|Previous Section||Back to Table of Contents||Lords Hansard Home Page|
"I emphasised that it was for personal use only and that the contents were not to be disclosed to anyone else. The organisations concerned were the Country Landowners' Association, the Moorland Association, the National Farmers Union and the Ramblers' Association, all of which have been involved in extensive discussions with my department on this issue.
"I have discussed this matter with the Deputy Prime Minister and apologised to him. He made clear that he regarded this as unacceptable, and I share that view. He accepted my wish to make a full and unreserved apology to the House, and that I now do".
The noble Baroness, in her charming way that we all respect, has repeated to us one of the oldest stories in the world: "I told him a secret and then he talked". I hope the Government will not mind me offering a piece of advice which I believe is a dictum of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge, in one of his law cases which was that the trouble with gentlemen's agreements is that there are not enough gentlemen to go round.
The document which is at the centre of this little storm is called Access to the Open Countryside in England and Wales, a consultation paper. The problem is that it is not a consultation paper at all. I knew that even before I read it because as I was getting up this morning and listening to the "Today" programme, I heard the right honourable Member, Mr. Meacher, explain to me and much of the rest of the nation what it was all about. He said:
That is not consultation; it is an ultimatum. It is no more a consultation document than the recent agreement made between Kofi Annan and Tariq Aziz was a voluntary grant from Saddam Hussein to UNSCOM to have the right to roam over Iraq.
This is Hobson's choice. The document is effectively the briefing pack for the Second Reading speech that the noble Baroness will use if she introduces this legislation; that is, unless the Government's aspirations are achieved voluntarily in double quick time. The Government here are threatening landowners with legislation before proposals have either been placed before Parliament or considered by it. I always understood that it was Parliament that made the laws in this country, but perhaps I am out of date. I am just an old Tory and not a new Labour man.
In short, I believe this document represents poor governance. The Government should first have told Parliament of their legislative intentions. That is what this document sets out. It threatens citizens with legislation as if it and not Parliament made the laws. Given the substance and the content of this document, we believe that it should have been given to Parliament first and not just issued after an interview on the "Today" programme and, I assume, a press conference at the department.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, the breach is one that often occurs, apparently, and something should be done to stop that. I was a little perturbed at the inference that one of the four bodies leaked this to the press. From past experience I should think it is just as likely to be someone from within the government department than from these respectable bodies. I agree that what has happened is regrettable. I agree with most of what the noble Lord on the Conservative Benches has said. I have read an article in the Evening Standard, although I did not hear the programme this morning.
However, the proposal we are discussing seems quite sensible in that the Ramblers' Association and other interested bodies will be in a far better position if landowners enter into voluntary agreements. I do not know many bad landlords but I know that many good landowners already allow the public access to see the beauties of the countryside. I have found that where a bargain is drawn up as regards the shooting season for deer or grouse in Scotland, people keep to their promise to stay off the land and not spoil the income for the estates which is necessary to maintain those estates. That appears to me to be quite a sensible approach. I do not think that legislation is such a great threat; I believe that might be quite sensible. The noble Lord referred to the United Nations negotiations with the dreadful Hussein. I think that the Government have been a little incompetent but their intentions are good. However, I would not like to agree with the saying that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am grateful for the courtesy with which the Statement was received by both Front Benches. It comprises a full apology from the Minister. Sometimes it is right not only to make an apology but also graciously to accept it. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, for doing that. A judgment was made by Mr. Meacher. He has made it clear that that judgment was not correct and has apologised for it. The relevant document is now in the Libraries of both Houses. I have compiled a Written Answer on this matter in your Lordships' House this afternoon.
I should make it clear that, as I understand the Companion, I should give details and elucidation on the Statement in response to the PNQ rather than engage in a substantive debate on the issues contained in the consultation document. However, I shall comment on the status of the consultation because I believe the accusation has been made that it is not genuine because there is the possibility of legislation. I refute that accusation. We made it quite clear in our manifesto that our policies included greater freedom for people to explore our open countryside. We intend to keep to that commitment. In a sense that commitment is not open to consultation. What we are prepared openly to examine in all its forms is the means by which we achieve that aim. The document makes it quite clear that it would, to say the least, be quicker and more effective to achieve that aim by voluntary means rather than to adopt the legislative route. We are open-minded about the means
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, I first heard about this matter last night when I attended a meeting with the chairman of the ramblers who had a copy of the document. I have only just received it and therefore I have not read much of it. The thrust of it seems to be that if landowners allow public access to their moorland there will be no legislation. I must declare an interest in this area. However, I do not think landowners will allow open access to their moorland as no one wants to see his land ruined, and that is what I think will happen in many cases.
If the Government were prepared to consider increasing the number of footpaths, rather than increasing open access, on the basis that 90 per cent. of walkers use footpaths and few stray from them, they could expect and demand complete co-operation. Many moorland owners have already offered such a facility. If the Government were to demand, for example, a mile of footpath per 1,000 acres, they could expect full co-operation. However, if open access is allowed, vandals will take advantage of that, not just walkers. That would be terrible. I also hope the noble Baroness will note how many people demonstrate on Sundays not just against hunting but also for the right to roam and in favour of many other countryside activities.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I note the comments made by the noble Lord opposite. Given the nature of the Private Notice Question to which this Statement refers, I think it would be inappropriate if I responded in detail to all the points the noble Lord has made. We are discussing the nub of the consultation and the debate that is now taking place. I am sure there will be opportunities in your Lordships' House for us to discuss these matters.
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page