People who object because their land is on the map have a right of appeal. I find it absolutely crazy that the public should not have the right of appeal when a piece of land to which they had been looking forward to gaining access is not included.

I plead with the Government to look sympathetically at the amendments. A balance can be struck—between a right of appeal for a landowner who does not want his land to be included on the map and a right of appeal for individuals or groups who may have campaigned for many years for access to a particular piece of land only to find that it has not been included.

Mr. Paice

I shall speak to amendment No. 82, which stands in my name and those of my hon. Friends and which goes back to issues that we discussed in Committee. The Government undertook to consider the points that were made in a debate about the straightforward issue of the classification of land as mountain, moor, heath or down. In some ways, the debate could replicate the one we had a while ago about the definition of "predominantly". In this case, however, someone has to judge whether land is predominantly mountain, moor, heath or down and whether there should be the opportunity to appeal against such designation.

The amendment seeks to provide the opportunity for appeal against a designation on the grounds first, that the land does not consist of mountain, moor, heath or down and, secondly, that its inclusion would serve no useful purpose.

I was interested to see that the document from the Countryside Agency, already referred to this afternoon, states quite clearly that identifying the different types of open country is not a precise science and somebody has to take a view. To be fair, it then suggests that the Countryside Agency should take that view—and of course at first it will do so. My contention is that there should be some opportunity for appeal if a landowner feels that his or her land has been improperly categorised as mountain, moor, heath or down.

The second part of the amendment deals with circumstances in which it would serve no useful purpose for land to be designated as open land and included in the mapping. I can think of a number of examples, one of which is when a fairly small piece of land is involved. I shall not refer to any precise areas, but it could be a small piece of land surrounded by non-access land. It might be argued that little would be achieved by mapping such land as open country.

Another example returns to the point that we were discussing earlier—in connection with land which is likely to be eligible for designation as open country only temporarily. We discussed earlier the issue of set-aside land. Another category is land that is shortly to be afforested. There is quite a lot of land on which the owners—the Forestry Commission or others—are planning to plant and have all the necessary permission, but which at the time of mapping may not have been planted. It would serve no useful purpose for such land to be designated only to be planted with trees at a later date and thereby officially excluded.

I hope that the Minister will look favourably on the amendment. I am interested to see that it is quite close to amendment No.63, to which the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) has just spoken. The hon. Gentleman is also suggesting appeals on the grounds that land does not consist wholly or predominantly of mountain, moor, heath or down, so there is obviously a degree of cross-party interest. I hope that the Minister will look favourably on that amendment too.

Mr. David Heath

I wish to speak to the two amendments that stand in my name. Amendment No. 29 started off in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) and has since acquired the imprimatur of the Deputy Prime Minister, no less. No clearer illustration exists of the right hon. Gentleman's wish to encompass the big tent and co-operate with other parties. Of course, the amendment had cross-party support in Committee. I think that it was the hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas) who first asked why these matters should be dealt with in secret. I am glad that the Minister agreed that what was involved was simply the knee-jerk reaction of civil servants, which is that all hearings should be secret. I am pleased that we are moving away from that climate of secrecy.

Amendment No. 30 deals with an issue that we covered in Committee, so I shall not dwell on it at length. It concerns the timing of the first review. It is very important that the mapping procedure be right. First time round there will inevitably be anomalies, challenges and things that are not quite right, but it would be quite wrong for that position to be maintained for 10 years. It would be far better were there a shorter period preceding the first review. Then we could go on to the 10-year cycle, which is perfectly reasonable, with no lack of clarity or indecision besetting landowners or those who want access to land.

When we discussed the issue in Committee, the view was that there was a benefit to stability and that in any case there was nothing to stop the first review being carried out within the 10-year period. My view is that it would be an advantage to specify that the first review should be within five years.

Let me briefly touch on the amendments moved by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). There is a need for the Government to make it absolutely clear that a strict timetable is necessary for the work to get under way. Whether that is on the face of the Bill or whether it is in clear guidance from Ministers to countryside bodies is immaterial; it is important that there are signposts throughout the process so that we are absolutely sure that, once the Bill becomes law, there is no inordinate delay in clarifying the situation. That is in everybody's interest.

My only concern, which I expressed in Committee, is whether there are sufficient resources to do the job effectively. Many parts of the country have experienced long delays in implementing the rights of way legislation. Very often that is due to a lack of resources. In this instance, we are dealing with national bodies rather than local government, but the same constraints apply. I hope that the Minister will make it clear this evening that there is a clear timetable for implementation and that there are sufficient resources to do the job effectively.

Mr. Levitt

I support amendment No. 2 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). I should like to start with a declaration of non-interest, in that my constituency contains more than half the open access land in the Peak district, which contains more than half the open access land in England. In that sense, one might think that there were not many opportunities to extend open access in that area, but that is not the case. A considerable number of areas are identical in topography and geography to those which have open access and I hope that open access will be extended to those areas.

It is important that landowners in my constituency and elsewhere know very well that the responsible right to roam is coming. They need to know what time scale to work to. It is only light that a campaign that has continued for nigh on 70 years should have some idea, now the goalposts are in sight, of how many yards are left to go. If we accept the amendment we shall miss the opportunity of having everything in place by the 70th anniversary of the 1932 Kinder trespass, which took place in my constituency, but if my hon. Friend the Minister can give a categorical assurance that, by the time of the 75th anniversary, all the Bill's aims will have been achieved, I shall be very happy to hear it.

7 pm

Mr. Hogg

I want to make some observations on amendments Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 61. I am in favour of the Bill containing a prescribed timetable. The arguments for insisting that a timetable be set out and met are real. I hope that the Minister will agree.

It is a good thing to do away with the concept of a time scale that depends on regulation, and hence on Ministers. I hope that amendment No. 3, which sets out the time period of six months, is accepted.

However, I oppose amendment No. 61. It is not right for the House to give a wider right of appeal to the country at large, for the very good reason that to do so would be to expose farmers and landowners to much greater expense than the circumstances warrant.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Chris Muffin)

Amendments Nos. 2, 3 4 and 58 would impose a timetable on the countryside bodies in undertaking their duties to draw up maps of open countryside and registered common land under chapter I of the Bill. In contemplating these amendments, I had some sympathy with the motives of my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) I usually do, on a wide range of issues. He and I—and, I am sure, most hon. Members—want the countryside bodies to make good progress in drawing up maps of open countryside.

I assure my hon. Friend that the Countryside Agency will be dynamic. When it gives evidence to the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs, of which my hon. Friend is Chairman, I hope that it will succeed in convincing him that it is dynamic.

Several hon. Members asked about a timetable. The Bill allows for a fast track for access to common land and to land above 600 m. We anticipate that that could come into effect within about two years—well in time for the 75th anniversary of the Kinder trespass mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt). That fast-track access will apply to an estimated 2,000 square miles, which is no small matter.

However, we recognise that, in the main, the introduction of the right of access must await the publication of conclusive maps by the countryside bodies. I know that the Countryside Agency is ready to embark on this challenge, and that it will make good progress to the best of its ability. I am sure that the National Assembly for Wales and the Countryside Council for Wales will want to make equally rapid progress, but I do not think it right to impose an arbitrary timetable on the countryside bodies' responsible for drawing up maps when some uncertainties remain about the weight of the task ahead of them.

Amendment No. 3 would cause the period for consultation on draft maps of open country and registered common land to be fixed in legislation at six months. The Bill as it stands provides for regulations under clause 11(2)(f) to determine how long the period for representations on draft maps should be.

I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish is concerned to ensure that progress in mapping open country is not delayed by unnecessarily lengthy consultation. However, we also want to ensure that there is a full process of consultation between all parties, and that there is flexibility in the regulations that allows us to specify the precise term of consultation.

Mr. Hogg

Is the Minister able to tell the House the time frame that he is contemplating in the regulations?

Mr. Mullin

I am told that the regulations should be available within a couple of months of the Bill's receiving Royal Assent.

Mr. Bennett

What are they going to say?

Mr. Mullin

The right hon. and learned Gentleman asks about the time frame in the regulations. I said a moment ago that there will be a flexibility in the regulations that will allow us to specify the length of the time frame. That is the point of flexibility.

Mr. Hogg

Will you tell the House what the time frame—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The Minister is still on his feet. The right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot conduct himself like that. It just cannot be done.

Mr. Mullin

The answer is that I cannot provide that information. The regulations will provide for flexibility. We do not think that prescribing a period of six months will meet all the eventualities that are likely to arise.

Mr. Bennett

I can accept that my hon. Friend the Minister wants flexibility, but are we talking about a period of between six and 12 months? He must have some idea. I know that the temptation for the people who draft legislation is to leave what they have not sorted out to regulations. However, can my hon. Friend share with the House the time span that he is considering putting into the regulations?

Mr. Mullin

I cannot share that information with the House at this precise moment, but that is not to say that I believe that the period for receiving representations will need to last as long as six months. We will, however, need to consider that matter carefully with the countryside bodies and others as part of the detailed process of preparing for the maps. That consideration has not yet taken place so I cannot tell my hon. Friend off the top my head exactly what we have in mind.

I should add that the Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales already have powers to direct the countryside bodies, under section 3(1) of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, that would allow them to require the Countryside Agency or the Countryside Council for Wales to take steps to prepare the maps if they thought that there some foot-dragging was going on. My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish said that the ramblers had a legal opinion suggesting that the Secretary of State does not have powers to direct, but the Government believe that he does.

I share the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish to secure the rapid implementation of the right of access, and I give him my assurance that we shall work closely with the Countryside Agency to ensure that that happens. However, I cannot accept that the amendments that he tabled would assist us in reaching our mutual objective, and I must ask him therefore to withdraw them.

Amendment No. 82 would alter the grounds of appeal to remove the reference to the land being predominantly mountain, moor, heath or down, and to add a ground that the inclusion of the land would serve no useful purpose. We have already debated the reason for the inclusion of the word "predominantly", and the grounds of appeal reflect that.

I do not agree that there needs to be a ground that the inclusion of the land would serve no useful purpose, regardless of its size. The countryside bodies have been given discretion not to include land if it is too small to be of useful purpose. We recognise that there will be land that fits that category, but we think that it is best left to discretion.

Amendments Nos 61, 62 and 63 would provide a right of appeal to members of the public. We have provided a right of appeal for those with an interest in the land because, to be candid, that meets what we are obliged to do under the European convention on human rights. Opening up that right of appeal to the general public is not a requirement of the convention. Members of the general public cannot be said to be affected to the same degree as those with a direct financial or other interest in the land—a point made by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg).

A general right of appeal could also result in an unmanageable number of appeals. That would have the undesirable result of significantly delaying the length of time that it would take to produce conclusive maps, and therefore for the right to commence.

Given that other amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish were about getting rid of delays, it does not seem wise to introduce an amendment that is likely to extend delays, possibly by a significant amount. We believe that consultation is the best way to involve members of the public in the mapping process. I hope that my hon. Friend will withdraw the amendment.

Clause 10 provides for the countryside bodies to review the maps of open country and registered common land 10 years after the publication a the initial conclusive maps. Amendment No. 30, tabled by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), would require the review to take place just five years after the initial mapping exercise.

We are determined that the initial mapping of open country will be a thorough and open process. As I made clear in Committee, there will be substantial opportunities for the public and landowners to contribute towards the drawing up of the maps of open country. Landowners will have the right of appeal against the showing of land on provisional maps. I am not convinced that we should cause the countryside bodies to embark on a fresh review of the maps just five years after completing the initial exercise. The maps are intended to give rise to a period of stability and confidence for both users and landowners. Users should not be faced with the uncertainty that maps of open country will become out of date and subject to further review just a few years after their publication.

I must also stress that the period between reviews mentioned in clause 10 is a maximum, not a minimum, threshold. It is entirely possible that the countryside bodies would wish to embark on an early review if, for example, they discovered significant errors on a map, or were aware of a significant change of land use in a locality. That flexibility of response is best vested in the countryside bodies themselves.

In addition, it is open to the Secretary of State to vary the frequency between reviews by making regulations to that effect under clause 10(3). I hope that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome will be reassured on that point.

The hon. Gentleman suggested that he originally drafted the proposals in amendment No. 29, and that they were nationalised. [Interruption.] Yes, without compensation, but he will have the satisfaction of knowing that his words are taken seriously. The amendment removes the provision for appeals to be heard in private. I am happy to tell the House that we are content for the offending provision to be deleted from the Bill. Amendment No. 139 provides that when a document has been certified as a copy of a conclusive map by the appropriate countryside body, it may be accepted as evidence in court unless the contrary is proven. The amendment reflects the commitment given in Committee to my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) to consider a similar provision. We think that it could be of assistance in dealing with prosecution cases, such as those relating to the erection of misleading notices under clause 14, or obstruction of means of access under clause 37. It will put beyond doubt the status of maps submitted to court. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will agree that such a provision will be useful.

Mr. Bennett

I am a little disappointed in the Minister's response. I accept his rebuke that if we want to allow more appeals to take place, we should have tabled an amendment introducing a time limit so that the process is not delayed. That would have been one way of dealing with the issue. It would have been far better to have the appeals. However, if, as the Minister says, the process will be carried out through consultation, I hope that, in the guidance that he gives the Countryside Agency, he will make it clear that, in the case of a hotly contested area, the agency should err on the side of including it at that stage and allowing the landowner to appeal against its inclusion, rather than erring on the side of omission, which would mean that there would be no appeal procedure. I can see the temptation for the Countryside Agency to leave out an area because there will be no appeal, but I hope that the regulations will make it clear that if there is any doubt about an area it should be put in—after which time there can be an appeal against its inclusion—rather than being left out.

I am disappointed about the timing aspect. We should have had a clear steer from the Minister. He wants two years to complete the map of upland areas, which are easy to define. I should have thought he could have said that, in a further two years, the whole process could be completed. My hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt) made the point that the landowners want certainty. It is important in promoting tourism to be able to say to people, "The maps are there; in this area, you have so many acres or hectares or access land, so come to this very attractive part of the countryside." Part of the package must be to tell the landowners that there are benefits in having access land in their area. The sooner we get the maps, the sooner we can demonstrate to landowners that the provisions are in their interests as well as those of walkers, and people who want access.

Having expressed my disappointment at the fact that my proposal that there should be a clear timetable has not been accepted, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.