HL Deb 12 February 1979 vol 398 cc976-87

2.54 p.m.

Lord SANDFORD

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. Before speaking to the Bill, I should perhaps mention that the speakers list for this Bill seems to have gone awry. After discussion with the Lord Chairman, the usual channels and the participants in this debate, I think that the following sequence would be more convenient: after myself, the noble Lord, Lord Sandys; the noble Viscount, Lord Amory; the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, the Lord Chairman and then, to wind up, myself.

I have been asked to move the Second Reading of this Bill by the promoters, the Devon County Council. I have agreed very willingly to do so because I consider—and I think that your Lordships will agree—that it is of more than local significance. It is a model of the kind of scheme recommended by the Royal Commission for Commons in 1958. Furthermore, I think the Committee might benefit from some broad expressions of opinion from the House as a whole as the background to their work on the details of the Bill.

I turn now to the broad purpose of the Bill. It sets out to safeguard and enhance the beauty which lies at the heart of the Dartmoor National Park. Furthermore, it improves, or seeks to improve, the health of the largest single piece of stock-rearing land in the South of England. In addition to those two purposes, it sets out to help the 8 million or more people who visit Dartmoor every year to enjoy it without damaging what they set out to visit. This is, as I would put it, the finest large piece of land open to the public in the whole of the South of England. Thus it is a Private Bill of national significance, doubly significant and especially welcome because it is the first attempt to reconcile the conservation of the beauties of the countryside with productive livestock husbandry and massive public access. It does this in a single legal framework for the management of a single large tract of common land. I very much hope this will be a successful attempt and that it will be the forerunner of other similar Bills to deal with similar problems.

When I had the honour to chair a review of the national park some five or six years ago, we saw the need for this kind of thing to be done and caught a vision of how it might be done. The Second Reading of this Bill, the Dartmoor Commons Bill, is the first public occasion I have had to welcome our vision into reality; and I do it with great pleasure. I welcome the Bill in its own right, but also I welcome it and commend it to your Lordships because I think it can become a model for many others to follow. It is a model of what goodwill, patience and painstaking care and consultation can achieve. It is a model of how landscape conservation, agricultural production and public access to recreation can all three be reconciled and accommodated together on the same tract of land. It is also a model of the far greater benefits of a patient approach to multipurpose management as against control, compulsion and conflict.

The Bill concerns the 100,000 acres that form the heartland of Dartmoor, which is itself the heartland of Devon. There are involved in it some 50 owners of land in these commons. Half the area is owned by the Duchy of Cornwall and another quarter or a fifth is owned by various public bodies such as the Regional Water Authorities and the Forestry Commission, and the rest is held in smaller private lots. There are a thousand commoners. They occupy land and buildings on the commons; they have rights in grazing cattle on the commons. Both owners and commoners have access to the commons, and so in practice—because fences are not allowed on commons—do the public. As I say, 8 million visitors a year avail themselves of de facto access at present.

All this common land is at present virtually unmanaged: certainly it is not managed in any comprehensive way at all. The surprising thing is that matters have not got much worse much sooner, and it says a great deal for British tolerance and moderation that this should be so. That, of course, is the case because most commoners, most landowners and most visitors are reasonable and responsible people. But some few of each of those are not. Some areas are overstocked. Some areas are scarred by too many walkers, too many riders, too many cars and too many campers. The husbandry of the land is not all that it should be, and the behaviour of some of the public is thoughtless and selfish. They leave litter, they disturb the animals and they cut up and take away the turf.

Anyway, five years ago, in 1974, the commoners recognised that the time had come on Dartmoor, as elsewhere, to import a fresh, more comprehensive and firmer agreed scheme of management for their commons to match the needs and the heavy pressures of the day. They approached and asked the National Park Authority to help them to provide this scheme of management; not, of course, just for the sake of restraint, but so that the moor can be more productive, carry more and healthier livestock, and so that people can get more pleasure from visiting, riding and walking on it.

I turn briefly to the structure of the Bill. The Bill provides this framework of management that I have been describing by building on the traditional patterns of the past for managing common land. Clause 3 establishes a council for the commoners. Clauses 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 confer duties and powers on that council to manage the commons for rearing livestock. in ways consistent with conserving the beauty of the commons, and also with allowing the public to enjoy it; and reeves—a nice traditional term—are appointed for that purpose. Clauses 9 to 14 give the public statutory formal access to the commons, and confer duties and powers on the Dartmoor National Park Authority to regulate that access, consistent with conserving the beauty of the commons and with the needs of grazing; and wardens are empowered to see to that. I look forward to hearing the views of other noble Lords who are due to speak, and in winding-up the debate I shall say a little about the state of agreement with and disagreement to the Bill. My Lords, I beg to move.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Sandford.)

3.2 p.m.

Lord SANDYS

My Lords, we are indeed fortunate in having my noble friend Lord Sandford, who is the former chairman of the review body on national parks, to introduce this Bill with such an economy of words and with such a totally lucid form of expression. My remarks will be relatively brief and addressed generally to the substance of the Bill. I read the Bill with interest. As my noble friend said, it is the first of what he hopes will be a series, and we have therefore looked at it with great interest. As a forerunner, it contains certain unusual features and my noble friend, in referring to the whole of the 100,000 acres contained within Dartmoor, stressed that it is an area of land which is not managed. This is an expression which is unusual, in the sense that it is certainly owned by groups or individuals, and falls within the care of certain bodies, as well as within the care of the county council at the present moment. But I entirely agree with my noble friend that, as it were, the area is not under a specific management agreement at the moment, and this is what the Dartmoor Commons Bill aims to set out. It is a management and access agreement on a very grand scale. It is a major piece of legislation in this field and it is to be welcomed, because the popularity of Dartmoor is such that it is one of the leading parks of this country and it attracts many millions of visitors.

I should like to refer specifically to a number of points in the Bill. My noble friend referred to the title of "reeve", which struck me at once as unusual, because it does not occur in the interpretation clause and it appears in Clause 6. Because I was a little uncertain, I had to go to the encyclopaedias to find out exactly what is a reeve, and I found that a reeve is: An English official who in earlier times was entrusted with the administration of a division of the country. He was the chief magistrate of a town or council, and is the ancestor of a sheriff or a shire reeve". I think that I understand a little more of what the reeves are supposed to do in regard to enforcement. I am not clear whether they have magisterial powers—I imagine not—and they appear to fall very much within the same category as the verderers of the New Forest. Perhaps in his reply, my noble friend will be able suitably to comment.

The question of overstocking was raised. One of the principal points of the Bill relates to the commoners' rights in association with this matter. There are very specific numbers of animals mentioned. The commoners are entitled, indeed are obliged, to graze a minimum of 50 sheep, 10 cattle and 10 horses. I understand that the by-law-making powers of the county council, which are contained in Clause 10, are quite extensive, but Clause 11, in extending the powers of the national park wardens, appears to cut across the powers given to the reeves in Clause 6. I conclude my remarks by repeating how fortunate your Lordships have been to have such very expert advice on this whole subject, and I am sure that Devon County Council were particularly fortunate in getting the agreement of my noble friend Lord Sandford to introduce this Bill.

3.7p.m.

Viscount AMORY

My Lords, this is a sensible Bill which should be supported, as my noble friend Lord Sandford has recommended. Lord Sandford has a name which is honourably linked with our national parks. He knows a great deal about them and has performed great services to them. As a Devonian, I can assure your Lordships that, over many years, the Devon County Council has taken a very close interest in the welfare of Dartmoor, and has also taken a great deal of trouble with it. In the summer months, the public visit Dartmoor in enormous numbers and, quite clearly, derive great pleasure from doing so. I suppose that there will always be some minorities who are dissatisfied with decisions of the kind that have to be made by national parks; one cannot hope to satisfy everybody. But I am sure that the present vigorous Dartmoor Park Committee is running it on the right lines, and with quite exceptional energy and general approval. For instance, I understand that the great majority of the commoners are in favour of the proposals in this Bill.

There is one petition with which, I confess, I have some sympathy and that is the petition from the British Horse Society. I am sure that the promoters of the Bill are right that horsemen—or I suppose one should say horse persons, though it does not sound right; "riders" is perhaps a better term—cannot be regarded in precisely the same way as pedestrians. Horses, particularly in considerable numbers and collectively, such as in riding clubs and so on, can do temporary damage to the grass and the turf and can leave tracks and scars behind them. This makes it reasonable that there should be some restrictions which are not necessary in the case of pedestrians. On the other hand, Dartmoor is a delightful place for exercise on horseback. I have ridden over it with extreme pleasure, marred only on one occasion when I was temporarily engulfed in an unsuspected bog, of which I believe there are one or two on Dartmoor—a hazard which, of course, adds a spice of additional exhilaration to the operation.

I am sure that the promoters do not want unnecessarily to discourage access by riders. On the contrary, I think that they would wish to encourage such access. Reading through the Bill as it is now drafted, however, the absence of any welcome for riders seems to be a little discouraging. The British Horse Society feel that the Bill gives to the council the right, in an extreme case, to refuse access to the whole moor to riders, as and when they like. They could close the whole moor to riders without riders being able to object.

I understand that the provisions which the British Horse Society feel are not quite right are Clauses 9 and 12. For instance, they regard Clause 12 as giving a right to rescind the provision of an alternative route—which might close the moor altogether, as I have mentioned. I very much hope that in Committee there will be the introduction of some words which will make it plain that riders as such are welcome, subject only to restraints which are clearly needed to safeguard the moor against avoidable damage. I am sure that such an assurance can be provided by an appropriate Amendment. This would be very welcome both to the British Horse Society and also to many other riders, and it would be entirely in accord with the aims and the spirit of this well administered national park.

3.12 p.m.

Lord GISBOROUGH

My Lords, as a Northerner I rise with some trepidation to speak on the deep South. This is an important Bill for everybody in the country who is involved with national parks, because it is a blueprint for the future. It could well be used for the country as a whole so far as access to commons and so on is concerned.

May I make a few comments on one or two of the clauses. Clause 4 deals with tree planting. The Council may plant an area not exceeding one acre with trees. There is an altogether wrong national outlook on the planting of trees. The history of the northern moors—and for all I know this probably applies to Dartmoor—is that they were covered with forest. The trees were cut down so that people could farm on the hills, where they could not be got at by the Danes marauding from the sea, and also avoid the bog in the valleys. Gradually they cut down all the trees so that they could farm, and the result was that the whole area went to waste and became covered with peat and bog.

Had there been environmentalists in those days there would have been an outcry against the cutting down of those forests. Now that there are no forests and it is all bog, there would be an outcry if there were to be any planting of trees. If there is a forest and it is proposed to cut it down there is an outcry, and when one wants to plant trees there is an outcry. There should not necessarily be any limit on the planting of trees in the country. One does not want to see vast Forestry Commission types of forest, planted with one single variety. However, as with towns and their architecture, the countryside must have progress. To say that because an area looks like one thing at the moment it must stay like that for ever is, to my mind, totally wrong.

Turning to the question of access, it is probably right to say that the majority of people who use the countryside are careful. They read the country code and they take the greatest care. Nevertheless, there is a fairly high proportion of people who do not read the country code, who do not worry very much and who are careless. That is most unfortunate. But there is a small percentage of people—it may be 1 per cent., or 0.1 per cent. or 0.01 per cent.—who are actively destructive. This is the element which goes out either to shoot deer, or to poach, or to steal sheep. Hill sheep are now worth £20 to £30, and a cross-bred ewe is worth about £60. So sheep stealing is becoming more and more prevalent. It can drive, and it has driven, farmers out of business.

There is also the question of loose dogs. Again, most people are careful, but many people are not; and a very small percentage of people are trying to kill sheep. With free access, it is very difficult to catch these malevolent people. Such people exist, and it is no good denying it. If there is to be public access, it means that the public are able to go everywhere, and good luck to them. I am all for it. But where damage results from public access, then the public have to be prepared to pay compensation. Without compensation, it is going to be extremely difficult to control in particular malicious people. One must not think that such people do not exist.

Turning now to the question of notices, under Clause 9 the county council can put up notices to ban access for a period in certain areas where, for some reason or another, the public are not to go. It may be that they are not allowed to use certain areas for a period because of lambing. But there must also be a requirement that the council should put up notices at the end of an access area. Although it does not apply to this Bill, in the case of footpaths there is a tendency for councils to put up a footpath sign showing the public the way off the road, but once the public are off the road the council does not really mind where they go, or whether they stick to public footpaths or go on to private footpaths. In the case of large access areas, it is only right that at their end the council should be required to put up a notice showing the public that they have come to the end.

I support what was said by the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, regarding horses; therefore I will not go into that question. However, may I comment on Clause 14. This clause does not, I think, include motor cycles. In our part of the world—and I imagine that if the problem has not reached Dartmoor it soon will—we have a motor cycle problem. Many people are very keen on motor cycle scrambling. Very often they join motor cycling clubs, and they ought to be found places where they can carry on their sport.

But there is also a large number of "cowboys" who have no intention of joining motor cycle clubs. They go anywhere. In fact, they killed a horse near to my home by driving it over a ravine. They have also knocked many people off their horses while they have been riding. There is no reason why "cowboys" should put at danger people who are enjoying their own chosen sport. Very often these "cowboys" do not license their motor cycles, or carry number plates, and they are extremely difficult to stop. I think that an area should be found for motor cyclists where they can practise their sport and that elsewhere they should be banned, because they are downright dangerous in places where they are not expected.

Next there is the question of warden arrest, and also the question of other people helping wardens to arrest people who are disobeying the laws of the common—that is to say, the real "baddies". Miscreants who intend to steal sheep tend not to try when wardens are watching. If they are seen at all, it is more likely that they will be seen by one of the commoners, or by other people. Any powers of arrest which are given to a warden should also be given to commoners. We are speaking about a vast area. The reeves are highly unlikely to be able adequately to cover the whole area, even when there is just a small number of "baddies" about.

The Bill is an interesting experiment and I hope it succeeds. I am glad that this access area is being carried on in an experimental area like Dartmoor rather than over the whole country. I think it will produce a number of lessons which will be of great use when the Bill is extended elsewhere. It is important to foresee the problems now so that the experiment can be successful and it can be emulated elsewhere in the country.

3.20 p.m.

The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Aberdare)

My Lords, in view of what has been said, I doubt whether there is anything that I can add to this debate. I was not going to enter into the merits of the Bill and no one has suggested anything as extreme as not giving it a Second Reading. Therefore I think that any comments I might make would be superfluous. All I should like to say is that if your Lordships do give it a Second Reading, which will be the normal thing, it will then go to a Select Committee and surely that is the best forum in which the kinds of remarks and suggestions which have been made in this debate can be thrashed out. The promoters can put their case, the petitioners can put their case and they can be heard before the Select Committee. In this particular instance, there are no fewer than 14 petitions against the Bill, so that the views of those who have grievances towards the provisions of the Bill will certainly be heard. I will also ensure that the Members of the Select Committee will receive a copy of today's debate so that your Lordships' remarks are fully considered.

3.22 p.m.

Lord SANDFORD

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords who have taken part in this debate and to the noble Lord the Lord Chairman for his explanation of what happens next. I hope the Select Committee will find this short debate useful. In answer to my noble friend about the reeve, for the last 879 years the reeve has been annually elected by the Manor Courts to enforce the decision of the court. The only change which we are making is that from this year onward, if the Bill is enacted, the reeve will be appointed by the Commoner's Council that is created by the Bill.

I am sure that the Select Committee will consider carefully and weigh up the need for the Bill, the aim of the Bill and the way the promoters have chosen to achieve that aim. I am sure they will also attend carefully to those 16 bodies and persons who, after this very thorough, patient and painstaking five-year process of discussion and consultation still have misconceptions, suspicions, fears and objections about the Bill. I am certain that all these, and not least those about the horse riders, will be fully considered, the misconceptions (if there are such) corrected, suspicions allayed and fears laid to rest and, if necessary, some objections may be met by amendments.

To put the matter in perspective, I can assure your Lordships that, although there are 16 petitioners on the one hand, this Private Bill has the support of the National Farmers Union, the Country Land-owners Association, the Association of County Councils, the Countryside Commission and the Council for the Protection of Rural England. Of the commoners who object there are 70 out of 1,000; of the parishes that object there are two out of 41. In these matters, I think it is right to be thoroughly painstaking in our consultations, but there comes a moment when a decision has to be taken to present a Bill to Parliament, and I think that moment has arrived. I hope that at the end of the day the Committee will recognise as paramount the great good to be gained by our people as a whole when private rights over land, the need for farm husbandry and the public right of access for recreation enjoyment can be positively reconciled in the countryside. I believe that they have been so reconciled under the agreed scheme that has been incorporated in this Bill, and for that reason I would commend the Bill warmly to your Lordships both in its own right and as a model for the future, which can be followed in other cases where the management of large tracts of common has to be undertaken.

On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Select Committee.