LIVESTOCK REARING BILL (Hansard, 6 March 1951)

§ THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARI OF LISTOWEL)
I am sure that we all share the noble Lord's desire that people should be able to wander as freely as possible over our hills and moorlands, and that, so far as possible, the rights which they enjoy under the National Parks Act should be maintained. But we must consider the interests of food production. That is why the public do not have free access to agricultural land. I am afraid that we cannot accept this Amendment, because we feel that if it were included in the Bill the effect would be harmful to agriculture. I believe that we have the support of noble Lords opposite for the line which we feel obliged to take in regard to this Amendment. If it were accepted it would mean that a sheep or cattle farmer who had improved his land under the scheme, possibly making rough grazing into good pasture, would find that his land would still be accessible to hikers and visitors from the neighbouring towns. That would be most undesirable. It would put the farmer who has improved his land under the scheme, and who received a grant from public funds, in quite a different position from the farmer who had improved his land out of his own pocket. Moreover, there would be a grave risk that these visitors, if they were allowed to walk freely about the farm, would do damage to newly-seeded land; and even more serious would the result be if farmers were deterred from promoting improvement schemes because they knew that hikers would be allowed to wander about on their land. This would possibly prejudice the production of the amount of meat which we hope 833 to secure under the Bill. I hope that the noble Lord will see the force of the objections to his proposal, and that in the light of what I have said, in which I have the support of the noble Lords opposite, who are equally anxious to safeguard the interests of fanning, he will be willing to withdraw the Amendment.

LORD MERTHYR
I must say that the noble Earl has not reduced my apprehension in this matter. Certainly I will not press the Amendment to a Division, but I am still glad that I put it down, because it has elicited from the Government something of the true position, which can low be studied. What I am worried about now is this. Supposing that pasture on a mountain or fell is improved by the production of better grass, by whatever means, does that mean that under the Bill that land, which would have been access land under the National Parks Act, will automatically not be access land? If I am right in this assumption it will be a very important change indeed, and one which may affect large areas. To my mind that point is worthy of close study. I would make only one further point. I think I should be right in suggesting that when the National Parks Act was before your Lordships' House the underlying principle of access land was that there should be access to unenclosed land—in fact, I am not sure that it was not suggested that a re-definition of the words should be made. Surely, the whole point was that people should be allowed to have access to unenclosed land. Under this present Bill it seems to me that a great deal of unenclosed land can be, and I hope will be, improved. Does that mean that thousands of acres of this land will cease to be access land, merely because the grass has improved? I do not want to make the point again, but I believe that it is important and will need to be closely studied by all those who take an interest in the matter. I ask your Lordships' leave to withdraw my Amendment.

§ LORD HARLECH
Before the Amendment is withdrawn, I should like to ask whether the Government have consulted the National Park Commissioners on this point. I agree that we do not want this access to be granted outside the National Park areas, but in the limited National Parks there seems to be a strong case for the National Parks idea being allowed 834 to have at any rate reasonable predominance.

§ THE EARL OF LISTOWEL
I can assure the noble Lord that my right honourable friend the Minister of Local Government and Planning has been consulted on this matter.

LORD MERTHYR
With regard to what the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, has said. I should like to remind him that Part V of the National Parks Act does not apply only to National Parks, but to the whole country. Therefore, the point I am making applies to the whole country. I agree that it is all the more important in National Parks. I notice that the noble Earl, in his reply a moment ago, did not state that the National Parks Commission had been consulted, from which I gather that they have not been.