I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

I shall not speak for long because the Government have already spoken for me and for millions of our fellow citizens who wish to enjoy their countryside. The Government are now pledged to introduce a statutory right of area access to more than 4 million acres of some of the most beautiful countryside in England and Wales. There is no difference between my objective and the Government's policy objective. What is about to happen is long overdue.

The Government recognise that the voluntary approach has been tried for half a century and that it has not worked. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, speaking memorably in, admittedly, a different context, said:

"We have been there, we have done it, we have got the tee-shirt; it is time to move on."

That is the position with countryside access.

There is huge public and media interest in this issue because, I suppose, the voluntary approach was pitched against the statutory. In the media supplement of The Guardian of 13 March, shortly after the Government's announcement on 8 March, the supplement, known as "The Editor"—it measures the stories that are judged to be most important by Britain's main newspapers—put the right to roam right up there behind the banana trade war. The right to roam merited 350 column inches and was just behind bananas, with 359, although the Budget did have an edge.

However, the press got it completely wrong. I remember that, on the afternoon of 8 March, after my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment made his announcement in the Chamber, I was having a cup of tea with my good friend the chair of the parliamentary Labour party, my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley). He looked me straight in the eye and said, "Gordon, the Government were always going to go down the statutory route." He added, "Never believe what you read in the papers, especially The Guardian."

In new Labour, we never believe what is in The Guardian, but we all read it. No. 10 wants us to read the Daily Mail and The Daily Telegraph, and other newspapers further to the right, and I do. However, I do not believe what they say either.

The press got it wrong, the PLP got it wrong and I got it wrong. I laboured with my Bill, confident that I had the answer to the conundrum and did not realise, in my innocence, that there was a third way, which has been revealed to us, has it not? When I was working on my Bill, I thought that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister would be pleased with me, because it was and is classic new Labour. On the one hand, rights, on the other, responsibilities. That is just the sort of language that appeals to my right hon. Friend. We know that because he believes in consensual politics—big-tent inclusive politics.

As the House will know, I have offered my Bill to the Government, to take it and to amend it as they think fit. My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment has told me that, at present, the Government are not minded to use it as the vehicle for introducing the right to roam. Two reasons were advanced by him. One is that the Government want to introduce a measure that goes beyond my Bill and that will encompass other matters such as the protection of wildlife. Secondly, the Government are fearful of what would happen to my Bill, even if they embraced it, once it went into the other place. There are a lot of wreckers in the other place who might act out of self-interest and not in the wider public interest. They might seek to damage my Bill, and that would never do.

Before I go any further, I shall thank some people for the help and support that they have given to me with my Bill. First and foremost, I want to thank Helen Ingham and Ruth Wilkinson, who worked with me in my constituency office. They did all the background and back-breaking work—they were responsible for the letters that went to Members, the press releases that were churned out and much of the campaigning stuff. My thanks are due also to all the officers and staff of the Ramblers Association, who worked tirelessly to promote my Bill. I shall not single out any individual, save one—Jerry Pearlman, who helped me with the complexities of drafting the Bill.

I thank my colleagues, the 190 Members of Parliament who pledged that they would be here to support the Bill, had the Government taken a different route.

indicated assent.

I see an hon. Member on the Liberal Democrat Benches nodding. Seven Liberal Democrat Members, of whom I think he was one, supported the Bill—seven out of 47, but I welcome that none the less, in the spirit of the times. It is good to co-operate in areas where co-operation is sensible, we are told, so today I feel warm towards the seven Liberal Democrats.

I thank the hundreds of people who have written to me. I do not have the time to answer all their letters individually, but that was a tremendous boost to my morale and convinced me that I was doing the right thing. A National Opinion Poll survey published recently showed that 85 per cent. of the public want a statutory right to roam, with commonsense restrictions to protect the environment, crops and animals. The Conservative party is backing the 15 per cent. of the population who think that that proposition is outrageous.

What we are asking for is not outrageous. We should not be afraid to articulate our demand. Access legislation is commonplace in other countries in Europe. In Sweden, Finland and Norway, people have enjoyed access to all land for hundreds of years. That is the case in Switzerland too. In Germany, where people have a mystical attachment to the forest, they have the right to wander freely through the woods. That is what they do in Germany, and why not?

We in Britain have waited more than a century for a statutory right to roam. It has been a century of struggle, with the people pitted against the land-owning interests, who want to keep the land exclusively for themselves.

There have been many attempts to legislate to open up the land, from the Access to Mountains Bill, which was introduced by James Bryce in 1884 and re-introduced every year in the Commons until the outbreak of the first world war, right through to the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, a landmark measure introduced by the post-war Labour Government. Although its intentions were correct, it did not produce the goods. That is why, after half a century, we are revisiting the issue that Attlee and that Labour Government thought they had successfully addressed.

Between the wars, mass trespasses took place. People took direct action to walk on the land of their birth—a land fit for heroes after the first world war, but the soldiers who fought for this country in that great war could not walk on vast tracts of this country. That produced a festering resentment that still exists. I feel it. Now, as we approach the millennium, it is an astonishing fact that we are still strangers in our own country.

In my constituency, Pendle in the Pennines, we are surrounded by thousands of acres of open countryside that is out of bounds. To the west, the Duke of Westminster owns 26,000 acres of open countryside. To the east is Boulsworth hill, which looks down towards Haworth and the parsonage where the Bronte sisters lived. They walked on the moors at Boulsworth. That was the inspiration for "Wuthering Heights" and Heathcliff, yet it is off limits. At some point in the past we, the public, lost the right to walk on that moorland.

From the top of Boulsworth hill, which is in my constituency, on a clear day one can see for 25 miles. One can see way over to Huddersfield. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yorkshire."] I go into Yorkshire occasionally; I do not need a passport yet. Standing there on a clear day, seeing for so many miles, I am reminded of what the Bishop of Blackburn says. He is a member of the Countryside Commission and has newly been appointed to the Countryside Agency. He speaks about the feeling of spirituality, of being up there, in the clouds almost, and seeing the land spread out all round.

If I stand on top of Boulsworth hill or Pendle hill, I can see my entire constituency—85,000 people in seven towns. I can look down there, and in some of those towns, people can gaze at the hills, but not walk there. [Interruption.] Yes, they can gaze up and see me, and say, "There he is again, rambling." I am enjoying this, but let me be serious.

Millions of people are fed up with sneaking and creeping round the countryside, afraid to upset others. We have been brainwashed into believing that we cause damage wherever we go. We apologise for the harm that we allegedly cause by our very presence. A few weeks ago, in the Grand Committee Room on 10 March, at a meeting called by the Socialist Environmental Resources Association—SERA—to discuss the right to roam, the Earl of Macclesfield told the astonished audience, "The countryside cannot accommodate humans on the loose." That is what he said; I jotted it down.

That is a man who owns thousands of acres in the Chilterns, which he insists remain off limits to humans on the loose. He does not want people to have the right to roam, but apparently it is okay for a tiny number of people dressed in red outfits to have the right to rampage across the countryside with dogs. Rampaging across the countryside with dogs is okay for the noble earl, but the right to roam quietly and peacefully on foot is apparently an outrage.

We are told that we cannot have the right to roam because of the terrible damage that we would do. We are also told that the landowners are the true guardians of the countryside. They are holding it in trust for tomorrow, and the rest of us are all wreckers. However, walkers and ramblers have not poisoned the countryside with pesticides. We have not polluted the water courses. We have not silenced the countryside as the birds have perished. We are not responsible for grubbing up the hedgerows and damaging biodiversity. But the landowners point an accusing finger at us and say that, if the measure goes through, we would damage or destroy the delicate ecology of the countryside that they maintain and preserve. The landowners, who say that they protect the countryside, sell green-field sites for building. They sell those sites to developers and then complain about encroachment on the countryside by townies.

The countryside is not the personal fiefdom of country landowners and they had better get used to that. The Government are addressing the concerns of people living in rural areas—people who were neglected by the Conservatives. That is why I welcomed the consultation paper on rural England, published by the Government in February this year, which set out our vision for the countryside. That vision is not of people in red outfits riding about with dogs, but of jobs and strong, vibrant communities in our rural areas; it is of access to transport in the countryside and of services, such as village shops. We want a living, working countryside.

That vision is parodied by the Conservatives, who tell us that we are the wreckers. The land is ours; it is for all of us to share and enjoy, but the landowners want it for their exclusive use; they do not want to share it. That is why we must legislate to give people that right.

When I appeared on a television programme with the hon. Gentleman, it became clear to me that he had a preoccupation with the Duke of Westminster. However, experience in other parts of the country suggests that there is no serious problem. In Shropshire, we have more rights of way than roads: there are 3,625 miles of footpaths and bridleways against 3,000 miles of roads. During the 12 years that I have represented the area as a Member of Parliament, no one has ever told me that there is an unfulfilled demand for the right to walk, roam or ramble across the countryside. We have some marvellous countryside; it is open to the people and they use it.

Well, if that is the case, legislation will not bother the hon. Gentleman.

It is not true that I have a fixation with the Duke of Westminster—exclusively. I mentioned the Earl of Macclesfield; I am developing a fixation with him as well.

The Duke of Buccleuch.

As my hon. Friend says—the Duke of Buccleuch. I probably have a fixation with them all.

There are many good reasons for keeping people off land, and I shall turn to them in a moment. However, ownership is not of itself a sufficient reason and that is what sticks in the throat of the Conservatives. There are good reasons for keeping people off the land: furry animals might be breeding or birds nesting there; there could be delicate habitats or archaeological remains. However, the mere fact of ownership is not a sufficient reason.

If ownership is not a reason for preventing someone from coming on to land, why could the Duke of Westminster not enter the hon. Gentleman's garden in his constituency?

I should not have given way to the hon. Lady. The main difference between us is that I do not have a back garden that extends to 26,000 acres.

Yet.

Yet. If I did, I should be the duke of something I suppose. [Interruption.] My hon. Friends suggest that I should be dubbed the Duke of Pendle, which has a certain ring to it.

The hon. Gentleman's response to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) sheds a little light on the rest of his speech, which has, so far, been typified by class hatred and class warfare, rather than by any real interest in rambling in the countryside. In that response, he suggested that what was important was the size of the land owned and that if one had a reasonably small garden, it would be protected. At what stage does that protection for his garden become the right to roam on a farm?

I am tempted to say that size is not important.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned class hatred. A number of Conservative Members paint me as an unreconstructed class warrior. My hon. Friends know that that is not the case and they will tell the Prime Minister so. I gave notice to the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Clark) that I would mention him in the debate, and I see that he is in his place in the Chamber. During the debate on Second Reading of the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill, the right hon. Gentleman said that he supported the principle of the right to roam, but had grave reservations about the Member presenting the Bill—me. He said that whenever he heard me, I was

"usually recommending to the House that one or other Tory Member should go to prison".

That is true, but I take the rather old-fashioned view—clearly, one with which Conservatives have to wrestle—that, if one does not break the law, one does not go to prison.

The right hon. Gentleman went on to describe me as a "down-market Leninist"; I say, better to be a down-market Leninist than an up-market Stalinist. I then considered Leninism and its place in new Labour. If I am a Leninist, new Labour is a vanguard party where policies are decided by the few, not by the many—and, of course, that is an absurd proposition.

The right hon. Gentleman continued:

"He is the worst possible person to promote a Bill that has, in principle, much to be said for it and that should enjoy the support of the whole House."—[Official Report, 5 March 1999; Vol. 326, c. 1384.]

I have spies everywhere. The right hon. Gentleman wrote to one of his constituents about my Bill, and the letter came to me. He said, in a handwritten postscript:

"Unfortunately, Gordon Prentice is an unpleasant man—unreconstructed SWP."

That is, the Socialist Workers party. The letter continued:

"When I asked him in a perfectly friendly way how he was getting on, he said: 'We intend to expropriate your land in Kent'."

I have no recollection of that. He continued:

"Loopy, as well as highly counter-productive."

When I read the right hon. Gentleman's diaries, I thought he might be a fantasist—now I know—but even if I wanted to expropriate Saltwood in Kent, the Prime Minister would not let me.

The violence of that language is not unique. On 18 March, an editorial in Shooting Times and Country Magazine stated of my right hon. Friend the Minister:

"Michael Meacher's open invitation for anyone to gate-crash and traipse over the countryside is astounding. His proposed decision to ignore the country's property laws and, in effect, nationalise privately owned land, with no compensation…is a relic of the worst of old Labour. His class war instincts have prevailed."

On 12 March, the Farmers Guardian said:

"Farmers have been happy to have walkers and others on their land."

That is good, because I have told "Farming Today" on a number of occasions that I am the farmers' friend. They do not believe that, but I am. The Farmers Guardian continued:

"What Farmers have not been happy with is the type of rambler who masquerades as a country loving individual while at the same time harbouring political and class fuelled resentments about the ownership of land…Some of these resentments have been carried down the generations and in some ramblers they amount almost to religion. Mr. Meacher has recognised this and has given it his blessing."

I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene. Only he and the House can judge the propriety of revealing the contents of a letter from a Member of Parliament to his constituent. [Interruption.] I do not criticise that; I am content for the House and his colleagues to judge. I must tell him that not one single thing that he has said so far in any way invalidates my criticisms of him or the serious reservations that I have expressed about an issue on which I feel supportive.

The House has heard the right hon. Gentleman, for what it is worth.

I say to the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) that the argument is not about class; it is all about citizenship. There are 60 million people crowded and crushed together on this tiny little island of ours, and 12.5 per cent. of the land area of our country is off limits. That situation is simply unacceptable and it has to change, which is why we need legislation.

The Country Landowners Association has gone completely over the top. When my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment made his announcement on 8 March, it said that the Government's decision

"has destroyed the goodwill of the countryside and confirmed the worst fears of all those who took part in the Countryside March last year."

So it is okay for members of the CLA to exercise their right to roam on Hyde park, but it is not okay for me to exercise my right to roam in open countryside. That is an absurd proposition.

Ian McNicol, the CLA president, said that the Government have deliberately misled the electorate and the press, adding:

"Where we have offered co-operation. they have chosen confrontation."

Berkshire CLA said:

"It is a victory for bigotry over reason, for hard left dogma over pragmatism. For old style socialism over new Labour."

I have a fistful of quotes in similar vein and those views are all familiar to me.

In January 1998, I was fortunate enough to secure an Adjournment debate on access to land and I quoted the CLA's spokesperson in the east midlands. The quote bears repetition a year later:

"The right to roam would apply to everyone, including the minority of vandals, sheep stealers, badger baiters, horse slashers, illegal hare coursers, poaching gangs, birds' egg thieves and those responsible for the rising tide of crime in rural areas, many of them forced out of the towns and cities by improved policing and surveillance techniques."

That is the CLA's vision: as a consequence of the Bill, people will be terrorised in the countryside, with people running around slashing horses and stealing sheep. What an absurdity!

As the CLA said in its submission to the Government consultation paper, it really wants to give people a right of visual access to the countryside. That is unacceptable.

Is my hon. Friend aware that I visited the estates of the chair of the CLA in Berkshire? The Benyon family are well known to Conservative Members and theirs is one of the few estates that is growing. Their problems are caused not by walking or rambling, although the estate is a few miles from 250,000 people in greater Reading, but by off-road vehicles, motor bike scrambling and picnicking by the roadside. In their submission to the Government, they said that voluntary access agreements had produced more open access to the countryside through caravan sites and pick-your-own strawberry farms. Does my hon. Friend agree that they talk absolute nonsense?

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. It is astonishing that my modest Bill, which simply seeks to give people the right to roam on foot, is apparently not enough for the CLA. One of the criticisms that it has levelled at me is that I am ignoring people with four-wheel drives, cyclists, canoeists and, for God's sake, hang-gliders. That is absurd, and the CLA is constantly moving the goal posts. The National Farmers Union is only slightly less hysterical, but it, too, has got the wrong end of the stick.

I am minded not to pursue my Bill, because of the Government's statement of 8 March, but I want to listen carefully to what my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment says. For the record, my Bill has three legs which I shall describe, but not necessarily in order of importance. The first is clause 12, which is a stand-alone clause dealing with cross-compliance. It would stop European Union and United Kingdom Treasury grants going to farmers who block footpaths. If a landowner cannot show that footpaths are unobstructed, he or she will not receive a grant. If footpaths are unobstructed, but become obstructed within five years, he or she will not receive a grant or will have to repay it.

In its briefing for hon. Members, the NFU says that it wants people to stick to paths. It does not want area access. The NFU refers to clause 12 as the "politics of punishment". Again, the language is extreme and over the top. We do not want a "something for nothing" society in Britain—that is what we are told—yet public money can go to farmers and landowners, although we get nothing other than a slap in the face in return. That is astonishing.

If paths are blocked, the cash should stop. In a written reply earlier this month, the Minister, using figures produced by the Countryside Commission in 1994, told me that 26 per cent. of footpaths were blocked or difficult to use. That 26 per cent. represents 25,000 miles.

I wonder whether we could explore the principle that is at stake. I understand what the hon. Gentleman says, and the whole House will have noted it, but surely the principle that he is discussing extends far beyond this issue. For example, is he saying that anyone entitled to benefit under the social security arrangements who committed an offence would thereby be deprived of those social security benefits?

The hon. Gentleman should catch up. I support the Government, like all my hon. Friends, although that caused me some difficulty when the Government controversially proclaimed in the context of welfare reform that they were against the "something for nothing" society.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned welfare reform. Landowners in the UK receive £2.5 billion a year from the common agricultural policy; the poorest hill farmers receive more modest sums, such as £148 million a year through the hill livestock compensatory allowance. If public money is to be used in that way, it should have strings attached. We want something for that. It is only the Conservative party that says that bucketfuls of public money can be poured into landowners' pockets, but that the public can expect nothing in the return. That must change.

The second leg of the Bill refers to conditional exemption from inheritance tax. I have a fixation about that as well. Clause 15 requires a person who has been granted conditional exemption from inheritance tax because the public allegedly have access to his or her land to publicise that access. Is that asking too much?

Some 350 super-wealthy people in this country get conditional exemption. They tell the Inland Revenue that they need not pay inheritance tax when the owner dies because the public have a right of access to the land, even though the public do not know that they have a right of access because it has never been publicised. It is absurd.

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer took a major step forward in last year's Finance Bill, which expressly prohibited landowners from requiring advance notice of visits. Those who take the trouble to find out where the land is could not just turn up and exercise the right to walk on it, but had to give the owner advance notice that they were coming. It was absurd. That is changing under this Government. The Inland Revenue is now revisiting all 350 agreements, and insisting that access is publicised and put on the world wide web.

The hon. Gentleman is personalising this issue to a considerable degree, but I understand that the majority of acres in this country are owned by organisations such as pension funds and insurance companies, which presumably do not enjoy the same benefits. Will he assure us that the Government are equally interested in ensuring that those organisations publicise access to their acres?

I would be interested in the evidence for that assertion. I know that six landowners in Lancashire get conditional exemption from inheritance tax, and I tried to find out who they are. The Table Office would not accept my question and the Inland Revenue would not tell me because, it says, to do so would breach taxpayers' confidentiality. I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman again if he can tell me how he knows that those organisations are conditionally exempt and if he can name them.

That was not the point of my question, which was quite straightforward: the majority of acres are owned by public companies, pension funds, life assurance companies and other such corporate owners—that is certainly the case in my area—which presumably do not have those inheritance tax problems. I am concerned that the hon. Gentleman should be equally interested in ensuring that people know that they can roam those companies' land. Publicity should be an obligation on them as much as on a private owner.

That does not take us much further forward. The Channel 4 "Dispatches" programme broadcast a two-part series entitled "The Lie of the Land", but it listed none of those companies and institutions that the hon. Gentleman referred to. However, I shall make inquiries about that. I do not intend to personalise this issue in a nasty way. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh?"] It is true. We want land to be identified so that people can have access to it. The issue is simple.

The third and final leg of my Bill deals with access to the open countryside, which is covered by the Minister's statement on 8 March. As I said at the beginning, there is no policy difference whatever—not a cigarette paper of a difference—etween me and my Government on this, but there are a number of questions which I hope that the Minister will pick up when he speaks later.

Mapping is central to the Bill and to the Government's proposals. Common land is already identified. Apparently, the Agricultural Development Advisory Service maps the moorland areas of England. I learned that just a few days ago when I was at a meeting called by the Countryside Commission in the House of Lords. The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), a former Environment Secretary, was there, and a look of surprise crossed his face when he heard that the moorland had already been mapped. Clearly, however, a lot of work remains to be done.

First, will the Countryside Agency have the resources that it needs to map the land quickly? Secondly, if it takes time, can the mapping and the commencement dates for the legislation be done in stages so that easy terrain, such as mountains, can be mapped first and more difficult terrain, such as downlands, can be mapped later

I am also interested in the role of local access forums. The wreckers in the Countryside Landowners Association have already said that they are sceptical about the usefulness of local access forums. I thought that they would embrace them. When will they be set up, and can the Minister say more about their membership? We also need a consistent approach across the country, with no capricious decisions, so that a decision taken in North Yorkshire is not massively different from a decision about the same kind of terrain taken in another part of the country.

Finally, we need assurances about timing. I appreciate that I cannot write the legislative programme for the Government, unfortunate though that is, but we all expect a Government Bill in November in the next Queen's Speech. I speak for all my colleagues—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] in that respect. I have referred in glowing terms to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister many times in my speech. We hang on his every word. He told us that 1999 is Labour's year of delivery. On the right to roam, it really is time to deliver.

It is conventional on such occasions to congratulate an hon. Member on having the good fortune to have drawn a high place in the ballot. I congratulate the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), because he has an opportunity that not many hon. Members get, however many years they are in this House. I also congratulate him on having the courage to choose an issue that is clearly as controversial between parties as it is, I suspect, within his own party. We know that from the fact that one of his colleagues intends to introduce a 10-minute Bill with a wholly different approach to the same issue.

The hon. Gentleman's speech was tinged with dry sarcasm and sardonic humour, which his hon. Friends all found highly amusing. However, it underlined the fact that the Bill and this whole proposition serve to demonstrate the divide between socialism, and capitalism and property ownership. It is a totally socialist measure. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will take that as a compliment.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

No, not for the moment.

The right to roam is based not on a putative enjoyment of the countryside, but on one thing and one thing alone: that most evil of human traits, envy. It is based on envy of private property and a belief that land should be available to everyone and that no one should have the right to restrict access to it.

I have talked to many ramblers—my constituents and others—I challenged Kate Ashbrook, who had the courage to speak to a Conservative party meeting in the House last year, and I challenged the Minister when he made his statement earlier this month. I asked them what extra benefits of enjoyment of the countryside can be obtained from the right to roam that cannot be obtained from a comprehensive network of footpaths. They had no answer. They either evade the issue by saying, as the Minister did, that there is no comprehensive network, or they resort to the truth and say that they should have a right to go wherever they want.

The Minister took refuge in the absence of a comprehensive network of footpaths as a justification for his policy, which I accept is not 100 per cent. the same as that proposed by the hon. Member for Pendle, although it is pretty close to it. The fact is that, despite what the hon. Gentleman said, little effort has been made to create a comprehensive network of footpaths. A great deal more could be done, and I accept that further statutory measures may be required to achieve that network. If that were done, far more people would gain.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the proximity of his constituency to a large area of open land, but most people live in parts of the country where there is no conveniently placed open land. They may not be able to go out of their back door and have access to such land, but they want to be able to get to a good walk within a few short minutes or a short drive. No one in my constituency could access any open land in less than an hour and a half or two hours. Many other people are faced with the same problem.

I was born and brought up in the country but, before anyone suggests that I am a massive landowner, I should tell the House that I am not: I own the grand sum of 10 acres, so I am not speaking from self-interest. I want people to enjoy the countryside, because it has so much to offer, but that enjoyment can be obtained from walking along footpaths and does not require this draconian measure.

I have a letter from a mountaineering organisation in my constituency. It says that the Country Landowners Association suggested limited access to recognised paths only, but to adopt that approach would deny access to the crags and open countryside on which mountaineering depends, and would make a complete mockery of the concept of freedom of access.

We do not have many mountains or crags in Cambridgeshire. My point is that the vast majority of people would gain far more from a comprehensive network of footpaths than they would from open access. There is no reason why negotiations could not obtain opportunities for mountaineers to find the right rock face and to come to an agreement with the landowner. That is wholly different from this proposed wholesale right of access. People want to be able to walk on a Sunday or at any other time and have access to the countryside near to where they live. Most people do not live near open land with mountain, moor, heath or down: they live near managed agricultural land.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that millions of people live near the Peak district either on the wrong side, the Lancashire side, or on the right side, the Yorkshire side, and they regularly access that land, but there is a major problem because certain areas are still out of bounds? We need genuine open access, and the Bill will do something to achieve that. It may not help the hon. Gentleman in Cambridgeshire, but it will help millions of people in the major conurbations in the north of the country.

The hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong. It may not be possible to access certain areas, but that is not a reason to have open access. It is a reason for developing a more comprehensive network of footpaths—that is the point that I am making.

I am sure that it is impossible to convert the hon. Member for Pendle, so I shall not try to do so. However, if we take the Government at face value, they should be seeking the large tent—the hon. Gentleman referred somewhat sardonically to the inclusive nature of their policies. They should consider the needs and interests of the vast majority of people, which I believe would be served by creating such a network. They should work with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and should create links with support measures. They should simplify and speed up the diversion process, and remove the absurdity that enables a person to object to, and to obstruct, that process. We could then move towards a much more comprehensive network.

Many farmers have already opened up permissive footpaths, which ramblers reject for political reasons, because they are obsessed with rights. They believe that a footpath should exist for ever and a day, but that is not a necessary requirement. As long as there are plenty of footpaths in the countryside, the people who use them will have access to, and the benefit of, the enjoyment of the countryside.

The hon. Gentleman wants a network of footpaths, and I have considerable sympathy with his points about farming in relation to East Anglia and other parts of the United Kingdom where open access would not be applicable. What measures were taken in the past 20 years to create the network of footpaths that he advocates?

I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has asked me that, because it allows me to tell him. The previous Government introduced the countryside stewardship scheme and the countryside premium scheme, both of which require access to the land. The farmer who farms land adjoining my property is in one of those schemes and has such an arrangement incorporated into his agreement. He has to provide access. The previous Government took steps to enable access, but I am the first to recognise that more could be done.

I have no time for landowners who wilfully obstruct and prevent people from having any access to their land. However, the ill-judged views of a few is no justification for this huge legislation and the cataclysmic effects that it would have.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

No, I shall not give way any more, because many other hon. Members want to speak and I have other duties in half an hour.

I want to deal briefly with the detail of the Bill. Occupier's liability and insurance are mentioned in the Bill—and get a mention in the Government's latest document—but only extremely briefly. We cannot get away from the fact that the Country Landowners Association believes that landowners often consider the current arrangements for public liability insurance to be costly. To extend the arrangements as proposed would lead to greater public liability risks and insurance. The Government should carefully consider what level of liability it is reasonable to expect if people are to have access to open countryside.

The National Union of Farmers argues that increased access would involve costs to the landowner. I welcome the fact that the intention is not to extend open access to all agricultural land yet, although many people are worried about that. On the open countryside, where greater access is proposed, there is grave cause for concern about costs, and there is also concern about the definitions in the Bill. Clause 7(2) states:

"agricultural land shall not include land which is agricultural land by reason only that it affords rough grazing for livestock."

How will the average person who is not particularly versed in agricultural ways or even in the ways of the countryside be able to tell the difference between intensively or extensively managed grassland? There is a real danger that people will start their walk on a piece of open countryside, but will then find their way on to farmed land and will interfere with what is described as a legitimate use of the land.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

No, I have already said that I shall not give way any more.

It is all very well to list actions that are not allowed. The hon. Gentleman referred to responsibilities, and it is true that those who walk on land must have a sense of responsibility, but how on earth is that to be enforced? The Government cuts in the police force that we have discussed on other occasions will make it even harder to do so. For one thing, unless a landowner is patrolling his land or his staff are doing so, how is he to know who damaged his property, or committed some other offence? Who will be the independent witness, and who will pay for enforcement? In short, is this part of the Bill enforceable?

The CLA has taken legal advice—I shall not go into all the details, as I am sure that others will do so—and the suggestion is that there would be a case for compensating landlords for any costs incurred or losses sustained. I think that the Government should respond to that point.

Both the Bill and the Government's proposals refer to an owner's right to close open access for certain reasons. How is that expected to happen? It is possible to close a footpath temporarily, but it is very difficult to close a moor when a public road runs through it.

It happens now.

The hon. Gentleman may say that, but we are starting from the premise that open access is not allowed in the first place.

rose—

No, I will not give way.

Under open-access arrangements, anyone would be able to walk on to a moor at whatever point they chose, as long as they did not cause any damage. Given that some event may be happening out of sight of the point of access, one wonders how access could be prohibited. We could end up with serious problems involving liability and the risk of accidents.

I shall end as I began. I consider the Bill evil and objectionable. As I said at the outset, no one has given any just reason for it. No one has specified what can be gained from open access that could not be secured through a comprehensive network of footpaths. That should be the Government's aim: to provide opportunities for people throughout the country to enjoy a good walk in the countryside near where they live. This draconian measure will benefit a small minority, will apply only to certain parts of the country and will be of no value whatever to the vast majority of people.

First, I declare an interest: I have the honour to be president of the Ramblers Association, although I gain no financial benefit from that. Secondly, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) on his entertaining speech, and, more important, on choosing this subject after having the good fortune to be highly placed in the ballot. He has enabled many people to demonstrate their wish for legislation by writing to Members of Parliament and to campaign. I am also delighted by the Government's response to the good case that my hon. Friend and others have made for access to the countryside, in the form of "The Government's Framework for Action" document. I thank my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister and, in particular, the Minister for the Environment for the fact that we have made so much progress. I hope that, by next year, we shall be dealing with the Third Reading of an access measure, or that such a measure will have completed all its stages in the House of Commons.

Opposition Members have suggested that there is something revolutionary about the Bill, but the right to roam, and to freedom of access, has been exercised in many parts of the country throughout this century. That is true of almost all the upland areas of the Lake district, and many parts of Snowdonia, especially around Snowdon itself. People have been able to wander freely over the Glyders and the Carneddeu. They have also exercised their right with responsibility on many downs and heaths in southern England, and no problems have been caused. We do not suggest that something totally new, unexpected and revolutionary should happen; we are merely saying that good practice in some parts of the country should be extended to much larger areas.

A vast number of people enjoy walking. About 18 million people list it as one of their leisure activities. In some cases, that means a stroll of a few hundred yards or perhaps a couple of miles, while in others it may mean walking 25 miles or more a day. Some people who do not particularly enjoy walking for its own sake may walk in order to enjoy other leisure activities, such as bird watching, observing flowers and observing nature generally. People walk in order to go fishing, or to take photographs. But, contrary to popular belief, since 1948, the amount of countryside on which people can walk has steadily declined as a result of the growth of the urban sprawl into the countryside and the building of motorways.

The hon. Gentleman is probably right in saying that the amount of land has diminished since the war, but it is it not true that, since 1991–92—these are the latest accurate figures—the length of the paths available to walkers in England has increased by 12,450 miles?

We accept that the number of footpaths has increased. When I was a child in Greater Manchester, there were a huge number of Cheshire lanes linking the footpaths where my parents and I could walk safely. Now, all those lanes have been polluted by fast-moving motor cars, and it is the same in most parts of the countryside. Whatever we may have gained from footpaths, I fear that we have lost more as a result of the disappearance of country roads.

Of course, some progress has been made in the form of the stewardship and death duties schemes, although I wish that there was more publicity to make clear what opportunities are available. However, there are still large parts of the countryside where no problems would be caused if the arrangements that exist in the Lake district were extended.

Because so many people enjoy going into the countryside, there are problems of overcrowding. Anyone wanting to enjoy peace and quiet on the Snowdon horseshoe in the summer must get up almost at the crack of dawn and finish the walk before breakfast, because nearly as many people walk on Snowdon in the summer as can be found on the beaches in Blackpool and Brighton. For most people, however, going into the countryside means an opportunity to enjoy peace and quiet. We should be trying to spread out the crowds of people who congregate in some of the "honeypot" areas—not just Snowdon, but Dovedale and Coniston Old Man. Would it not be far better if we could open up places like the Forest of Bowland, which used to be open to the public in the 1930s, so that, instead of going up the motorways to the Lake district from Greater Manchester, people could stop there, or in some of the places referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle?

I sympathise with the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's argument. Indeed, I think that he is making a much better speech than the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice). However, speaking as someone who walks a great deal in the countryside—certainly more than 1,000 miles a year—I have to say that I find his suggestion that the Bill will suddenly depopulate Snowdon horseshoe and other beautiful parts of the country wholly implausible. It is a fatuous argument.

There is a more important argument. If it were true that those of us who walk on the paths most weekends found ourselves crowded on those normal paths, the hon. Gentleman may have had a point, but that is not true either. The real problem that most of us who pursue walkers' practical interests face is that paths in the countryside are being blocked or not being kept properly open. That is the most important part of the Bill, and should receive some support.

I do not believe that the Bill will suddenly solve the problems of overcrowding on the Snowdon horseshoe, but it will help. In Wales, walkers, particularly stronger ones who like to go further, would go to substantial areas such as the Rhinogs and parts of the Arrans, so that would lighten the load a little.

In fairness, farmers in the Lake district and in parts of north Wales have had a huge number of people going over their land. Why should not other farmers share what may be perceived by farmers, at least, to be a burden? There is a strong argument for trying to spread people out throughout the countryside.

I do not believe that a huge number of people will go from the popular routes and wander across, but I know lots of other people who, if they get the chance, go to mountains—for example in the west of Ireland—where there is no beaten track up to the top. It is much more exciting finding one's own route up such a mountain than it is having to stick to a footpath, so some people will go to mountains and moorland that they are kept off at the moment. They will enjoy it and lighten the load on some other parts of the countryside.

It will be important to get people on to mountains and moorland, but it will probably be of more significance to open some of the downland and heath in southern England; even more people would like the opportunity to go out on to those areas. Although the Government have not, so far, put it into the proposals, we need to look at forestry, particularly upland forest. I see little problem in people going into those areas. We also need to look at the foreshore.

I hear the case that is being made by Conservative Members about the linear routes. It should not be one or the other; it should be both. It is important that linear routes are free from obstruction, but, in some places, linear routes are a disaster.

I accept that ramblers and other walkers have campaigned hard to get the Pennine way. The mistake was that it was decided that a footpath had to be marked on the map all the way. Anyone who has walked on the Pennine way in recent years will know that, by making one route, we have changed the nature of that expedition.

In the early days, when setting off from Edale and heading for the Cheviots, one more or less made one's own way across open moorland. It was a very exciting, hard challenge. Because of the amazing amount of people who have used the path and the erosion that has taken place, the national parks, more or less all the way, have had to pave the route.

In some senses, I am pleased when I see someone up there now with a buggy and a small child, or someone tottering along the path in high-heeled shoes because it means that other people are getting out to enjoy the countryside, but, at the same time, the whole nature of that walk has been changed from a serious challenge to just an interesting route.

I apologise for intervening again, but it is a serious practical problem. I agree about the Pennine way; I do not like walking in a trench. In the part of the coast-to-coast walk that is just beyond Nine Standards Rigg, the organisers of the area have tried to vary the path all over the moor. When I go there, I watch lots of people who are not used to navigating in high country walking in all parts of the moor, not on a path at all. The result is that, almost in its entirety, the moor is wrecked.

One of my concerns—I speak as someone who walks the Kinder Scout walk every year in memory of the 1930s—is that serious damage will be done to parts of the open countryside, particularly those near urban areas, which the hon. Member for Pendle mentioned, not just because of a linear route, but because of the sheer mass of population that will come on to it.

It may be a problem. That is one of the things that we have to consider in examining access agreements. How can we manage access, so that we do not destroy the things that people go out to? However, I caution Conservative Members who say that linear paths are always the answer.

In some places, good linear footpaths will be important. I do not think that ramblers object to permissive paths where they are extra to the network. Where many country lanes have been lost, there are strong arguments for people to put a footpath along the field margin, away from traffic. That can be helpful. There are some good landowners who look to save field margins, so that they can encourage wildlife. Relatively few people are likely to walk them. They should be able to walk some of them.

We should not see the matter as us and them. We have to accept that the town and country need each other and that there needs to be a uniting of activity between the town and countryside.

Inevitably, if we are going to retain the carefully nurtured upland landscape, someone has to pay for it. It will no longer be paid for as a by-product of food production. We need changes to the common agricultural policy that will enable farmers to go on looking after the landscape that they have looked after for many centuries. That is important but, if townspeople are going to contribute towards that maintenance by farmers, why should they not be able to go out and enjoy the countryside?

We need to remember that little of Britain is wild landscape. Even on top of mountains, there tends to be a wall. When we look down into the countryside, we see carefully nurtured field boundaries. We have to find a way in which to keep that and to ensure that the land is enjoyed not just by farmers or landowners, but by everyone. That is why I welcome many of the Government's proposals. I hope that there will be a spirit of co-operation, so that we can start to work out some of those difficulties.

There is the question of compensation. I do not believe that a vast sum of money should be paid in compensation, but the example in the Peak district is clear. Where we have access land, on occasions, people have to get to that access land. Extra stiles and gateways may have to be put in place for people to get to it. That is something that the nation should pay for, either through national parks or local government, so that the farmer or landowner is not out of pocket.

Accident liability is a serious issue. It is clear that the landowners must meet their obligations under health and safety rules, but, where people go on to land to enjoy it, they also have a responsibility and should not expect to be able to sue the landowner for accidents that they have caused. That matter needs sorting out.

We should make progress through the local forum on access to the countryside. We need to get the mapping going. I do not want to see a lot of policemen in the countryside, but there is a case for using rangers, particularly in some of the more popular areas. Some of the national parks rangers have done an excellent job in interpreting the countryside rules and in helping with safety. We need to expand that.

Out of the legislation—I hope that it comes soon—we want a partnership between country landowners, the National Farmers Union, ramblers, the British Mountaineering Council and the tourist boards to ensure that walkers are welcome in the countryside. We should all be involved in showing walkers the beauty of the countryside, and in telling them that they have a responsibility in the countryside.

Our green and pleasant land should be something that everyone can enjoy. Everyone should contribute to ensure that we and future generations can go on enjoying it. Access to the countryside is very important. It should be in legislation soon.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) on securing this debate and on his boisterous, knockabout speech. His choice in private Member's Bill was a happy one, even if he has chosen to go out with a bang rather than a whimper. Whichever side of the argument they are on, people care passionately about the right to roam. However, the issue is not, as some Conservative Members have suggested, about class war. The right to roam is not evil, but involves fundamental freedoms. Nevertheless, the right to roam issue leaves me in a quandary.

I strongly support the principle that land should be accessible to all. There is no justification for placing off limits to all but a small minority vast tracts of our memorable countryside.

But, on the other hand.

But, on the other hand: the right to access must encompass only low or no-impact access.

I believe that the Right to Roam Bill does not quite get the balance right. Therefore, I told my constituents that I would attend and speak in today's debate on the Bill, but that I would abstain in a Division on it. I was therefore relieved when the Government made their own, more limited access proposals, which I think that all Liberal Democrats can support.

The hon. Member for Pendle can rightly be proud of the part that he has played in forcing the Government's hand. However, as his Bill has now been overtaken by events—by the Government's proposals—we should be scrutinising the Government's proposals. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will answer some simple questions.

When will the Government's access proposals become law? The Minister for the Environment has said that, in this Parliament, a wildlife Bill will be introduced. Will the Government's access proposals be linked to that wider wildlife Bill?

How will the Government ensure protection of sites of special scientific interest and areas of outstanding natural beauty? What impact will their plans have on nature reserves managed by organisations such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds? What will the Government do to open up their own land, such as Ministry of Defence land?

What additional research will the Government be commissioning to examine the costs to farmers caused by the access proposals? I do not think that the proposals will have no cost implications, so Ministers should revisit the cost issue.

Liberal Democrat Members' support will remain conditional so long as those and other questions remain unanswered.

As the hon. Member for Pendle said, the right to roam is about not only rights but responsibilities. We shall soon have the rights—which Liberal Democrat Members welcome—but we must consider more carefully the responsibilities.

I am sure that hon. Members on both sides the House, and people across the country, warmly support my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) in promoting and presenting his Bill. I pay tribute also to my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment for all his work on, and his commitment to, the Bill.

The British people's belief that they should be able to walk through our countryside—so that they might enjoy its beauty and life—has long been one of the Labour party's deep commitments. In my years as an hon. Member, and even long before, Labour Members have sought to introduce legislation on that commitment. We have always—today is no exception—encountered difficulties and objections in those attempts. However, we have had to fight for many of the rights now enshrined in our legislation. The difficulties of introducing legislation for the benefit of the British people have always been—and always will be—emphasised by those who, despite what they might say, do not really support the principles enshrined in the Bill.

Hon. Members may remember Arthur Blenkinsop—the distinguished former Labour Member of Parliament for South Shields, who, sadly, died some years ago.

indicated assent.

I see that my right hon. Friend remembers him.

Arthur Blenkinsop was a great believer in people's right to be able to enjoy the countryside, and, in his years in the House, he campaigned vigorously on the issue. However, like many other hon. Members, he repeatedly encountered objections to such legislation—such as people's supposed lack of respect for the countryside, which they would only damage. Although we still hear such objections, I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will have noticed that, happily, most people's attitude to the issue has changed enormously. Now, there is undoubtedly enormous support among the British people for the measures that my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle is seeking to introduce in his Bill.

I am sure that all hon. Members in the Chamber have received cards and letters from constituents, calling on us to attend this debate and to support the Bill in a Vote, if there were one. In recent weeks, I have received 393 cards and letters on the Bill, and every one of them supported it. I did not receive one letter from anyone in my constituency saying, "Don't support the Bill. Parts of it are okay, but we don't really need it."

How many country landowners does the hon. Gentleman have in Tooting?

That intervention was typical of the Conservative Members' remarks to which my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle was subjected. When the House debates people's right to enjoy our countryside—which should be the only criterion for speaking in this debate, and which my hon. Friend seeks to guarantee in his Bill—surely it should not matter which part of the United Kingdom an hon. Member represents.

As I said, I have received 393 cards and letters supporting the Bill. One letter, dated 17 February, was from Mr. Ralph Stephenson, who said:

"At 88 I keep active and well by regular country walking, belong to four clubs and consider that everybody should be allowed to enjoy…the countryside.

I understand there is to be a private bill introduced by Mr. Gordon Prentice on the 26th March to promote the right to roam the…common land subject"—

as my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle has said repeatedly—

"to sensible restrictions."

Whatever Conservative Members say, a sensible approach to providing that right is the Bill's keynote. Mr. Stephenson's letter sums up what the issue is all about. It was from someone who loves our countryside, makes use of it and respects it.

We are talking about 4 million acres of land.

With permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the pet movement scheme. When we came to office, we saw that the quarantine laws were in need of review. Since the quarantine system began nearly 100 years ago, veterinary science has advanced, and travel patterns have changed. To provide a modern response to those challenges, my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), set up an expert group, chaired by Professor Ian Kennedy of University college London, to look at whether we should modernise the system.

Professor Kennedy's group reported in September 1998. It recommended radical changes. The Government said that they were sympathetic to change, and sought views from the public.

There has been a big response to the Government's consultation letter. The overwhelming majority of the more than 3,700 replies supported the Kennedy proposals. I am placing a list of the respondents, and a summary of responses, in the Library of the House.

The Government believe that, in the light of the Kennedy group's analysis, it is desirable to move as quickly as possible to a system under which dogs and cats coming from European Union, certain other European countries and rabies-free islands could enter the United Kingdom without quarantine. The system would also cover UK-resident dogs and cats which had been abroad temporarily in those countries. Pets from other countries would continue to be subject to quarantine, although we are looking again at the position for the United States of America and Canada, as recommended by Professor Kennedy. The responses to our consultation have shown that most people would support change on those lines.

Our objective is to bring new arrangements into operation throughout the United Kingdom by April 2001. That respects the Kennedy group recommendation that there should be a sufficient lead-in time to allow a smooth and orderly transition to new arrangements. We also plan to launch a pilot scheme—or schemes—within the next 12 months. I remain determined that the UK should be properly protected against rabies. The new arrangements are being designed with that in the forefront of our minds.

We are pushing ahead with the technical work necessary to put in place an alterative to quarantine. We have approached other countries about providing the necessary health certificates for dogs and cats, and about which islands outside Europe we could safely regard as rabies free. We are pressing for international standardisation of rabies blood tests and have invited laboratories in Europe to participate in a testing scheme.

Essentially, the plan is as recommended by Kennedy. Animals resident in a qualifying country and whose owners want them to travel, will need to have been microchipped with an electronic chip, vaccinated against rabies using an inactivated vaccine, blood-tested at an approved laboratory and issued with an official health certificate recording details of the animal, its chip, its vaccination and its blood test. Animals will also need to have been treated against exotic infections not present in the UK.

Transport operators are being asked to carry out pre-entry checks on pets to ensure that they meet those conditions. There will also be random spot checks on animals after they arrive in the UK.

We are looking at the practicalities of identifying pets by means of electronic microchipping. Department of Health experts are considering what measures need to be taken against certain dog and cat parasites exotic to the UK, which can infect humans or transmit infections to humans.

The new arrangements for checking dogs and cats whose owners wish to bring them into the UK from abroad will have a cost. The Government believe that, in principle, the cost should be met by pet owners, as the cost of quarantine is now.

We believe that the way forward is for ferry companies, train operators and airlines to carry out pre-entry checks on pets. The Government would approve companies transporting pets and would audit and inspect their operations to ensure that the pre-entry checks continued to be carried out properly and with 100 per cent. coverage. The arrangements could in principle be put into effect by means of a statutory instrument.

There will be no compulsion on transport operators to carry pets under the new arrangements. We believe that many will want to take up the opportunity to provide a new service to their customers. We have begun discussions with the companies and trade associations concerned. We shall, in addition, make a thorough assessment of the legal and practical aspects and the impact on business. The new schemes will be required to provide a level of protection against rabies that matches that of the current quarantine system.

There is still work to be done to make sure that the new system operates smoothly. We are now set on a course to implement Kennedy-style arrangements, and hope to have pilot schemes in place within 12 months. As soon as the specific arrangements for the schemes have been established, I will report again to the House, because I know there is a high level of interest in the subject.

I thank the Minister for his statement, for his courtesy of letting me have foresight of it and for the way in which he delivered it. May I also express the Opposition's concern, however, that time is being taken out of private Members' legislation for a Government statement? There was no need for the statement today; it could easily have been made on another day, especially as the leaks syndrome has now infected the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The article in The Times on Monday seems to have been entirely accurate and this morning on the "Today" programme we heard a clear explanation of what was to be announced. I hope that the Minister will explain why the Speaker's will has been thwarted yet again.

The Opposition support the thrust of the Kennedy report. As we said during the debate at the time of its publication, it is time to move forward. There appears to be evidence from elsewhere, including New Zealand, that vaccination can be as effective as quarantine. Any regular cross-channel traveller will be well aware of how easy it is to evade the current restrictions. We know that people have great emotional attachments to their pets which can lead them to overreact to constraints. A simpler, cheaper system, which would remove the problems of separation, is more likely to be heeded. However, we have a number of questions for the Minister because not all our previous concerns have yet been addressed.

I welcome the idea of pilot schemes, and the fact that the Minister anticipates that the scheme could be up and running by 2001. Does he expect animal entry eventually to be allowed at every air, sea and rail port or only at selected ports? I accept that carriers will have to make decisions about that, but how widespread does he expect the facility will be? Will there be a national database at least of United Kingdom animals that have been through the required processes that he described?

Professor Kennedy said that animals should have been in a qualifying country for some six months. How will that be verified? How is it possible to ascertain how long an animal that has been out of this country has been in a qualifying country rather than somewhere else?

If the Minister is expecting pilot schemes to be established within 12 months, why do we not yet know which countries are on the list other than EU countries? Which are the rabies-free islands? What about EU enlargement—will the candidate countries, some of which we know have endemic rabies, be excluded for ever and a day until that changes, or will they have second-tier status in their relationship with the EU?

Will the present requirement for a veterinary certificate—which is currently required before moving a dog out of the United Kingdom—be abolished? If the Minister is happy about veterinary standards across the qualifying countries—not just within the EU—why was the Bendixon-Dexter report, on precisely that issue, never published?

The statement makes no reference to Northern Ireland, which is our only land boundary. What discussions has the Minister had with the Irish Government, or will Northern Ireland have to be excluded from the changes?

What does the Minister anticipate that the cost will be? We welcome the fact that it will be borne by the pet owner, not by other pet owners or even the taxpayer. Does he agree with the British Veterinary Association's estimate of £150?

Finally, I should like to ask about the impact on the owners of quarantine kennels. The Minister did not refer to them in his statement, but he knows that they have expressed concerns because they saw him about the issue last week. The impact on them will start now because, as a result of the statement, pet owners will delay travel, if possible, to avoid quarantine. The kennel owners anticipate that 50 per cent. of their business will be lost when the new scheme is fully operational. The only alternative is to operate as boarding kennels, but many quarantine kennels are near ports, whereas pet owners want boarding kennels to be near their home. In any case, the demand for boarding kennels will almost certainly reduce as more people are able to take their pets on holiday. What is the right hon. Gentleman's response to the kennel owners' request for recompense—I believe that they are using the word decommissioning—particularly bearing in mind his decision on fur farming?

We are pleased that the Government have moved forward on the issue and welcome the timetable that the right hon. Gentleman has announced, but there are still questions. I hope that he can answer them.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his charitable welcome, although his introduction was slightly grudging. He protested that I am making the statement on a Friday and felt that it was somehow a discourtesy to the Speaker. Of course I intend no discourtesy. He will be aware that my opening words were "With permission", because the Speaker consents to me making the statement. I did not notice the new-found concern for the time of private Members pervading the Conservative party in the previous Parliament.

This is a situation in which Ministers are damned if they do and damned if they do not. I was denounced on "Breakfast with Frost" on the Sunday after the Agriculture Council by no less a personage than the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), for not making a statement to the House, when I had done so—again on a Friday. The Conservatives protest when statements are made and the former Prime Minister protests that one was not made, even when it was. It is difficult to get it right.

The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) referred to an article in The Times. It was wrong. We are not insisting on a charge of £150. I was careful to concentrate my remarks on the "Today" programme on the Kennedy recommendations and the Government's response to them—information that was already in the public domain—and not to pre-empt my statement. Like the hon. Gentleman, I think that the House of Commons should be told first.

Anyway, the hon. Gentleman has welcomed the scheme. He asked whether the eventual scheme would cover every point of entry. Of course, the pilot project will not and it may be that, under the eventual scheme, people will not be able to bring pets in at every point of entry. Schemes will be approved on a case-by-case basis and may operate slightly differently for air travel, rail travel and seaborne points of entry. We are discussing the details. The Government are concerned that each scheme must be 100 per cent. effective and must provide the safeguards set out in the Kennedy report. There must be no weakening of this country's protection against rabies.

A national database is not necessary. We need a foolproof way of checking that the veterinary certificate—which is what people mean by a pet passport—matches the animal travelling with it. Our method is to microchip the animal. There will scanners to read the microchip. The information on the microchip must also be on the veterinary certificate.

The hon. Gentleman asked about qualifying countries and islands. The islands that are being considered—the decision depends on their rabies-free status; there is no right—include Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Taiwan, the Seychelles and Singapore. There is a longer list which I could read—I am happy to put it in the public domain if that would help.

The scheme is for the current member states of the EU. Other countries currently excluded by the scheme will not gain an automatic right with EU enlargement. They will be treated on a case-by-case basis.

I am afraid that I do not know why the veterinary standards report has not been published. I promise to look into that and write to the hon. Gentleman.

The hon. Gentleman asked about our common land border between Northern Ireland and the Irish republic. That is an important matter. Ireland has similar quarantine arrangements to ours and they are under examination just as ours are. There is close co-operation between my Ministry and Joe Walsh's Department of Agriculture and Food in Ireland. We are trying to move at the same pace and co-ordinate our activities. In any case, there is no question of Northern Ireland being excluded from the scheme.

The costs should be met through travel arrangements and should form part of the charging. That is a commercial matter for operators on which the Government have no view, but we shall not provide a public subsidy and we shall set parameters for the operators. There must be 100 per cent. foolproof checks. We shall inspect the checks from time to time to ensure that the system is working properly.

Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked me about kennel owners. I met representatives from their trade organisations recently and I shall be meeting them again this afternoon. Today's announcement will have a significant impact on their business. It is not possible to diversify from quarantine work to boarding kennel work because they are different operations. The owners will clearly want to make representations to me about their loss of business. The hon. Gentleman is right to observe that they are seeking compensation. I have absolutely no money in the Ministry's budget to pay compensation, but I accept that it is not unreasonable for them to ask me for it. I have not closed the door, but I cannot promise anything.

My right hon. Friend has referred to the imposition of blood tests. Can he assure the House that vaccination is 100 per cent. effective in all cases? If it is not, the change will be the thin end of the wedge for the entry of rabies to this country, which has been mercifully free from that baneful, unspeakably painful and invariably fatal disease. Does he agree that, if the disease came here, with the spread of feral foxes it would be very difficult to contain and almost impossible to stop? Will he assure the House that the scheme will not allow rabies to be introduced to this country?

I am determined that the new way of operating will not undermine our current protection against rabies. I believe that, if the new scheme is properly operated—I am determined that it will be—it will provide extra protection for two reasons. First, it will enable us to treat animals against other parasites as well before they come in. Secondly, it will provide a disincentive to smuggling that we do not have. We suspect—it is difficult to tell—that people drug their animals and bring them in in the boot of a car, avoiding the quarantine arrangements of six months' separation from their pet and the possible bill of £1,600 to £2,000. That is a criminal activity, but people do it. By providing a reasonable alternative, we believe that we shall have a higher level of public protection than is currently afforded.

I thank the Minister for his statement. The Liberal Democrats support the Kennedy recommendations and passports for pets. My support is based on personal experience. We moved to France when I was eight and left the family dog at home. When we decided that we wanted to bring the dog over to France, the family looking after her decided that they wanted to keep her, so we lost our family dog because of the move. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] And I have not forgotten 27 years on.

The statement leaves a few questions unanswered. When does the Minister expect to make a decision on whether the United States or Canada will be part of the scheme? Does he have plans for a fast track for the visually impaired, who depend on their guide dogs? Finally, does the Minister estimate that cost to each family for the vaccinations and the other things that will be required will be about £60?

I am not making a final estimate of the cost, although the figure to which the hon. Gentleman referred for the vaccine is about right. Other costs will be subsumed into the ticket price; effectively, that will cover the cost of the employee who must check that the veterinary certificate matches the animal. That is a necessary safeguard for the scheme on which the Government have insisted. How the individual operators absorb that cost, and what premium they charge, will depend on commercial considerations, which are for them to decide and not for me.

I cannot set a timetable for the announcement of the United States-Canada scheme, although we are looking hard at that. The way in which the scheme works will be informed by the pilot schemes for the EU and the island countries that are rabies free. Briefly, the problem is that, although veterinary standards are high in the United States and Canada, rabies is endemic in the wildlife, so there is a risk to the UK.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his broad welcome for the proposals, and I will keep the House informed of details of the schemes.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the statement, but I wish to ask about the technology. How far has it advanced, and on what basis is it being produced? If we are not to have a set database, who will do the work and on what basis will the Government say whether the work is acceptable?

That is a good question, because more than one brand of microchip is available in the UK, and they all require separate checkers. Different countries have their own microprocessors, and those will be used by people wishing to bring their pets to the UK. We are trying to get agreement on international standards. Before the individual schemes are put in place, we will state clearly which microchips will be workable under the scheme. However, it is probably not possible to provide for every item of technology that is available.

It is not necessary for the scheme to have a central database of all animals, but it is necessary to be able to check that the veterinary certificate pertains to the individual animal. If it does not, or if that cannot be checked, the scope for fraud is considerable. That would not be tolerable to the Government.

The Minister will be aware that most of the veterinary profession believes that the science and technology is achievable and will be effective. However, there will be deep concern about the enforcement regime proposed by the Minister. If I heard him correctly, there is a glaring loophole. It seems that the obligation for checking and for making the scheme 100 per cent. effective, as he said, will lie with the private operators, the ferry companies and others, and that MAFF, or the Government, will do an audit or check only "from time to time". That is not good enough. If the full might of Her Majesty's immigration service cannot prevent massive numbers of illegal immigrants from coming into this country—the subject of another Bill—how does the Minister think that, by his Department, or the Government, opting out of the responsibility for checking all animals, the scheme can be enforced properly in future?

The right hon. Gentleman has got it wrong, although I understand his concern. He is right to be concerned that the public protection measures work; I am not quarrelling with him on that. However, it is not necessary to employ directly a person to check that the certificate pertains to the animal. As long as the person who is trained to do that knows what he is looking for, it is perfectly possible for that to be done with integrity by the private sector, as much as by the public sector. However, that procedure is only one part of the safeguard.

The essential part of the safeguard is that a professionally qualified, authorised person—in short, a vet—has checked the animal for its vaccine, and has made sure that the vaccine has been followed up by a blood test confirming that the vaccine has taken. If it has not taken, the vaccine will have to be given again. That information is recorded on the certificate, and we will then rely on the professional standards of the vet to make sure that that is recorded correctly. We do not require another professional to check; we require someone to check that the document pertains to the animal.

I very much welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement, the terms of which are almost exactly the same as the recommendations made five years ago by the Select Committee on Agriculture. I recall that the then Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the right hon. Member for South—West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard), told us that we had no chance of ever implementing them. In the intervening years, a lot of work has been done on the necessary technology and a lot of experience has been gained from other countries which employ parts of that technology. Is it not a long time until April 2001 for the full implementation? Is there any chance of that long wait being shortened, as people have waited a long time for the scheme?

The Select Committee report was valuable. It informed our decision making in opposition and in government and was one of the reasons why we commissioned the original Kennedy report. On the time scale, I am not setting time limits; I am saying that we will get on with it. I want to get the pilot schemes up and running as soon as I can, but there are technical matters to be addressed, such as whether we have pre-entry checks or point-of-entry checks. The answers to such questions may be different for different transport sectors—the answer for air travel may be different from that for the channel tunnel or for ferry operators. Once those matters are sorted out, I will put the terms of the scheme into the public domain so that people will know with what they have to comply.

There will be broad support for what the Minister has said, and appreciation of the patience and lack of prejudice that he has exercised since taking office—against, I suspect, some of the recommendations of senior officials within the Department.

The question of delay continues to arouse anxiety in some. In particular, will the pilot schemes be comprehensive, and will he accelerate them? Regarding his second meeting this afternoon with the kennel owners, I do not take the charitable view that my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) articulated about that bunch of people. The Minister should bear in mind that, once their days are numbered, the already horrendous conditions that prevail in most of their establishments will continue as they are run down. He has a statutory responsibility to inspect those establishments, and that is not rigorously applied in many cases. Will he tell the kennel owners that there will be no fall in the frequency and intensity of the inspections during that running-down period, and that everyone expects them to live up to the obligations inherent in that responsibility?

I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I plan no change in the inspection regimes, which will continue as now. It is to the credit of the kennel owners' trade associations that they made the same point to me as he has made; although not in the same terms. They said that, if trade became more competitive, they would not want the standards in the sector to be driven down so that those with lower standards gained a competitive advantage.

There is no compulsion for different operators to take part in the pilot schemes—if those in one sector do not want to, that is a matter for them—but, at the meeting that I had with carriers yesterday, there was a great deal of interest in what the Government intended, and people asked questions, some of which were searching, but all along the lines of how they could participate. Officials are holding discussions with each sector, and we intend to proceed. I am more than happy to have pilot schemes for each sector, to avoid any competitive advantage. If they want it, there will be schemes for the rail operators, the port operators and the airlines.

Does my right hon. Friend appreciate the broad welcome for his statement? One of the exotic infections that worries the country is the rabid anti-Europeanism that infects the Conservative party. Does he agree that children, in particular, will welcome the announcement, because 14 million British people travel to the continent for holidays each year, and many families have to leave their pets behind? As we have seen, people who are separated from their pets could well grow up to be Liberal Democrat Members of Parliament, and we certainly do not want that.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the scheme is very good news for the British tourist industry? In the rest of the continent, people can travel with pets, with proper vaccination, but they are discouraged from coming here. I expect that we will have many more visitors from the continent to our wonderful tourist areas, including Rotherham in South Yorkshire, when they can bring their pets with them.

I am pleased that the delights of Rotherham will be open to even more people than at present. My hon. Friend is right to point out that there are a number of horrors to be avoided, and I will not list them all. He is also right to say that the pattern of family holiday taking on the continent includes the family pet, and I think that that will develop in this country as our citizens go abroad and as people come to visit us with their pets. If that can give a boost to the tourist industry, I welcome it.

The Minister will be aware that the all-party animal welfare group has long pressed for the implementation of the Agriculture Committee's original recommendations. In that, we have been given tremendous support by Passports for Pets and various animal welfare organisations. I broadly welcome all that the right hon. Gentleman has said. Clearly, there are details that have yet to be tied up. We want the scheme to be implemented as soon as possible, but we accept that the welfare of the animals concerned, and broader animal welfare issues, are paramount.

I have just returned, within the past hour, from other parliamentary business in Canada, where considerable interest was expressed in the scheme that the Minister was obviously about to announce. The Canadians want to be included as swiftly as possible.

Will the Minister consider the very special circumstances of British diplomats serving abroad, and try to find a way of incorporating them in the scheme, wherever they are? Will he also consider special provision for hearing dogs for the deaf and guide dogs for the blind?

Of course a special case can be made out for those dogs—that is at the forefront of my mind—but it may well be that we have the schemes up and running so quickly that there is no need to limit the pilots by category of dog owner. The needs of the blind or people with hearing dogs will be at the forefront of our consideration should there be any need to limit the schemes.

If we can get a workable scheme that meets the Kennedy tests and ensures that we do not increase the risk of bringing in rabies, of course I would want to include Canada. We are working on that already, and I expect that the arrangements will be informed by the trial scheme in the EU. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his broad welcome. He is absolutely right to encourage us to keep animal welfare considerations at the forefront of our mind.

I welcome the statement. Will any pilot scheme or future arrangement apply to animals other than dogs and cats? The Kennedy report makes only passing reference to other animals, which are usually smaller and easier to smuggle. I declare an interest as a keeper and sometime breeder of fancy rats, which are delightful, friendly and intelligent animals. I recommend them to any Member of Parliament who wants an animal companion.

The scheme would cover other animals that are susceptible to rabies, but clearly we expect the majority to be dogs and cats.

The Minister must be aware that there will be widespread unease at what he has announced. Many people have come to rely on, and feel confident in, the present arrangements, which have served us so well, and will be nervous about the introduction of something new.

Will the Minister keep an open mind on the pilot schemes? If they prove that the proposed system is bureaucratic, unreliable and full of loopholes, will he be prepared to reconsider the whole approach and examine how workable and reliable is the element of the Kennedy proposals concerning what happens overseas, and in particular the practicality of asking people to seek out an approved laboratory to complete that part of the procedure before they re-enter the country with their animals? I have grave suspicions that that simply will not work.

I hope that the Minister will use the pilot schemes to demonstrate to his absolute satisfaction that the proposed scheme will be as reliable as the existing, well-proven system, if not more so.

The right hon. Gentleman is right about one thing: if people seek out a laboratory or practitioner not approved for the scheme, the animal will not get in. People either operate within the terms of the scheme or they are excluded from it. If people turn up in this country with an animal that does not pass the tests, it will go into quarantine. No hard-luck stories will get round that. People cannot go and purchase their own approval; they must get the approval authorised by the Ministry.

The right hon. Gentleman says that the scheme is bureaucratic and may be unworkable, but it seems pretty straightforward and clear-cut to me. In any event, the purpose of the pilots is to test it. I give him this assurance: we are conducting a test, we will watch closely how it works, and if it is not able to provide the same safeguard as quarantine, either we will reshape it so that it does, or we will have to discontinue it. That is the bottom line. I will not have our current protections undermined, but I do not believe that the new scheme will do that.

The right hon. Gentleman says that he is nervous about change. Some people are nervous about any change in anything, but the truth is that there have been major advances both in the technology and in veterinary medicine. This seems to me to be a workable way forward, and it seems so to most members of the public who have commented on the Kennedy report: 96 per cent. of those who responded welcomed the report as the right way forward.

I, too, welcome the statement as promoting animal welfare and indeed the welfare of pet owners. Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge the important and effective role played by the vast majority of kennel owners in past years, in contradiction to some assertions that we have heard today? They have fulfilled an important regulatory function. I thank him for his sympathy with their plight, at a time when 46 per cent. of the market might be lost and 60 small businesses, many of them in Dover, could be threatened. When he rubs shoulders with Ministers who have a budget, will he encourage them, too, to meet the kennel owners?

When considering the pre-entry checks, will my right hon. Friend take careful account of the representations from busy ports such as Dover, which will have to make special arrangements to make the regulations work effectively?

Yes. Discussions with the big port operators are under way. We must ensure that the arrangements that we have in place are workable in all circumstances, including the difficult circumstances surrounding the arrival in this country of an animal that does not meet the new test and that must therefore be quarantined under the old rules. That will happen. We will still need kennels because the quarantine rules will still be in place for countries not covered by the scheme. I accept that the scheme will be a preferred route for those bringing animals into the country, because it is obviously preferable to quarantine, partly because it will not mean separation from the animal for six months and partly because the costs will be lower. That is bound to have an unwelcome impact on kennel owners' business and I understand that. Their trade associations and representatives have responded to the scheme in a mature way and put certain points to me, which I am considering.

Most people will welcome the aim of the Minister's statement and wish him well with it. One of the major concerns must be that Poland and some of the other early-entry countries in the EU enlargement process have a high incidence of rabies. If I understand the Minister correctly, he proposes that the post-enlargement arrangements will involve an internal border within the EU for the transfer of animals. Why is he confident that such an internal border will be practical, immune from corruption and legal under European law?

I understand the points that the right hon. Gentleman makes, but I do not think that our ambitions for European enlargement should be an insuperable obstacle to conducting a trial of a scheme that is likely to provide workable arrangements. I give no commitment today automatically to guarantee to candidate countries the same arrangements that will be put in place for EU countries and others, for example, Switzerland, Liechtenstein and Andorra. The issues will have to be addressed further downstream and I or my successor will do that. Indeed, it would have been difficult to put those arrangements in place when rabies was still endemic in the wildlife of some EU countries, but that is not the case now. The Government's priority now and, I suspect, in the future is to ensure that our arrangements exclude rabies from this country. That is my priority and it will the priority of the next—

Tory Minister.

I do not think that it will be as far away as that. It will be the priority of the next Minister when he considers the case-by-case position of candidate countries.

I welcome this sensible approach, but does the list of islands include Cyprus? On the assumption that it does, I pass on the thanks of hundreds of my constituents and thousands of British service families around the world, who will be much heartened by this news. I repeat the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) about the diplomatic service, which the Minister inadvertently failed to address in his reply to my hon. Friend. Will the Minister confirm that it will be included in the scheme?

Will the right hon. Gentleman also consider the important question of decommissioning grants for quarantine kennels? It is unfair to tar them all with the same brush, and there is no excuse for bad kennels. If the state has established a regime that must be followed by the operators and then removes that regime, it has a responsibility. The Minister may not have any money in his budget now, but I hope that he will plan for such grants in a few years' time. Finally, I wish to pass on the thanks of my springer spaniel, Tigger, who, with a fair wind, will get a thousand new scents in France before she turns up her paws.

Please pass on my best wishes to Tigger. I am afraid that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman any good news today on the subject of decommissioning grants because I do not have the money in the departmental budget and I have received legal advice on whether it would be appropriate to set a precedent. When other changes in the pattern of regulation of public service are made, we do not necessarily compensate operators for every adjustment.

I have a list of the islands that are under consideration, but unfortunately it does not include Cyprus because of the divide between Turkish Cyprus and the Greek part. Rabies is endemic in the Turkish part.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you consult with Madam Speaker on what protection can be given to private Members on Fridays? By my calculations, we have had a Government statement or private notice question on every private Members' Friday, bar one. That is unique in parliamentary Sessions of the past few years. We have never had so many statements before and the net result is, as we saw last week, that Bills that are listed second, third or fourth on the Order Paper are not reached. I would like to make a few comments today on the Hedges (Control) Bill and on the Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) (Amendment) Bill, but I suspect that those measures will not be reached because 45 minutes has been taken out of the time for private Members' Bills. The statement was interesting, but it was not urgent and there was no vital necessity for it to be delivered on a Friday morning. I appeal to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to raise the issue with Madam Speaker and through the usual channels to ensure that private Members' Fridays are protected from unnecessary Government statements.

The House will have noted the right hon. Gentleman's comments. Madam Speaker has discretion over private notice questions, but she does not have discretion over Government statements. The customary times for Government statements are 3.30 pm, 12.30 pm on Thursdays and 11 am on Fridays. It is entirely a matter for the Government whether they believe that they have business that must be brought before the House. We will now resume the debate on the Right to Roam Bill.

We have a beautiful country which is small but varied. Some parts of the countryside will need protection at certain times of the year and I am sure that the local advisory groups—which I hope will include a true cross-section of the community—will discuss that issue. I hope that any restrictions will be limited and the reasons for them clearly stated. How will members of local advisory groups be appointed? Do the Government intend that the groups will meet regularly or only when there is a specific local dispute to resolve? When landowners, whether private or public, intend to deny access to the public, will they be required to inform the local advisory group?

I hope that large areas of land will not be closed off because access is over a small area of land that has been closed. That may be justifiable at times, but I hope that landowners will not use such measures to deny access. As we all know, land management can cover many things and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will tell us how that issue will be monitored.

We often hear farmers and landowners saying that they are the protectors of our countryside. I think that it is in their interests to take that role, but that does not mean—I am sure that my view is shared by an enormous number of people, including many right hon. and hon. Members—that they then have a right to say, "This land is ours, and only we can use it or enjoy it because only we understand the land and its management."

I return to the comments in the letter from my constituent, Mr. Stephenson, which I read out earlier. He wrote about

"the right to roam on…common land, subject to sensible restrictions."

I hope that that attitude will be generally adopted. I am sure that that is what my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle would seek and support.

We all know that some landowners put up trespass notices by rights of way, causing real difficulties in many parts of the country. Very often, people who may not be aware of a traditional right of way are concerned and frightened by the threat of prosecution should they attempt to walk the land in question. We have a network of rights of way throughout the country and I would like to hear from my right hon. Friend the Minister how we can ensure that existing rights of way continue to be open to the public and are not closed by landowners, be they private or public. We know that closures take place from time to time.

Will the Bill lead to the development of rights of way? If so, it is essential that they are properly recorded and maintained. Who would be responsible for meeting the costs that would be involved? Would it be a combination of the landowner and the local authority? We would welcome some comments on these matters from my right hon. Friend.

Sadly, a section of our community does not enjoy the opportunities that are available to us; I refer to the disabled. In recent years in the House, there has been enormous cross-party support for the introduction and implementation of legislation that has brought vastly greater public awareness of the rights of disabled people, along with other developments that have been warmly welcomed. I hope that the Bill will be another way of opening up the rights of disabled people so that they can enjoy the countryside.

A few years ago, there were many buildings to which disabled people had no access. That lack of access denied them many of the enjoyments that are available to us without any problems. The Bill provides us with an opportunity to make the countryside more available to people who, because of their disablement, are not able to enjoy it, although they wish to do so. We have shown in recent years that progress can be achieved. I hope that the Government will seek to develop that aspect of the Bill.

The Bill will give the public access to about 12 per cent.—a very small part—of the countryside. I hope that, year by year, we shall see that percentage increase throughout the country. Hon. Members on both sides have referred to certain historic and beautiful areas of the country that they know extremely well. I come from the south of England, where there are many areas that could be made more accessible to the public. We shall look to the Government and to local advisory groups to ensure that progress is achieved.

We know that the Government own enormous areas throughout the country. I hope that, through the Bill, we shall see a willingness on their part to open up the land that they own. Much of it is not open to the general public.

Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that, under the Conservative Government, the Ministry of Defence largely opened up its training areas, apart from those being used at a particular moment, for use by the public?

I obviously welcome that sort of development. However, I am not talking solely about military land. There is other land that the Government own or for which they have management responsibilities. I am talking about opening up that land so that the general public may enjoy it.

Despite some of the comments this morning, I believe that the Bill will lead to continuing developments, and a real understanding between landowners and the public. That is what the Bill is designed to achieve. We know that, at times, the relationship between landowners and the public can be very good. Unfortunately, there are times when it is not. I hope that there will be real consensus and real co-operation to ensure that progress is made. If that does not happen, we have a right—we are backed by the voice of the people—to introduce legislation. That is what the Bill and the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle have clearly indicated.

As my hon. Friend said, we look to November for the introduction, in the next Session, of legislation that will take forward the developments that he wishes to secure through his Bill. I shall listen with great interest to the comments of my right hon. Friend the Minister.

It is customary to congratulate hon. Members on successfully bringing Bills to a Second Reading debate. I am happy so to congratulate the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice). He knows that the Opposition oppose his Bill, but I think that the House must commend his persistence, commitment and energy in getting his Bill to this stage and—it may or may not be the case, and only the hon. Gentleman can tell—changing the Government's mind.

It is regrettable that the debate has been interrupted by a statement, welcome though it was to the House. However, my right hon. and hon. Friends and I welcome the opportunity to debate the issue that is raised by the Bill as it is of great importance.

Conservative Members strongly support increased, safe and secure access to the countryside. In order to formulate our policy on the matter, we conducted an extensive consultation, culminating in a conference last autumn. I should like to place on record our thanks to all the organisations and individuals who so willingly helped us in that task.

We support increased access for a wide range of reasons: because of the increased pace of urban living, for educational and recreational reasons, and also because we believe that increased access will help to create mutual understanding between those who rightly regard our environmental heritage as something for all of us to value and enjoy, and those whose living depends on that environmental heritage.

I therefore regret that, in introducing his Bill, the hon. Member for Pendle, whom I earlier congratulated, chose to indulge in the politics of class hatred or class envy. I cannot believe that the expressions that he chose to use are the third way, as approved by No. 10. His remarks and tone, and their reception by his hon. Friends, will not go unnoticed by those in the countryside with whom the Minister will no doubt shortly say he wishes to create a partnership.

The right hon. Lady mentioned comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) and my hon. Friends' reaction to them. However, the most telling comment in the debate came from a Conservative Member, who described the moves to gain increased access to the countryside as evil. I know that, in my area, many Conservative supporters are in favour of access to open countryside. Are not such remarks an insult to supporters of the right hon. Lady's party?

The hon. Member for Pendle was in the full flush of triumph as he introduced his Bill, so to that extent, his comments were understandable, but I do not believe that they will help the creation of mutual understanding between those whose livelihood depends on working in the countryside, and those who seek to enjoy it. Indeed, I would go further and say that the hon. Gentleman's comments today have transparently revealed for all to see some of the Government's real motivation in the matter, and they will not be forgotten.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the speech of the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) stands in sharp contrast to the thoughtful and worthwhile speech of the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), who advanced the arguments in a much better tone?

My hon. Friend pre-empts what I was about to say. While clearly sharing the views of his hon. Friend the Member for Pendle, the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) nevertheless demonstrated an understanding of the countryside, and a willingness to accept that there could be arguments on both sides of the divide and that those arguments needed to be explored in a less feverish atmosphere.

Conservative Members chastise some of us for not being conciliatory. What about some conciliatory action from those on the Conservative Front Bench? Would it not be much better if they joined us and agreed that access legislation is necessary? They say that they want more access to the countryside. Would not such cross-party support take matters forward?

I shall go on to describe to the House the way in which we think that the matter could be taken forward. Perhaps I shall have the good fortune to convert the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish.

We believe that the matter is of wider importance to our country than the politics of class envy. Our broader approach is shared by the many organisations that we consulted, including the Countryside Commission, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, Friends of the Earth and the National Farmers Union.

In their responses to the right hon. Gentleman's consultation paper, English Nature and the Council for the Protection of Rural England pointed out that the context of the debate should be broader than that set by the Government. In its response, Friends of the Earth criticised the Government for focusing almost exclusively on the social implications of increased access, not the broader implications.

The CPRE summarised the issues well in its response by stating:

"Those who live and/or work in the countryside and those who visit it all have a legitimate voice in the access debate alongside other interests."

Alongside those interests, we would list sustainability, the protection of the environment and security for those using and working in the countryside.

The hon. Member for Pendle and the Government—after all the skirmishes and briefings, we understand from the hon. Gentleman that they are to be regarded as one—are fond of quoting the finding that 80 per cent. of people polled want to see more access to the countryside. What they often fail to add is the further information that emerged from the Country Landowners Association's research and polling.

It is, indeed, the case that 80 per cent. of people want to see more access to the countryside, but most people are not aware of the extent of the current rights of way network. That point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) and by the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox). In his statement to the House on 8 March, the Minister gave some brief information on the Government's intentions on the clarification of rights of way and the further information to be given about their existence. I think that some of the proceeds of the national lottery were to be used. It would be useful to have further information on that matter, if the right hon. Gentleman is able to give it this morning.

Many people are vaguely aware that there are more rights of way networks than they know about. If the Government were prepared to give more publicity to those rights of way—as I believe that they are—that would make a large contribution to furthering people's desire to enjoy and use the countryside.

The CLA survey also indicates that 63 per cent. of people prefer to walk on clearly marked paths; 41 per cent. of people want new access within five miles of their homes; and 92 per cent. want restrictions to protect wildlife. This March, in the Contemporary Review, Lord Buxton pointed out:

"One could more likely get 100% answering 'no'"—

to increased access—

"if the question was 'Are you in favour of tramping on skylarks' and curlews' nests or scaring off lapwings?'."

[Interruption.] Well, the House must obviously consider that point. It illustrates that we need to find a balance between those arguments. The final figure given by the CLA was that 85 per cent. of people want restrictions to protect farming and livestock. Although many people are keen for access to the countryside to be extended, many are equally aware of the implications for biodiversity, wildlife and the livelihoods of those who work in the countryside.

How can a balance be achieved? We believe that the best way forward is to create a secure legal framework, which defines rights and responsibilities, and considers owner liability in respect of dangerous dogs and so on. Trust could grow within such a framework and voluntary co-operation could develop. The overwhelming majority of those who go out to enjoy the countryside are highly responsible people—as has been pointed out many times this morning. Voluntary agreements on the part of landowners are fast proliferating. We think that the Bill and the Government's intentions should have built on that responsibility and co-operation, fostering trust by pursuing the voluntary route.

In 1990, I piloted the Rights of Way Act through Parliament. That was based on a report published by the present Deputy Speaker, my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Sir A. Haselhurst), who is in his seat now. The Act was based on consensus. It opened up the existing rights of way network and made it easier for people to gain access. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is the right approach? It is possible to achieve consensus between the National Farmers Union, the Country Landowners Association and the ramblers, if we are positive about those matters.

It is a more constructive way forward. That is the basis for our arguments. It is never constructive to try to impose co-operation; it is a waste of an opportunity if we do not use a bridge-building approach.

Is the right hon. Lady aware that consensus has already been achieved in Scotland? On 9 March, Mr. Murdo Fraser, land reform spokesman for the Scottish Conservative party, said:

"We do not have a problem with a general right to roam."

Is the policy of the Scottish Conservative party different from that of the English Conservative party?

The legal position of landholding in Scotland is completely different from that in England and Wales. It is a waste of time to try to draw comparisons between them.

Does the right hon. Lady accept that the voluntary principles were enshrined in legislation in 1949? She says that progress has been made recently, but, partly because of the spread of towns and partly because of the actions of some landowners, there is now less access to the countryside than there was 50 years ago.

Since 1991–92, there has been an increase of 25 per cent. in the acreage available for people's access to the countryside, and a 23 per cent. increase in paths. That was all achieved through voluntary means.

I believe that the hon. Member for Pendle and the Government are wasting an opportunity. They could have increased the sense of trust between all sides in this argument and they should have begun by establishing a definition of demand for increased access—how much more demand, how much more access? I believe that they should have set their own objectives, and clarity in both those respects would have done much to dispel the suspicion with which the Bill and the Government's response are regarded in some sections of the countryside.

In England and Wales, 7.5 million acres and 210,000 miles of path are available, and 80 per cent. of the land area and 32 per cent. of path access are accounted for by voluntary agreements. The hon. Member for Pendle and, indeed, the Government might have taken this opportunity to clarify and define the rights and responsibilities of those who use the land and those who own it, but we could learn more in that respect when the Government's proposals are introduced. The same must be said of owner liability. The Bill, although it nods at the issue, is not reassuring and I hope that the Minister will take note of the many, perfectly legitimate, concerns before his legislation is drafted.

When the Minister made his statement to the House on 8 March, he was, sadly, dismissive on the matter of compensation for landowners. He said that

"independent research shows that landowners generally will not suffer costs significant enough to warrant compensation."—[Official Report, 8 March 1999; Vol. 327, c. 25.]

He should talk to one or two upland farmers, whose land lies in some of the most attractive parts of our country and whose incomes have plummeted because of the policies of his Government. They most certainly could not be expected to afford the extra management costs of access. The Bill ignores that and the Government's Human Rights Act 1998, under which the rights of property cannot be damaged without compensation being paid. Clear intent to deal with those questions and the provision of a legal framework for all involved would have encouraged voluntary co-operation, thereby increasing and enhancing access.

It is understandable that a private Member's Bill should not seek to identify or allocate resources implicitly, but the Government's legislation will have to define their objectives so that the costs may be quantified. The Local Government Association, the NFU, the Tenant Farmers Association, the Moorland Association and the statutory wildlife and conservation organisations—including the national parks—have calculated those costs and are rightly anxious about the Government eventually making a commitment to giving them the resources to do the job.

A lot of other practical problems will be raised in the debate and as the Government take the legislation forward, including mapping, definitions, closures, the impact on land values, access to island sites and the timetable for all the changes. It may not be possible for the Minister to refer to them all, but he may be able to speak about some of them.

Conservative Members believe that the hon. Member for Pendle and the Government have been guided more by party ideology than by concern for the countryside and those who use and work in it. English Nature's response to the Government's consultation paper says that

"the underlying purpose of the Government's proposals needs to be clearer and that access to open country should not be the starting point of any review or overhaul of access provision. Instead greater emphasis needs to be put on improvements to the existing public rights of way network, more use of existing tracks and permissive paths and the provision of opportunities for everyone to enjoy green space near to their homes. Any new arrangements should be the subject of a strategic level environmental appraisal prior to adoption, and be developed in the light of Government policies on integrated transport, sustainable development and biodiversity."

We agree with that statement from the Government's own advisers, English Nature.

It is a matter of regret that the Bill and the Government's statement should make such scant reference to the implications for wildlife and biodiversity of increased access to the countryside. We hope that, when the Government come to draft their legislation, they will take careful note of the wise words of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds in its response to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions paper of June 1998. Those words apply with equal force to the Bill. The RSPB said:

"In the absence of audit as to the status of access to open land, the absence of adequate research investigations from which to assess the implications…of access to open land, and the consequent lack of a comprehensive environmental assessment, the RSPB believes that the Government should proceed with caution in developing and implementing its policy for access to open land. Open land contains some of the habitats of greatest wildlife interest. Getting it wrong could be costly…to our wildlife heritage".

Sadly, we believe that the Bill is getting it wrong. It fails to build on the co-operation already in place; it fails to take account of the practicalities of land use; it fails to make a case for its proposals beyond that of party ideology; and it fails to safeguard our countryside and environment. It is a wasted opportunity.

I add my congratulations to those that we have already extended to my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice). I thank him for asking me to sponsor the Bill, something that I was pleased to do. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), I should declare a form of interest: I am president of the Sussex right to roam group, but I derive no pecuniary interest from that.

I welcome the statement by my right hon. Friend the Minister earlier this month. I represent a largely urban constituency, but the relationship between the town and the downs in Brighton and my part of Sussex is an ancient one. It was put on a more formal basis earlier this century when the far-sighted and often mayor of Brighton, Sir Herbert Carden, persuaded the town to buy large tracts of the south downs. He was looking to the future and the way in which the relationship between the town and the downs might develop. That is one reason why I have been lobbying my right hon. Friend the Minister so hard to achieve national park status for the south downs. That, however, is a debate for another occasion.

I was particularly pleased to see clauses 9 to 15 included in the Bill, as those deal with maintaining the access to the countryside that already exists under other legislation. They include references to sanctions against wilful obstruction to access, additional penalties for obstructing footpaths, and the issue of landowners' dependence on grants and the access to which they agree in order to obtain those grants. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will ensure that those issues will be included in the Government legislation.

The current position, particularly in my part of the country, is unsatisfactory. We have the famous case, which has received national prominence, of Nicholas van Hoogstraten, a landowner with an estate at High Cross, near Uckfield. He is the sad Citizen Kane of Sussex. He has amassed great wealth and can find nothing better to do with it than incarcerate himself within the monument that he is building. A great many of my constituents rejoice at the notion of Mr. van Hoogstraten's self-incarceration, but that should not be at the expense of the rights of way that exist across his estate. My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish and others took part earlier this year in activities concerning the blocking of that footpath.

It is deplorable that the highways authority, East Sussex county council, has so far taken no action against the blocking of that footpath. We have heard much about rights of way and the pattern of footpaths across the country, but we should also bear in mind the fact that many local authorities are failing in their duty to maintain rights of way and to keep footpaths open. The Ramblers Association deserves congratulations for the action that it is taking concerning Mr. van Hoogstraten's estate.

Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating the countless civic societies that work tirelessly with the Ramblers Association, often with little resources? They also seek to keep public footpaths and rights of way open.

I certainly associate myself with those sentiments. My hon. Friend has served to emphasise the failure of statutory authorities in many parts of the country to maintain footpaths without prompting from organisations such as the Ramblers Association and civic societies.

I want to draw attention to the failure of the countryside stewardship scheme. So far, £0.5 million has gone into the 41 schemes in East and West Sussex. I discovered that list of 41 schemes following a parliamentary question that I tabled last year. Ramblers in my part of the country were surprised that many of the sites listed were under a countryside stewardship scheme. There has been a failure to publicise the rights of access that should exist under those schemes. As Labour Members have said, there should not be a right to grants under that or other schemes unless landowners are willing to accept their concomitant responsibilities.

There has also been a failure of publicity about the exemption from inheritance tax. I have tried again and again to find details of areas where access should be granted in East and West Sussex. I have tabled parliamentary questions, but I get the answer that we have heard this morning—the details cannot be revealed. However, from those answers, I have determined that, over a 10-year period, some £65 million of tax has been forgone under those schemes. Have we had £65 million-worth of access and benefit? I do not think so. I also congratulate Channel 4 on its "Dispatches" programme the year before last, which helped to highlight this tax scam.

We have heard much about the voluntary approach, and the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) referred to the need to concentrate on it. I wish that I shared her confidence that it works. Since 1949, one voluntary scheme has been established in East Sussex under the powers to which my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish referred. It was in a fairly remote part of the county, which is fine, because people wanted to go there.

I congratulate the Country Landowners Association—people may not expect me to do that—on its attempts last year to persuade its members to improve and increase the number of voluntary agreements at local level. I believe that the association has been badly let down by its members.

Let me refer again to East and West Sussex. New agreements have indeed been established in East Sussex—in Ewhurst, for instance, where an informal rally for charity is to take place on a seasonal basis. In Westfield, an agreement has been established for the setting up of conservation forces, and a pocket park with a pond. Those three schemes are very limited, however.

As for West Sussex, I have a copy of a list that has been distributed to hon. Members by the CLA. In West Dean, there is to be a way-marked walk. In Cuckfield, country trust and school visits can be made by arrangement, and there will be scout and guide camps, also by arrangement. Several ponds in Cuckfield have been rented to Haywards Heath angling society. There is a scheme allowing public access of a more general nature, and another allowing ploughing matches by arrangement. Gardens will be opened, and an entry fee will be charged.

I am afraid that that limited array of so-called public access schemes does not back up the right hon. Lady's suggestion that voluntary agreements are working.

Had it not been for the appearance of possible access legislation on the horizon, some of those voluntary agreements would not have been established in the first place. Perhaps those in charge of the CLA felt that increasing the number of such agreements was the only way of heading off legislation—but they always knew that they would be unable to deliver them through their membership alone.

I agree. I believe that the CLA tried to make the voluntary agreements work, and that it has been let down by the landowners.

The right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) made much of the increased access to the countryside that had been created by the voluntary approach. Before we celebrate the success of that approach, should we not ask how much of the progress that has been made over the past 50 years is due to the National Trust, English Nature, local authorities and other public bodies, and how much is due to private landowners? The figures that I have suggest that only 5 per cent. of the so-called success is due to private landowners. In fact, the voluntary approach has been a dismal failure.

I am sure that that analysis is correct.

The CLA's claims have been analysed by the University of Hertfordshire. On 20 February this year, The Times said that analysis showed that the CLA's survey of voluntary schemes was

"methodologically unsound and based on inaccurate data."

The reporter commented that that was

"academic-speak for a load of tosh."

Opposition Members have spoken of the conflict between access and environmental protection. I do not believe that there is any such conflict. On 9 March, a Brighton resident, Mr. David Bangs, wrote drawing my attention to three sites in East Sussex which, although sites of particular wildlife interest, were not being well maintained by the landowners who were responsible for them. He had already mentioned the matter to the South Downs conservation board. He rightly made the point that one reason why that neglect had been allowed to continue for so long was that there was no right of access to those sites for members of the public, who would act as the watchdog of environmental protection, rather than as tramplers and destroyers, which is how Opposition Members have presented them.

On the bogus conflict between the right to roam and the environment, does my hon. Friend agree that another bogus conflict that has been propounded by the Conservative party is that between town and countryside? Does he accept that many of the people who would benefit from the right to roam already live in the countryside?

Again, and perhaps unsurprisingly, I agree. I began by drawing attention to the close relationship that has developed between people living in my constituency and the surrounding downland. That is a protective and caring relationship, which could be developed by the Bill.

I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that, by yesterday, over half of all hon. Members had signed my early-day motion 11, which calls for increased protection of important wildlife sites. I hope that, in the legislation that will reach us later this year, he will feel able to draw together measures to increase access to, and to strengthen protection of, many important wildlife environmental sites in various parts of the countryside, all of which is desperately needed.

Those who claim to be the protectors of our rural heritage—the landowners—are, with some exceptions, signally failing to carry out those responsibilities. The greater access there is to the countryside by those of us who genuinely care about it, the more protection those wildlife sites will have.

I declare an interest. I am an adviser to the Countryside Alliance, and a member of the Country Landowners Association and the National Farmers Union, so the House will know where I am coming from.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) on the Bill, not because I agree with much that he said, but because I am grateful to him for the opportunity to debate the issue. That is important. He has done his cause a great disservice. Again, we have heard the old-fashioned socialist rant about mass trespass and right to roam, and seen the old socialist totem that has existed for so long.

The conflict that that attitude engenders all the time has probably been the single biggest enemy to opening access to the countryside. When landowners are faced with such an aggressive attack, naturally, they respond by being aggressive in their own right. We need co-operation in the countryside, not conflict. That is the way in which to open up more land.

The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper) talked about the countryside stewardship scheme, but he misunderstands it. It is not simply to increase access; it is to enhance the natural beauty of the countryside. For example, farmers in my constituency who are on the scheme cut hay traditionally to enhance the look of the countryside in the area. That means that they do not necessarily want public access, which would not be suitable there; nor would a right to roam be, because it is a cultivated area.

The hon. Member for Pavilion will recall that the right to roam has been a socialist totem since about the 1890s, when the first move to create such a right was made in the House. The movement went as far as the mass trespasses at Kinder Scout, which was another great benchmark in socialist history.

I rather suspect that, had the Prime Minister and his official spokesman not been sleeping off a late night in Brussels dishing out more money to French farmers, Labour Members' pagers would have been buzzing as the hon. Member for Pavilion went into an old Labour diatribe dressed up as the third way. I rather enjoyed it.

In the interest of historical accuracy, I should say that many of the issues of the countryside and access to it that we have been debating today predate introduction of even the word socialism, and can be traced back in the United Kingdom to at least 1642.

I am certain that the issue of access and the use of highways go back to mediaeval times. However, the idea of people wanting to leave industrial towns and, quite rightly, wanting fresh air, on the hills of Lancashire and Yorkshire, dates from about the time of the industrial revolution.

As I said, Kinder Scout was a benchmark. Labour Members, such as the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), have probably been on Kinder Scout, as I have been. My right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis) goes there regularly. One thing that one will never see on Kinder Scout is significant wildlife. Because of the amount of access to Kinder Scout, one never sees a hare there, and one sees very few breeding birds.

rose—

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I shall give way to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish.

Kinder Scout is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt). Nevertheless, is the hon. Member for Hexham aware that shooting butts are still one of the problems on parts of Kinder Scout? Presumably, they are one of the reasons why an awful lot of wildlife has been destroyed there.

I have respect for the hon. Gentleman. In previous Parliaments, on opposite sides, we soldiered together through Committees on these issues. However, I am sorry to say that he has let himself down on that one. He knows, as everyone does, that scientific evidence shows that shooting on moorland makes a positive contribution to wildlife, whereas widespread access to that fragile area does the opposite.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. If I were to catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I could expand on the Kinder Scout, which is in my constituency. I should very much like to tell its story. People do go to Kinder Scout for wildlife and the wide access areas. In fact, 60 per cent. of all current access agreements exist in the Peak district. They exist to allow people to see wildlife and beautiful countryside—which I accept that both the hon. Member for Hexham and I both want to protect. Nevertheless, Labour Members also want to encourage the enjoyment of those areas.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, if he is lucky, will be able to catch the Deputy Speaker's eye. I do not want to concentrate too much on Kinder Scout, as other hon. Members wish to speak, and I wish to be brief.

I should like to reinforce the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden and my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice). The issue is really all about opening up greater access to the land for the 18 million British people who like walking. The Ramblers Association has 125,000 members. I doubt that the Open Spaces Society, which also campaigns on the issue, has many more than 3,000 members.

The issue is not, as the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish claims, about people who enjoy a tough ramble, as he does. Although I accept that he wants to walk over completely uncharted territory, the majority of people want to enjoy a day out in the countryside near where they live. Right to roam is diverting us from settling down and building proper access for the 18 million people who enjoy walking. That is what we want to achieve.

A perfectly good Bill was thought up by the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden)—sadly, he is not proceeding with it—which would have commanded all-party support. I supported his Bill, which would have allowed us to build such access.

If the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish, as president of the Ramblers Association, could persuade Ramblers Association members to stop their aggressive militancy, we should get on far better in improving access to the countryside.

The hon. Gentleman was quite right to say that one of the problems that we face now in the United Kingdom is that country lanes, which one used to be able to walk or ride down quite happily, are now used by commuters who drive their Volvos at 70 mph. That is a problem. If we want to overcome it, we could do so by reforming the rights of way system—by making it far more relevant to modern living, and less relevant to social patterns of the 19th century or earlier.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that what he is saying would have far more impact and resonance if it were not for the attitude of landowners, who have brushed aside any attempt to achieve co-operative agreement and have forced people who want access to the countryside, who love the countryside and who share the hon. Gentleman's enjoyment of it, to seek more formal arrangements?

That is simply not the case. We keep talking about landowners, but we are talking not about great potentates and dukes, but about tenant farmers, small farmers and big farmers who run and control the countryside.

There are farmers in my constituency who are honest enough to admit their hypocrisy. Some of them avidly support fox hunting, but are passionately opposed to allowing ramblers on their land on the grounds that they will cause damage. At least they are honest enough to admit that a huge train of hounds and horses passing through their land creates thousands of pounds worth of damage—far more than respectful ramblers. —

I hear what the hon. Lady says and I probably have somewhat more experience of hunting than she does. The vast majority of hunts pass through land causing no noticeable damage. However, that is a side issue. It is one of those silly arguments that Labour Members keep making. Instead of discussing how 18 million more people can have access to the countryside, they want to play political knockabout about hunting and the right to roam. It does them no credit at all. People who want better access to the countryside will see it as defeating their objective.

I should like to raise with the Minister a number of practical issues that arise from the Bill. Reference has been made to the problems of closing off areas of land during lambing time, for example. Hill farmers in my constituency are now engaged in lambing. Will they be able to close off upland areas until the end of the lambing season on 1 May? How will they be able to do that? What method will they require? Will they have to cover the countryside with a forest of notices or hire local wardens to advise ramblers that the land is closed?

I do not know whether my hon. Friend has seen the provision in the Bill that every notice that deters those who wish to walk over the countryside will attract a £10 fine for every day that the notice is up? It will be interesting to hear how the Minister manages to bridge that divide.

I take my right hon. Friend's point. We shall have to wait to hear what the Minister has to say about that.

The fines apply only after the landowner farmer has been told to take the sign down.

The hon. Gentleman does not realise what a Northumbrian hill farm looks like. It is enormous. Are farmers expected to stick up several hundred notices around the perimeter of such farms to say that they are closed? The practical difficulties entailed in a section of the farming community that is suffering enormously at the moment having to go out and put up a lot of signs defy logic.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

No.

Who will be responsible for deciding what is extensive grazing land and what is intensive grazing land? These days, a great deal of hill land is ploughed on a regular five-year basis to improve the pasture. Is that intensive or extensive? Who will decide that and who will map it? It was said earlier that upland areas had already been mapped. That is not the case; only upland common areas have been mapped, not the uplands in their entirety. Mapping will be an extremely difficult and time-consuming operation. Who carries out the audit of determining what is a fragile upland area and what is not in respect of the right to roam? Who will make the decision? Will it be English Nature?

There are also problems in the existing footpath network. One of the difficulties is that our footpath network was created largely in the 18th century at the time of the enclosures and grew because farm workers used to move from one part of a farm to another down particular paths. The path network also grew because the roads were so poor that people used footpaths as an alternative way of going from A to B.

Those paths are often unsuitable for modern recreational walking. One farmer in my constituency has three footpaths in one field. They all lead nowhere because they were originally used by lead miners walking to their workings. He applied to divert and unify the paths so that they would lead somewhere, but when he applied for a diversion order, an objection was lodged by the local representatives of the Ramblers Association. He was faced with a bill for nearly £1,000 in legal fees and advertising costs for the creation of a sensible diversion. He was frustrated in his attempt to change three paths leading nowhere into one path leading somewhere because of the cost and the consequences, and he has not done it. There is scope for the proposed local access forums—if the hon. Member for Pendle insists on setting them up—to create a proper recreational path network to divert paths by agreement so that they do not interfere with agricultural operations.

It would also be helpful to keep paths away from farmyards and private property. People who go out walking do not want to intrude on private property. I do not want to walk in front of someone's window and stare in and nor do I want to walk through a modern farmyard, which is a fairly industrial operation. It is a dangerous place, with large amounts of machinery. Footpaths go to farms, so they go through farmyards. I should be happier walking round a farmyard on a diverted path than walking through one.

Those are the issues that we should address. If legislation is necessary for such changes, so be it. We need to overhaul and—to use the word favoured by the proponents of the Bill—modernise the rights of way network. There is a need to sit down and look after the rights of 18 million people, not those of 125,000 ramblers. That is what the people of this country want.

I shall be brief, because I am aware that there are others who want to contribute on this popular issue.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) on the thoroughly professional and determined manner in which he has taken up this long-standing campaign, which was also a Labour manifesto commitment. I disagree intensely with the comments and criticisms that the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) made about my hon. Friend's introductory speech, which was full of humour, full of detail, hard-hitting and factual. Rather than trying to create a class division, it was about sharing, co-operation and bridge building. He was asking for the sharing of a national amenity that belongs to all of us.

Dame Vera Lynn is associated with the song "We'll Meet Again" and Gerry and the Pacemakers sang "You'll Never Walk Alone". My hon. Friend the Member for Pendle will always be associated with "Roamin in the Gloamin", which was made famous by the great Sir Harry Lauder.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister on his recent statement and the thoroughness with which he has responded on behalf of the Government. The Government's support for the right to roam will be welcomed by many hon. Members, who have shown their support by signing early-day motions and other documents, and by the majority of my constituents, many of whom have written to me in support of the Bill. My constituency is mainly urban, but it also has large areas of rural expanse to the north. I learned—not to my dismay, but to my concern—that I have a large number of farmers in my constituency when they appeared here to lobby me about BSE. I have never had one adverse comment from the farming community, although my stance on the issue is known.

Everybody in the House will agree that the UK has some of the most beautiful countryside in the world. No matter what one's preference is, it is here. We have open green fields, the dales of Yorkshire, the Lake district, the magnificent lochs and mountains north of border and wonderful coastal areas. However, one fact remains; too few people control too much of that national asset, and that must change.

The hon. Gentleman says that too few people control too much land. Is he under the impression that the Bill will lead to any change to the way in which land is owned in Britain? If so, does he believe that that would be a good thing?

The Bill certainly will give access to much of the land. I was born in Scotland, where many of the great landowners live. The Scottish people will be glad that the Bill will affect the rest of the country.

The proposal to make the right of access a statutory one must be applauded, but the Government rightly insist on responsibilities to go with the newly acquired rights. The protection of the environment for areas of natural beauty must be enshrined in legislation and respected by the walking public. There must be penalties and conditions for those who wilfully damage property, and landowners should be given compensation for those transgressions. I hope that the Minister takes that on board.

Rivers, bridges, canals and pathways need to he maintained by owners, and respected by walkers. The campaign by the Country Landowners Association has been intense—as we expected—but, in my view, has been based on the concepts of "What we have, we hold" and "Ownership is nine tenths of the law." That cannot be right.

I wish to highlight a few policy areas where clarification is needed. First, the present voluntary system is hardly cost-effective and public money is often wasted, benefiting the landowner rather than the general public. The method of renting access to land, site by site, has proved to be wasteful. The attempt to open land by voluntary agreement has resulted in vacillation, obstruction and very little progress, as has been proved over the years. Permanent access is crucial if we are to achieve a proper right to roam. The legislation must be clear and consistent, and a voluntary approach cannot provide that.

I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle is in good company. We pay testimony to James Bryce—to whom my hon. Friend referred—for his Access to Mountains Bill of 1884, the forerunner of Bills of access. The Labour Member Arthur Creech Jones proposed a similar Bill in 1939. which resulted in unsatisfactory compromise and further conflict. In 1947, Sir Arthur Hobhouse produced the Hobhouse report; a valiant effort that was rejected. Of course, we must not forget the late John Smith, a great supporter of access and the freedom to roam and climb.

We have crossed the great divide, and we are climbing a few mountains in the process. There is now an opportunity for the many in this country to share those great expanses of land that are owned by the few. The Government are delivering on one more promise. The Bill is popular, and is welcomed by 85 per cent. of the population. I support my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle on this historic day for the ordinary people of this country. With the pending White Paper on rural issues and the intention to extend the national parks network, the Government can be truly labelled the Government of countryside protection and of countryside enjoyment.

I am a rambler, although not one of the eminence and distinction of the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). I have invited people from the Ramblers Association in my constituency and in Westminster to visit Saltwood and I have walked with them over my land and over adjoining land, and I have gladly offered them refreshment at the end of the day. I hope that the plaudits of Conservative Members will not greatly embarrass the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish. His speech was admirable, and a perfect presentation of the case in which I and many people believe.

I know that it is the convention to congratulate the promoters of Bills, but I certainly do not intend to do that, because I thought that the speech of the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) was lamentable and tendentious. It verged at intervals on the paranoiac. He used extraordinary agitprop language about practically everyone whom he mentioned. He called the National Farmers Union "hysterical" and the Country Landowners Association "wreckers". He simpered from time to time when he recited the various accusations of extreme left-wingery that had been made against him.

The hon. Member for Pendle put on the record a remark that I alleged that he had made to me, and disclaimed it. Of course I remember him saying to me, "We will expropriate your land in Kent," and he remembers it, too. I like to think that I have many personal friends on the far left of the political spectrum and I respect them for their beliefs. If he had said, "Of course we will expropriate your land in Kent. That is the tenor of my belief, and I will stand by it," I could have respected that; but he folded and said that he did not remember making the remark. He remembers it all right. I would not invent that and put it in a letter.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I have not finished with him yet.

If I said such a thing in the House of Commons Library, it was said with jocularity. I have said the same thing to the Bishop of Blackburn, the Very Rev. Alan Chesters, and he took it as a joke. The right hon. Gentleman seems to be congenitally incapable of seeing a joke.

That is not a charge that has been made against me before. Usually, people accuse me of being too frivolous. However, the House and the public will judge. I regret the fact that a really important cause, which is genuinely to be encouraged as we change gear from one century to another, will suffer damage if it is presented in the tendentious language used by the hon. Gentleman.

The Bill will not trouble us again, but I hope that the Minister, when he introduces Government legislation, will bear in mind the anxiety that affects many people who are otherwise completely well-intentioned towards it. According to the Bill, open country

"means any area which consists wholly or predominantly of mountain, moor, heath or down".

Who is to judge what is "predominantly"?

The access group.

That may work, but one is naturally suspicious of any ambiguities in legislation.

Many of the provisions are pointlessly punitive. My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) mentioned the penalties for displaying signs deterring public access. There are especially penal provisions laying the burden on the landowner

"to take such steps as are agreed from time to time with the authority for the area or areas in which the land is situate … for the publication of sufficient information to enable a member of the public to identify the land".

That is completely punitive.

I am in favour of opening up the land and inhibiting awkward and rebarbative landowners, and I recognise that such people exist—the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper) cited one—but to oblige landowners to advertise and invite the public to enter their land seems to me to be going rather too far.

If the right hon. Gentleman is as keen to encourage access to the countryside as he suggests, what should happen when a public right of way is clearly marked, but someone puts up a notice saying, "Keep out. Trespassers will be prosecuted"? Surely it is important that such notices are removed and the rights of individuals to use such paths are enforced. How should that be done?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I would have thought that, if anyone put up such a notice, especially after this legislation or its equivalent has passed through the House, it would be immediately attended to. The hon. Gentleman has opened the door on the especially disquieting element of the Bill, which was inflamed by the hon. Member for Pendle in the way that he approached the topic. There are people who want to use the new right—I do not dispute the fact that it may be viewed as an ancient right that has been inhibited for centuries—as an engine for their private and extreme political convictions. I know those people. Few hon. Members would dispute my green credentials. I have been on the picket line at live export demos and been roughed up by the police, and I also went to Jill Phipps's funeral at Coventry cathedral. I well know that militants infiltrate such movements. The militant hunt saboteurs, for example, have no more commitment to animal welfare than I believe does the hon. Member for Pendle to the beauties of nature.

I introduced the Bill.

I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman if he wishes to intervene.

One of the great advantages of extending the right to roam is that many ordinary people, who might not otherwise have had access to the beauties of nature and the enlightenment that comes from great landscapes, wonderful scenery and communicating with the open, will not be prevented from enjoying those pleasures. That is why I resent those who try to use the Bill as a naked instrument in their private prosecution of the class war. It should be no such thing. It should be a unifying measure, not a divisive one. I draw to the Minister's attention the danger that, if he does not take proper control of the matter and respect the various rights and balances that should be inherent in the implementation of legislation, he will take a further step towards a socially divisive cleavage between those who live in the towns—many of whom may feel resentful about what is happening in the country—and those who live in the country and are certainly resentful, as the recent countryside march showed, of what they believe to be the encroachment on and erosion of their rights and responsibilities by the town.

Although I have been known to ramble from time to time, I hope that I shall not do so today. My remarks will be extremely brief. Many of the points that I intended to raise have already been covered in this interesting debate.

I would not claim to have the depth of knowledge of many of my hon. Friends. However, I have received many letters and postcards from my constituents showing their support for the right to roam. I know that they warmly welcome all the efforts and work of my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice)—or should I say the class warrior for Pendle—the Minister and the Government to make the right to roam a reality at last.

Like many people who live in towns, my rambling and walking is mostly done in towns and shops. That landscape is extremely pleasant—at least to me—but many people living in towns like to escape to moor or down to be surrounded by our beautiful countryside, to hear the call of the curlew rather than the ringing of cash registers. We need that space, freedom and access.

I can tell Opposition Members that people move out from their towns. People leave Romford and visit other places. They like to go to the Peak district or the Yorkshire moors, for example. They should have the right to do so.

As a town dweller, I become confused about where we can and cannot walk in the countryside. It is a brilliant idea to have mapping, when we get the right to roam, so that people will know where they can and cannot go. It will give people—perhaps new walkers—information, knowledge and clarity. That will be most welcome.

I can speak only from my limited experience. However, two particular walks have influenced me and my support for the Bill. The first was a family rambling day in Havering, which was organised by the Ramblers Association. I have always found that association to be a very responsible group in its concern and care for the countryside.

The Havering walk was on designated footpaths. My hon. Friends the Members for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer) and for Upminster (Mr. Darvill) joined me. It was a fairly short walk, but many of the footpaths were overgrown. Some had been diverted without any consultation or without the right to divert. Most were neglected and encroached by crops, for example. As a result, most of the footpaths were very narrow and insecure. It is clear to me that, if landowners are so casual about maintaining footpaths and do not even provide access to comply with the law, they and other landowners will not voluntarily provide greater access.

The second walk was in the Forest of Bowland area, when we went on another trip during the Labour party conference at Blackpool last year. The weather was pretty foul but the countryside was lovely. There was so much beautiful land with so little access. I therefore became convinced that a voluntary agreement would not work. I am reassured and delighted that those who know much more about the subject than I do, and the Government, have come to the same conclusion. This land is our land. I look on today's debate as the beginning of yet another Labour party manifesto pledge fulfilled. As we said, our policies include greater freedom for people to explore the countryside.

Legislation is needed, and I am sure that the Government will introduce a Bill as soon as they can when parliamentary time permits. Like my hon. Friends, we are looking towards November for that to happen.

Who could forget the images of the late John Smith striding through the countryside? The Act that will follow this debate will be a tribute to him. The right to roam will give pleasure to town and country people alike as it will provide greater access to the countryside. This is definitely a landmark day.

I apologise to the House, and in particular to the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), for not being present at the start of the debate, owing to an unavoidable commitment.

I should declare a long-standing interest in hiking and mountaineering. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) mentioned the Glyders, the Carnedds and the Snowdon horseshoe, which are my second home.

Those are healthy pursuits which, together with walking, horse-riding and cycling, are widely shared by our constituents. Outward-bound activities such as orienteering are becoming more popular, not just among young people. Ever more people will be pursuing such activities as more free time becomes available to them, not least in retirement, and they should be encouraged to do so. That is why the Bill is so timely and would have had my support in principle, with some important reservations, which I hope the Government will take into account in preparing their own promised legislation.

The right to access or to intrude on private land has long been a contentious and divisive issue. It has, regrettably, been fanned by the politics of envy over the years, as my namesake, my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) emphasised. Emotions continue to run high, encouraged by the media, as currently demonstrated by their coverage of the Bill. That is regrettable, but it is a reality and will remain so unless it is addressed by legislation.

I willingly confess to feeling incensed by being denied access to areas that I want to climb and explore, but that are permanently closed, just as I am incensed by ancient covenants that prevent my constituents from building a swimming pool in their back garden, for example.

I welcome the reasonable approach that, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) reminded us, has been adopted by the Ministry of Defence, which owns much of the attractive countryside and coastland in my county, Dorset. The MOD makes it available for walking on most weekends and at other times during the year, thanks to the last Conservative Government.

Clear conflicts of interest exist on the issue with which the Bill deals. The right to ownership of property and the right to privacy are clearly defined in the European convention on human rights, and are rightly upheld by the European Court of Human Rights. It has been suggested that, if the Bill became law, landowners would be entitled to compensation from the courts.

I accept that the right of common access to open countryside, as proposed by the Bill, is not mentioned in the European convention on human rights, but it is a right that public opinion strongly supports and demands, as my postbag demonstrates. That demand will only grow, so it is right to address the issue now. It is reasonable for the European Court to take account of that growing demand, should it be necessary.

A number of my hon. Friends continue to advocate a voluntary approach, as do, understandably, those representing landowners and their interests. I do not believe that a voluntary approach would work. There are too many people representing both sides who will find it impossible to appreciate the approach of the other. The situation is not helped by the media, which tend to demonise those with strongly held views. That is why so little progress has been made in achieving the co-operation and understanding that would be necessary for a voluntary approach to work.

As the issue is so polarised and the opposing points of view are so entrenched, I believe that there is no alternative to legislation. I agree with the Countryside Commission's conclusions that any voluntary arrangements would be unlikely to deliver the extent and the permanence of access that the Government are now seeking.

Far from destroying the good will that is necessary to achieve greater access, the Bill would provide a framework for mutual trust and understanding to develop between landowner and rambler or walker. Legislation would make clear beyond any misunderstanding the obligations on all land users.

The Bill defines the rights and responsibilities placed on ramblers. The detailed list in schedule 1 defines those to whom the Bill would not apply, because of their thoughtlessness, willing destruction of property or sheer stupidity. That should be welcomed on both sides of the argument.

Those eager to access the land were described in a recent letter to The Daily Telegraph as people who

"do not want to destroy the countryside; we simply want to enjoy it peacefully, carefully and with as little disturbance to the local population as possible".

Such people will no doubt welcome the measure as a way of ensuring that decent, common courtesy is maintained, and as an assurance to the landowner that his land will suffer no detrimental effects as a result of their presence on it.

To the landowner, the Bill should be equally reassuring. It would place statutory obligations on those who are using the land in pursuit of recreation and provide the landowner with increased recourse—supported by the full weight of the law—in the event of maltreatment of property. The law would provide the landowner with specific powers; it might not be necessary to use them, but they would be instrumental in establishing a working relationship between landowner and rambler. Such powers would not be provided by a voluntary agreement.

I share the reservations of the hon. Member for Pendle, as reported in The Sunday Telegraph, about the Government's proposed local access forums. Recommendations on such matters should be left to the Countryside Agency. I share the concerns of English Nature that owners of heath or downland could prevent public access by ploughing, spraying or fertilising land, deliberately destroying the characteristic vegetation and habitat for wildlife. I share the concerns of the British Association for Shooting and Conservation that the Bill must protect ground-nesting birds, such as merlin or golden plover, which would be at severe risk from unrestricted access during sensitive times of the year. There should be a far more realistic provision than the 12 days suggested in the Bill for organised shooting, from which the revenue generated is vital in maintaining moorland.

However, despite those reservations, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on pioneering a Bill to enable our constituents to explore more of the natural British heritage, and I look forward to the legislation promised by the Government.

It is a pleasure and a privilege to speak in the debate. The right to roam is a genuinely cross-party issue on which concerns have been expressed on both sides of the House. I am especially pleased to follow the excellent contribution made by the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson), and hope that he will accept that he is excluded from the comments that I am about to make.

If we look back at history, we see that politicians on the losing side of an argument tend to resort to three tactics. The first is to misrepresent the arguments of one's opponent, so as to knock them down. We have seen far too many examples of that today; for example, the idea that ploughed fields or people's gardens could be included in the right to roam. The second tactic is to attack the messenger rather than the message. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) on his thick skin; I am sure that it is as valuable in this House as it is on the moorland. The final tactic is to appeal to the values of consensus in opposition, having fought against such values during 18 years in Government.

I do not need to remind hon. Members of the extreme beauty and importance to walkers of my own High Peak constituency. During the debate, I have been taken aback by the number of hon. Members who have said that they have been there. I hope that they were not campaigning, because they did not inform me that they were coming. However, they are all welcome to continue to visit the area.

My constituency is huge: 80 per cent. of its population live in only 20 per cent. of the area. It has limestone in the south and east, and the millstone grit of the Pennines in the north and west. The moorlands stretch from Greater Manchester to Sheffield, and High Peak itself extends from Buxton to Barnsley. It is a walker's paradise. I probably represent more sheep than electors. Nevertheless, I think it is correct to say that one third of the population of England can travel to the Peak district within an hour. That gives an idea of the pressures that exist in the management of visitors.

I must admit to the neglect of one my electoral areas; the Hope Woodlands polling station serves an area of about 100 square miles, but has only 46 electors. That means that I do not campaign there much, but I describe it to give hon. Members an idea of what the terrain is like in that part of my constituency.

A hundred years ago, the areas around Kinder Scout, which is the geographical centre of High Peak, were open to ramblers and for roaming, but that changed over the early part of this century. The landowners decided to enclose the land. They enforced their rights, as they saw them, and took action against walkers who strayed from the paths. Kinder Scout, which is the highest point on the Pennines, was surrounded by 15 square miles of land to which entry was prohibited.

On 24 April 1932, hundreds of campaigners met at Bowden quarry in Hayfield and elsewhere to set out on their walk across Kinder Scout. That day became an important chapter in the social history of Britain—the Kinder Scout mass trespass, which led to hand to hand combat and pitched battles with armed gamekeepers over a wide area. Walkers were beaten and arrested, and five ramblers were sent to prison, with sentences of up to six months for the crime of wanting to wander harmlessly and responsibly over open and uncultivated countryside.

I have met two of the original ramblers. One was Ewan MacColl, the folk singer, who immortalised the campaign in song. I met Ewan and Peggy Seeger, his wife, in the 1980s. In 1992–60 years after the original trespass but, unfortunately, after Ewan's death—Peggy came back to Bowden quarry to celebrate that anniversary. Benny Rothman, one of the walkers imprisoned in 1932, was with us and his passion for the right to roam had not dulled one bit.

Hundreds of people were there to celebrate, among them my hon. Friends the Members for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) and for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor). We were elated by the occasion, although a little down in the mouth; it took place only a few days after a rather devastating general election defeat for the Labour party.

Back to 1932; the trespass struck a chord and there was uproar and public outrage because walkers had been imprisoned. The campaign to change the law stepped up a gear, but the war intervened. In 1947, 15 years on, the Hobhouse committee called for a statutory right to walk on what it called "rough country". The 1949 Act was a milestone in many ways, but it advocated a voluntary approach to access agreements, which some would have us believe is still applicable today. I hope to show why that is not the appropriate way forward any more.

The Peak district was the first national park to be set up under that legislation. In the park today, 80 square miles—including the area around Kinder Scout—are open to ramblers under access agreements. Incredibly, the Peak district national park contains 60 per cent. of all the areas of England and Wales that are subject to voluntary access agreements and most of it is in my constituency. Open access land is also owned by the National Trust and other bodies.

People approaching the park from Sheffield and Barnsley have to drive through many miles of beautiful countryside, which they are not allowed to enter, until they reach identical areas of beautiful countryside, which they are allowed to enter, before they can walk freely on open moors, but even where there is open access, there are arrangements to close land where necessary.

A number of times, Conservative Members have asked, "What will happen when land has to be closed?" Land is frequently closed, some of it open access land. That land is closed by agreement for shooting or the breeding of birds, and large areas are closed down for several days in summer when the fire risk becomes too high. Walkers understand and respect those restrictions. They know why they are in place and there are no complaints about the temporary closing of the land for good reason.

The Peak District national park has 22 million visitors a year. It is the most popular national park in Britain and the second most popular in the world—only Mount Fuji in Japan has more visitors. A high proportion of those are day visitors, walkers and ramblers.

My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish mentioned the problems of erosion. In Edale, the entrance to the Pennine way has had to be split into three to manage the concentration of erosion on the linear paths. It must be said that the effects of erosion would be reduced in such areas if there were wider access, with fewer feet per metre to cause the damage.

Although the access agreements in the Peak district are voluntary, many of them are not altruistic—there is a quid for the pro quo. The Peak park makes payments to landowners in recognition of costs incurred to them by public access. However, the system is slow and cumbersome, and does not command as much respect as it should. In many cases, it is difficult to justify the on-going costs, particularly as they may relate to events that occurred when access was granted. The real reason for the payments is to give landowners an incentive to partake in the voluntary access scheme and to link that scheme with a code of practice for others to follow. As I shall demonstrate in a moment, the scheme is not succeeding in doing that. Part of the cost of access to the Peak national park arises from the comprehensive system of rangers, who patrol access areas and help and advise walkers on their rights, routes and responsibilities.

Most telling of all, however, is the fact that the final evidence is that the voluntary process has failed to give us anything like the 4 million acres of open countryside to which there could be open access. Despite the best endeavours of the Peak national park and the constant lobbying by walking groups, precious little more land is subject to open access now than it was in the 1970s. In the past 25 years, the voluntary approach has produced virtually nothing as regards the schemes, even where payments are involved. It is now time to move on and accept that it has not worked.

As my right hon. Friend the Minister said in his statement on 8 March, another drawback of the voluntary scheme is that it is, by its very nature, temporary. Presumably, any land that can be voluntarily designated as access land can be voluntarily withdrawn from access. As any walker will confirm, someone setting out on a day's rambling on the peaks needs primarily a reliable map. In future, that map will tell people where the open access land is and where it is not. Under a voluntary system, there is no guarantee that land that is open access land one day or one year will have the same status the next. The whole idea of our proposal is that the arrangement should be permanent so that people know what is open access land. That is the answer to the question raised by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) and other Conservative Members who are no longer present.

In the spirit of the Bill, with the practicality of the Government's approach, the lessons learned from the Kinder trespass, the honourable history of ramblers and my constituency's contribution to that history will now come together to achieve a single goal: the right to roam responsibly and to share and enjoy, but at the same time preserve, some of the world's most glorious natural heritage.

I apologise to the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) and to the Minister because I must catch the 2.15 train from Paddington to attend my surgery in Chippenham at 4 o'clock, and so shall be absent for the rest of the debate.

I appreciate the opportunity to follow the hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt), who is my co-chairman on the all-party minerals group. I congratulate him on avoiding the extreme and class-warrior language, on which a number of my hon. Friends have commented, that personified the opening speech of the hon. Member for Pendle.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I have only just started my speech, and I must keep an eye on the clock, so I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not give way.

Such an approach to this matter was tellingly revealed in the speech of the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Mr. Dobbin), who constantly gave us glimpses of his true feelings. It is not so much that he wants his constituents to have access to the countryside to go walking but that he resents the fact that a small number of people own a large amount of land. That is true, and most of them are pension funds. The British Rail pension fund is a substantial landowner, as is the Queen. Dukes and farmers are also landowners. The Bill does not reform the system of landowning. If that is part of the class warrior agenda of the hon. Member for Pendle, perhaps he should say so. As I understand it, the Bill is wholly and solely about access to the countryside.

We should cast the class warrior aspects to one side. However, I am concerned about Labour Members' caricature of the attitudes of Conservative Members. They seem to think that we are the dukes: the country landowners who are determined to keep the nasty townies in the town because we do not like walkers and we do not want people tramping over our estates. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The hon. Member for Pendle and I were at Glasgow university together, and he knows that my father is a minister in the Church of Scotland. My only property is a flat in Westminster, most of which is owned by the Bank of Scotland. I have no country assets, unlike the Minister, who has a pleasant country house just outside my constituency. I have no personal interests in those matters. I merely speak on behalf of my constituents who are farmers and landowners, and who are naturally concerned about some of the provisions in the Bill.

The caricature of Conservative Members that Labour Members have drawn is terribly unfair. The people in Chippenham, Malmesbury, Wootton Bassett and Corsham—the four main towns in my constituency—who are not landowners or farmers are determined walkers: they love walking. All my hon. Friends who have spoken are clear about the fact that we must find ways of improving access to the countryside. We are not saying, "Keep them in Chippenham, Malmesbury, Wootton Bassett and Corsham. Stay at home you lot. Don't come out into the countryside and walk." We are pleased that they want to walk in the countryside and we want to encourage them to do so. We are determined to improve their access to the countryside.

The debate is not about whether people should go walking, riding and fishing in the countryside, but about how they do that. The Bill has missed its mark, because it concentrates exclusively on the 5 million acres of land to which people apparently have no access. Of course, they do not. People do not want access to a huge moorland: they are not going to zig-zag backwards and forwards across it. They want decent access across the moor, to the mountains and fields and to farmland. They want not to wander all over the countryside, but to find ways of getting on to it, enjoying it, seeing the wildlife and enjoying the fresh air—all the things that we do when we go for a walk in the countryside.

That is why the Bill has missed its mark. Instead of saying to landowners and farmers, "Let us co-operate to work out a way in which people from the towns can get into the countryside," the Bill says, "You, the landowners and farmers, we're going to sort you out. You're the people who have been stopping us. You're the people who are putting up notices saying 'No Trespassing'. You're the people who are putting barbed wire across paths."

I can tell the hon. Member for Romford (Mrs. Gordon), who unfortunately may have come across brambles growing on to the paths, that, when one goes for a walk in the country, it may be a little uneven underfoot and little bits of bramble may grow on to the paths. If we had the right to roam anywhere we liked, she would have to deal with unevenness underfoot and brambles.

The hon. Gentleman is being extremely patronising. I was talking about designated footpaths, which are meant to be maintained and accessible.

I apologise to the hon. Lady if she felt that I was being patronising: I would not for a moment wish to do so. I was trying to make a sensible and serious point. Some hon. Members have given the impression that they do not understand what getting into the countryside is all about. I am perfectly content that there should be properly managed and properly organised paths. On a number of estates and farms in my constituency, the farmers go to great lengths to provide easily usable stiles and to make possible access for disabled people.

Those farmers go to huge lengths to keep the paths in good shape, to keep the brambles back and to ensure that there is wildlife land alongside the ploughed land, with butterflies and birds on it. We are finding ways of providing exactly what the hon. Lady wants: sensible, attractive, managed access to the countryside for all, not just the few. Conservative Members are great democrats.

The hon. Gentleman is making a plea for reasonableness, and for people to be able to share the countryside that he has the honour of representing. No doubt, his area is very beautiful—I happen to live in an area of great beauty as well—but his argument does not hold water. The problem could have been solved at any time over the past 18 years or more. If those who had the ability to provide access had wanted to co-operate, we would not need legislation now. Does the hon. Gentleman at least understand what has driven people to seek such legislation?

Had there been no increase in access to land in recent years, the hon. Lady would have a good point; but, since 1991–92, when a measurement was last taken, 1.1 million acres have been opened up to walkers, and 12,400 miles of paths. That is an increase of 23 per cent. There has been huge growth in the amount of land and the number of paths available to walkers.

Will my hon. Friend give way?

I think that I should make some progress. These are really introductory remarks.

The hon. Member for Rochdale (Lorna Fitzsimons) made a good point, which others have made today. There is a fine network of paths and rights of way across the nation, which is the envy of many other countries. I sympathise with the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) and the Ramblers Association: I hate it when I take my family out near my village of Slaughterford and find that a piece of barbed wire has been placed across what I know perfectly well is a proper path, that a notice saying "Trespassers will be prosecuted" has been erected, or that farmers have inadvertently ploughed up a path that we have the right to cross. I find that extremely annoying, and understand why the Ramblers Association wants to take direct action.

At the same time, however, I understand how frustrating it is for farmers to have three or four tracks across their fields going nowhere at all—a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson). An ancient right of way goes through the kitchen of a farmhouse in my constituency, and members of the Ramblers Association insist on going in at the front and out at the back in order to preserve it. How much more sensible it would be if we could change the law relating to rights of way, giving ramblers proper access to the countryside which they love while also protecting farmers.

No doubt, the Minister will be familiar with the problem of roads used as public paths—rupps—and boats, and the question of green lanes and four-wheel-drive access. That is a complex and ancient area of the law, and it needs to be sorted out wholeheartedly and comprehensively, so that we can provide a decent network of paths across the nation for walkers and others.

The Bill appears to address a need that does not exist. It seems to be saying, "Millions of people are desperate to get into the countryside but cannot. Let us open up the farmers' fields, or the moors and hills, so that they can." However, all the polls show that the demand for recreation in the countryside is stable, and that, by and large, it is being coped with.

I spend two weeks every summer high on the National Trust cliffs in Cornwall, which provide some of the finest walks and, in mid-August, some of the best weather in the country. I rarely see anyone else using those National Trust walks. My village of Slaughterford is one of the picturesque and beautiful walking areas in Wiltshire, but we see incredibly few people there. I am not aware of the millions who are bursting at the seams to get on to other people's land. I suspect that a great deal more noise is created by the more militant members of the Ramblers Association and others who believe in making a huge fuss, not because they represent a large number of people who want to go into the countryside but because they represent the interests so clearly described by the hon. Member for Pendle. It has more to do with class warfare and the ownership of land than with peaceful enjoyment of the countryside.

Conservative Members oppose the Bill, but not because we want to deny people the right to get into the countryside; of course we do not. On the contrary, our entire aim is to find ways in which to encourage them to do so. We oppose the Bill because we believe that it has a different agenda. If the Government's Bill concentrates less on those class warfare aspects, and more on improving right of way access and securing proper access to the countryside, we will welcome it.

I am glad to have the opportunity to say a few words. I congratulate my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), both on introducing the Bill and on his extremely good speech. He recognised the change of situation since my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment made his statement earlier this month—on which I congratulate him—on this important issue.

All the emotive language has come from Conservative Members, who have talked about class warfare. Until the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) spoke, I did not think that we were going to hear a single positive or thoughtful contribution. Conservative Members have used words such as evil, socialist, militant, politics of envy—those words have peppered speeches.

My hon. Friend the Member for Pendle referred to a briefing that was held just over a week ago by the Countryside Commission in the Moses Room in the House of Lords. He was sitting behind and I was sitting next to one Member of that House, who all the time muttered, "Nationalisation without compensation"—what a load of rubbish; what nonsense.

The Bill talks about—and the Minister's proposals will ultimately result in—giving rights of access to the countryside and rights to roam in the countryside, but with responsibilities. Every Labour Member has spoken of the balance: the need to give rights to people, but, at the same time, for those people to exercise responsibilities.

I should have said that I am president of the Lancashire Ramblers Association, a position that is held by rota. At some time in the future, my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle will take that position. I have no doubt that he will be a worthy holder of that post. He and I join the North-East Lancashire Ramblers on their family ramblers day, which takes place every year either in his constituency or in mine; this year, it is in mine on 26 June. We always look forward to it.

One of the things that I have always been proud of in my constituency—not every one of my constituents knows this—is that people can get off a train at Burnley central station and walk right into the countryside via a footpath that was put down by the council, aided by European and other funds. They can get to the countryside without crossing a single road. There are not many constituencies in an urban area where people can do that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Pendle referred to the inheritance tax and the way in which that was waived in certain instances to give the right of access, yet we do not know where the right of access is. That must be nonsense and a disgrace in 1999. We sometimes have to reflect on how those people got the land in the first place. It is not a question of the politics of envy. It is our countryside and we want people to be able to enjoy it.

In my constituency, people can see Pendle hill dominating the skyline. It is near the Trough of Bowland, the Forest of Bowland, Wycoller and the Bronte moorlands. There is so much for people to see.

I chair the rights of way review committee, which is an ad hoc committee that submits to the Government views on rights of way from various organisations. I accept that the majority of people will want to walk on designated footpaths, and not to go wandering off into fields. However, that fact does not make the concept behind the Bill wrong.

The Countryside Commission published the results of the 1994 national survey on our national rights of way. One of the questions asked whether paths were signposted from roads. The report stated:

"Highway authorities—county, and metropolitan and outer London borough councils—are required by law to signpost every right of way where it leaves a metalled road."

The report said that, in 1994, 42 per cent. of all rights of way were signposted, which was an improvement, as only 34 per cent. were signposted in 1988. It said also that 52 per cent. of bridleways were signposted; that 9 per cent. of signposts gave additional information, such as destination of the footpath; and that 26 per cent. of paths were neither signposted nor easy to find from the road.

Labour Members mentioned the interest that the former leader of the Labour party, John Smith, had in the subject. When my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment introduces the Government's more comprehensive Bill, which will deal with more than one matter—I realise all the problems that will have to be dealt with, such as mapping—I shall give him 100 per cent. support. Like everyone else, I hope that the Government's Bill will be introduced in November 1999.

The Government's Bill on the right to roam will be a tribute to the late John Smith, and no greater Bill could be passed in the Labour party's centenary year.

One of the unfortunate truths of human nature is that we instinctively defend our own territory, often to the detriment of others. The fact is that genuine voluntary access to private land hardly ever happens without either the threat of legislation or some type of cash incentive. In reality, therefore, there never will be any such thing as genuinely voluntary access on an acceptable scale.

Those who argue for voluntary agreements simply miss the point—which is that the demand for right of access is primarily about the principal right to walk peacefully and responsibly in uncultivated open countryside. Over the centuries, landowners' failure to volunteer access makes it essential to create a statutory right to roam.

Conservative Members, after so many years of denying the right to roam, are saying, "Don't be so aggressive. But, hang on, we're about to volunteer access." After so many attempts by people to gain access to the land, surely such assurances are nonsense.

In my own constituency, more than 100 years ago—and 36 years before the Kinder trespass—the people of Bolton were taught the hard lesson that those who own the land want to keep it entirely for themselves. Nothing much has changed.

In the late summer of 1896, Colonel Ainsworth, the local bleach works owner, decided to close Coalpit road, which was a track leading to Winter hill. In doing so, he was trying to deny the right of access of thousands of local workers to walk in the fresh air and enjoy the countryside after a week's work. He had no hesitation in doing so by force, hiring extra men to warn walkers off his property. He erected signs stating that trespassers would be prosecuted, and built a locked gate to block the road. Ainsworth's action caused outrage in Bolton, and a protest was organised, inviting the public to join a demonstration at Winter hill on the following Sunday. The demonstrators intended to test the right of way over the moors. A crowd of about 1,000 people met at the bottom of the hill, at Halliwell road.

As the peaceful demonstration proceeded up Halliwell road, it was joined by thousands of Bolton workers who flocked from their rows of terraced houses on to the march. By the time that they reached the disputed gate, there were an estimated 10,000 walkers.

At that stage, the assembly was addressed by a man called Joe Shufflebottom—which is a good old-fashioned Bolton name. He was a Bolton socialist and proud of it. He advised the marchers that legal action could ensue and that they should take care to keep to the footpaths and to avoid provocation. He said:

"We have met today to say to Messrs Ainsworth and Co. that we the people of England have the right to pass through and we will do so."

I hope that this year we shall deliver that right. His statement was met with cries of "Hear, hear" and applause. In the words of the Bolton Chronicle at the time, a scene of the wildest excitement occurred and a large crowd rushed at the gates and on to the disputed territory.

One of the gamekeepers who was attempting to take names was knocked to the ground and as the history books show, lost his notebook, his hat and his mackintosh. Police Inspector Willoughby, who was in charge of the police on the demonstration, was thrown over a low wall. At that point, he decided to send for reinforcements from Halliwell police station. Fortunately, there was little further trouble and a wagonette loaded with policemen was turned back on Halliwell road before reaching the scene of the affray.

The demonstrators then peacefully proceeded towards Belmont and an umbrella was opened to collect funds to defend the right of the people in the event of any prosecution. The collection amounted to a total of £4/10, mostly in coppers. The demonstration ended in good spirits and was unprecedented in the history of Bolton.

The Bolton Chronicle further observed that many of the walkers returned by the same route, calling in at local hostelries. It was said that the demand was so great that the wants of the hungry and thirsty ramblers could not be satisfied and the landlord of the Wright's Arms did a roaring business. It is clear that old habits have not changed.

The following week, a procession of 12,000 walked over the disputed land and the police allowed them through. Colonel Ainsworth's gamekeepers, however, took a number of names and 10 men had injunctions served on them restraining them from trespassing on Ainsworth's land. Two of them had costs awarded against them of more than £600, which was a fortune in those days.

The Bolton right of way movement was neither a total failure nor a massive success. The mass movement of 1896 died off and was channelled into legal battles that were fought on the hostile terrain of the British legal system.

The lesson of the story is that it does not matter how many people march over the moor—be it 10,000 or 100,000. Without a statutory right to roam, the rights of the privileged few will eventually take precedence over the majority. The law will consider the rights of the Colonel Ainsworths of the world to shoot grouse along with a small party of their friends to be more important than the rights of millions to enjoy the countryside. That is why a statutory right to roam is essential.

Despite Colonel Ainsworth, the tradition of rambling has prospered in Bolton and the Bolton Country-wide Holidays Association rambling club based in Bromley Cross in the north of my constituency has more than 300 members. Although Bolton is now well served by public footpaths, ramblers often choose to walk further afield. They write to me complaining that, when they walk in the Forest of Bowland, for example, access is limited or even non-existent. Much of the land is owned by the Duke of Westminster.

Such ramblers are, of course, reliable and responsible people and have a genuine respect for, and love of, the countryside. The accusation that allowing walkers greater access to the land will damage the land, threaten endangered species of birds and cause vandalism in the countryside is ridiculous. It is invented nonsense designed to justify selfishness.

Rather than being a threat to the countryside, ramblers will protect our rural landscape. Rather than allowing vandals on to the land, we will be recruiting thousands of unpaid countryside policemen who will ensure that the land on which they walk—land that they respect and love—will be protected. The ramblers whom I meet when I go out walking are more likely to pick up litter when they find it than to drop it and would be determined to protect wildlife rather than damage it.

The principles enshrined in the Bill have clearly influenced the Government's thinking on access to the countryside. My hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) must be congratulated on pursuing the Bill. regardless of whether it becomes law.

We are lucky to live in a country that has some of the most spectacular scenery in the world. It is our nation's heritage, but it is not much use to us if the public are all but refused the right to enjoy it. The statutory right to roam will be a culmination of hundreds of years of struggle by people such as the brave men and women of Bolton, who pushed their way on to Colonel Ainsworth' s land on that summer's day in 1896. Although they are no longer with us, they would be proud to hear that their part has been noted in our debate on right of access. It has been an honour and privilege to mention them and the part that they have played in the fight for the freedom to walk in the open and uncultivated countryside.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) on his entertaining and effective speech. Several unflattering comparisons have been made with the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), but they complemented each other with the potency of a Yorke and Cole combination. To take the footballing analogy a little further, my right hon. Friend the Minister has already had one excellent result and I hope that, like Alex Ferguson, he goes on to gain another in securing a right to roam Bill in the Queen's Speech in November.

Walking and rambling are hugely popular in this country. More than 400 million walking trips were made in 1996. A statutory right to roam will further increase the opportunities for leisure activity—for healthy walking, for tourism and for increased understanding of our environment.

A statutory right to roam would build on, and increase, the opportunities available through the existing rights of way network. Above all, it would deliver huge pleasure to all those who take advantage of it. We have some stunning scenery in our nation, but enjoyment of far too much of it is denied to the many and left locked up in the hands of a privileged few—a privileged few who have been defended today by the Conservatives and were also defended by a Plaid Cymru Member when my right hon. Friend the Minister made his recent statement.

Conservative Members claim that they, too, support high-quality access arrangements. Taking their words at face value, their mistake is in believing that a voluntary approach could deliver high-quality access. The voluntary approach has had enough time to deliver results. The right of access to land is not an issue that has suddenly arisen. It has been a political issue for more than 100 years and has been supported by the Labour party for much of that time. Those who advocate a voluntary approach should have been able to deliver more substantial and more wide-ranging access arrangements to demonstrate their view that statutory action was unnecessary.

Bearing in mind the potential 3 million to 4 million acres that we have been talking about, the small amount of additional land voluntarily made available pales into insignificance. If the election of a new Labour Government committed to examining a statutory right to access cannot stimulate a more active and more determined voluntary commitment to access from landowners, it is safe to say that, 100 years since the start of the campaign, the voluntary approach has demonstrably failed.

The Government carefully examined whether—despite the history—a voluntary approach could be made to work. Six sensible benchmarks were laid down, against which people were asked to judge whether a new form of voluntary approach could be developed. Some 84 per cent. of respondents to the Government's consultation exercise—a clear majority—made it clear that they did not believe that voluntary arrangements could deliver cost-effective access of sufficient quality, extent, permanency or clarity.

It is highly relevant to examine what is likely to happen in Scotland. The Scottish access forum, comprised of representatives of all sides of the access debate—including landowners, walkers and public agencies—has called on the Scottish Parliament to provide a

"right of access to land and water, exercised responsibly, for informal recreation and passage."

The forum developed a package of proposals after extensive consultation that commanded the support of all the forum members. John Grant of the Scottish Landowners Federation claimed:

"These legislative proposals will ensure that arrangements for public access to our land are among the best in Europe. They will enhance the quality of life of every citizen."

If the landowners' organisation in Scotland can take such an enlightened attitude to access legislation, surely Conservative Members—who oppose such statutory provision in England and Wales—should re-examine their view.

If Conservative Members cannot accept the views of Scottish landowners, perhaps they will listen to their own Scottish spokesman, Murdo Fraser, whose support for a statutory right to roam I made clear in an earlier intervention. Scottish walkers, Scottish local authorities and Scottish landowners support a right to roam. Even the Conservative party in Scotland supports a right to roam. Why not the Conservative party in England and Wales? Are Welsh mountains somehow more fragile than Scottish mountains? Are wildlife habitats on moors in England more at risk than those on Scottish moors? I do not think so.

It is ridiculous that the Conservative party in Scotland supports a statutory right to roam while the Conservative party in England does not. There is no massive difference on the issue between Scotland and the rest of the UK. What is different is that the Conservative party in England appears to be even more obtuse than its Scottish counterparts.

Beyond educating English Tories, the Scottish experience has a lesson for all those interested in access in England and Wales. The various interests have developed mutual understanding and effective partnerships to begin the task of implementing new access provisions. We need a similar sensible dialogue among landowners, managers, user groups, conservation interests and local authorities in England and Wales.

The new national access forums in England and Wales, coupled with the local access forums—which will bring together people with a detailed local knowledge, mirroring the membership of the new national forum—are sensible and important ways of securing wide support within local communities and the national scene for access packages.

Landowners—both individually and collectively—have an important perspective, and must be heard. They should have the discretion to close land or restrict access for defined reasons for a limited number of days. The Government's package will allow that to happen. Conservation interests also have a different and crucial dimension to bring to the forums. However, it is time that user groups were heard. The Government's approach will ensure that all interests are heard.

Legislation is urgent, but it will take time. It is an opportunity for ramblers and landowners to sit down locally and start hammering out the details of access. It is far better to start negotiating locally now, so that united advice from local interests can be presented to the new Countryside Agency.

We have been waiting for legislation for more than 100 years, and it is high time that the House had the opportunity to put such a Bill through. I wish my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment success in his behind-the-scenes negotiations.

I start, as others have, with warm congratulations for my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) on the opportunity that he has given the House to debate the important issue of public access to the countryside—something for which we have been waiting, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) has just said, for the best part of a century.

My hon. Friend the Member for Pendle spoke with his usual eloquence and commitment, and exhibited a rich vein of humour that exposed how tenuous and fragmentary are Conservative Members' arguments against a right of access and how readily that lack of argument has been covered by resort to cheap slogans about class warfare. I always take note when Tories start to talk about class warfare. They know all about it, because they have been practising it for centuries.

My hon. Friend's gentle mockery demolished a number of myths and misrepresentations, and I pay tribute to him. He has campaigned tirelessly on a cause in which he clearly believes passionately, and he has contributed not a little to the Government's own preparations for a Bill. Since he introduced the Bill, the Government have announced proposals for improving access to the countryside. I am grateful to him for his decision to withdraw the Bill in favour of a Government Bill.

My announcement to the House on 8 March was, I am delighted to say, extremely widely welcomed. As my hon. Friends the Members for Heywood and Middleton (Mr. Dobbin) and for Tooting (Mr. Cox) said, their postbags and mine have never before been as full as they are now, with personal letters of thanks for our decision to legislate for a new statutory right of access.

For some reason, the announcement was also apparently unexpected. The cutting that I most relish was, I think, a leader in The Daily Telegraph. I do not have it here, but it said something like, "Michael Meacher stood up yesterday in the House of Commons and did something unprecedented in modern British politics. He delivered himself of a statement that had not previously been leaked to the press."

My hon. Friend the Member for Pendle spoke about mapping. He is right in saying that common land is already clearly demarcated and that upland common areas have already been mapped, but there are difficulties with areas of downland. I have already spoken with the Countryside Agency about getting a mapping exercise under way as quickly as possible, and we are certainly considering whether the right of access could, on that basis, be introduced by stages.

I do not believe that local access forums will take capricious decisions, largely because if any party has doubts, the matter can be referred upwards to the Countryside Agency.

Many hon. Members referred to publication of a Bill. It is of course my intention to bid for a Bill at the earliest parliamentary opportunity, but all hon. Members know that that depends on agreement within Government. I have no doubt, however, that the Government business managers will have heard the strong demands for early legislation.

When the Minister bids for that Bill, will it include a wider wildlife remit?

The hon. Gentleman knows me well, because we have participated in many debates together. He raised that point earlier, and I am coming to my response to his speech in a moment. I will try to cover all the major points.

The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) made the point that we should rely on a comprehensive network of rights of way. The problem—as I made clear when he raised the point after my statement on the issue—is that, although some 74 per cent. of rights of way are open, some 26,000 miles of rights of way, or about a quarter of the total, are not open. The other main point is that open countryside is not always nicely criss-crossed in a manner that gives appropriate access. I believe that people will keep to rights of way or to paths. The surveys undertaken by the CLA show that two thirds of people want to do so. In my experience of rambling, I try to keep to rights of way because it is much easier to do so. However, there is no reason in many cases why people should not have area access, as opposed to linear access, in many areas of open countryside, provided that they fully respect wildlife and other interests. I made it clear in my statement, and will again, that those interests must be fully respected.

The point that I was trying to make was that the Government should concentrate on opening up the quarter of rights of way that are blocked, for one reason or another, and creating linear access over open land, partly for the reasons I gave earlier and partly because that would be more manageable. The issues that the right hon. Gentleman has rightly mentioned, including the effect on wildlife and the environment, could be much more carefully managed and monitored if the Government were to concentrate on developing a footpath network, even if that required some statutory intervention.

I have already made it clear that I expect paths and linear access to be widely used. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's assertion that we should be restricted in all circumstances. Area access is entirely appropriate in parts of the open countryside.

MR. MACLEAN rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put, but MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Standing Order No. 36 (Closure of debate), declined then to put that Question.

I thought that Conservative Members wished to have a debate on this issue. Perhaps they might allow me to respond to their arguments at some length, which is what I am trying to do.

I warmly thank my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) for his comments today and for the enormous contribution that he has made to the access movement. He mentioned the extension to woodlands, cliff and foreshore, riverside and canal banks. I wish to make it clear to the House that I have already asked the Countryside Agency to advise me on that issue, and I shall take close note when it reports. I agree with my hon. Friend that compensation is an issue, in the sense that, if extra expenditure is involved in improving or enabling access—whether through the construction of stiles, gates, guided trails, hides or car parks, for which it may be reasonable for charges to be made—there should be an opportunity to recover costs.

The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) asked me when the Government Bill will be introduced. I can only repeat—any assistance that the hon. Gentleman or any other hon. Member can give in encouraging my colleagues to recognise the importance of such a Bill will obviously be helpful—that I shall certainly be bidding for an early Bill, and the earliest one that I can get. I cannot go beyond that. The hon. Gentleman asked whether that measure will be linked to a wildlife Bill or a Bill relating to sites of special scientific interest. I have made it clear that I believe that we need legislation on both counts. However, the hon. Gentleman will have to await the manner in which the Government will introduce legislation.

My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting made many points with which I strongly agree. I shall refer to those to which he asked me to respond. First, the local access forums will meet regularly, wherever it is necessary, by agreement. That does not mean that they will be meeting all the time. However, there will be regular meetings according to what the parties believe is necessary.

As for closure for land management reasons, landowners who want to close land will be required to provide good reasons—

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand that one of the functions of the Chair is to try to protect private Members' time. There has been only one Friday during this Session when the Government have not made a statement. We are debating a Bill that the proponent has already suggested will be withdrawn. Is it fair to Members with Bills on the Order Paper to behave in this way?

The previous occupant of the Chair ruled on this matter earlier. Please continue, Mr. Meacher.

My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting also asked about the blocking of rights of way. I say to him, as I will say to everyone over the next few months, that it is an offence for landowners to prevent or obstruct access, for which they could be taken to court.

My hon. Friend raised an interesting point about the disabled. Local authorities are required to consider the needs of the disabled and I am glad that the Fieldfare trust has established standards of countryside access for disabled people.

If I may say so, the speech of the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard), who is leading for the Opposition, was remarkable more for its weasel words and simpering acquiescence than for any genuine commitment. I noted that she said at the outset that the Conservative party supported increased access. She mouthed the words, but she will not will the means. She pays lip service to greater access, but she stops well short of supporting anything that will make it happen. She hides behind protection of the environment, biodiversity and the security of those who live and work in the countryside. I have made it abundantly clear that the Government support those issues, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle. We shall certainly fully protect those interests when we introduce our Bill.

The right hon. Lady said that most people were aware of the extent of access. I wonder whether she is. We carried out consultation with Entec which showed that between 1 million and 1.5 million acres of countryside in our nation were not available for access. There is a further 1.5 million acres where access is sometimes tolerated but not secure, and could be withdrawn at any time. We are talking about 3 million acres where there is not secure access.

The right hon. Lady made it clear that the Conservative party supported voluntary co-operation. That was repeated by Conservative Members throughout the debate. I say to the right hon. Lady, as many of my hon. Friends have said, that we have had 50 years to deliver voluntary increases in access. What has that delivered? The answer is about 50,000 hectares only. That is about 3 per cent. of 4 million acres in 50 years. At that rate, it will take 1,500 years before we can secure 4 million acres. Is that the Tory party's policy?

The politics of envy is a phrase that has been thrown about a great deal. I noted that the right hon. Lady did not respond to the point that the Conservative party in Scotland has no problem with access or the right to roam. We would like to know why the issue is so difficult for the Conservative party in England. It is a problem only for the old-fashioned, stuck-in-a-time-warp Tory party in England.

The right hon. Lady asked whether we should not get a measure of the demand for access. How can we do that until the product is available? As for compensation, the proposed statutory right will still allow agricultural activities to take place on the land. Similarly, it will still allow the development of land if that is agreed, and it will still allow closure of land for good management reasons. As I have just made clear, we believe that reasonable extra cost to create access should be recoverable. It is a fair balance between the rights of landowners and the general interest.

My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper) raised the matter of inheritance tax exemption for estates that were opened up. He mentioned a figure of £65 million in Sussex. That is one of the features of my hon. Friend's Bill. I am sure that the Treasury will have taken note of the point.

My hon. Friend the Member for Pavilion also spoke of the voluntary access register, which has had such limited results. That is the key point. The Country Landowners Association wanted to co-operate with the Government. It knew that legislation was in the offing and tried to get a big increase in access from its members, but it has lamentably failed. The CLA has delivered very little—not for lack of trying, as I believe that it tried hard—but the amount of extra access is of only marginal significance and much of it is outside open countryside.

The hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) made a heart-rending plea for protection from militant aggression against landowners. What he meant, I think, is that we should rely on the magnanimity and generosity of landowners, whose voluntary increase in access in the past 50 years has been a drop in the ocean. If that method worked, we would follow it, but as his hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) so bravely stated, it has not worked. There is no reason to believe that it will work in the next 50 or 100 years.

The hon. Member for Hexham spoke of a right to roam being a socialist goal since 1890. The right to privilege and inequality has been a goal of the Tory party for the past three centuries. The hon. Gentleman asked how advice is to be given about closures. There will be notices at strategic points and in local papers, and there may be wardens or rangers to advise. However, closures already occur on land that is open for access. A significant amount of land is open for access, although nowhere near 4 million acres. It is sometimes closed, but that creates no problems, so I see no reason why there should be problems in future.

Intensive grazing land is a matter requiring advice from the Countryside Agency. With regard to changing the rights of way, I was glad to note that the hon. Gentleman in particular, given his speech, acknowledged that the Government would consider alterations to the right of way, but that that would be by agreement. There are good historic reasons for those rights of way. There may, at the margin, be good reasons for changing them, but that must be by agreement.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton for his welcome, together with that of many of my hon. Friends. He rightly pointed out that the issue of access is part of a wider countryside package. I announced on 8 March our proposals with regard to a substantial part of that package, but later in the year, I hope to return to the House with other important announcements. My hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mrs. Gordon) pressed me strongly that that should be in November this year. I hope that I shall be able to satisfy her, but I have already explained the circumstances.

My hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt) made a marvellous speech recalling the great Kinder Scout historic trespass, whose defeat 70 years ago the Government are finally redressing. He mentioned the uncertainties of the voluntary approach. That is a good point. The only way to achieve certainty is through a statutory right, and by making clear the land to which it refers. That can be done only by mapping.

My hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) rightly drew attention to the quarter of rights of way that are still not open, after all the efforts of the past 20 or 30 years. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Crausby) dramatically referred to the great fight of the people of Bolton. He said that the people have a right to pass through and intend to do so. I believe that, if they were here, they would welcome my hon. Friend's Bill and the statement of the Government's intention.

My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West made the important point that Scottish landowners have accepted the right to roam and there is no reason why we cannot achieve the same right in this country.

I now turn to the speech of the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Clark), whose contributions to debates are always entertaining. I fear that he let the cat out of the bag by saying that he broadly supports right of access provisions. I respect him for saying that. The right hon. Gentleman is no respecter of persons or parties—including his own party. That is why he has such an honourable place in the nation's consciousness.

indicated assent.

The right hon. Gentleman raised the point that militants will infiltrate environmental organisations. If any Member of this House is a man of the world, it is the right hon. Gentleman, and he must realise that miscreants, robbers and militants do not need a statutory right of access for carrying out their nefarious activities; I fear that they do so already.

The hon. Member for Bournemouth, East made a brave speech. In this House, the hardest speeches to make are those that defy one's party line. I respect that when it is done for the sake of integrity and conscience. The hon. Gentleman accepts the need for legislation and does not believe that the voluntary approach has worked or will ever work. I am grateful to him; perhaps good common sense is beginning to break through the Opposition's monolithic resort either to the cheap taunts that we have heard this morning, or to the cosmetic pretence—which I think that none of them believes—that, in reality, the voluntary approach will be effective.

The hon. Gentleman raised points about codes of conduct, guidelines and penalties. When I introduce legislation, it will be clear that we, too, have a strong belief in those matters. The protection of all forms of wildlife is important—for example, ground-nesting birds and animals in their breeding season. All those birds and animals have as much right as human beings to our beautiful countryside and need to be protected. I also endorse entirely what he said about those who live and work in the countryside.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the 12-day prohibition period. If a landowner offers good reasons that are acceptable to the local access forum, that figure could be higher, although I think that the existing figure is reasonably generous.

We thought long and hard about whether a voluntary approach would deliver the three criteria we seek: the extent of access, permanence of access and cost-effectiveness. We considered carefully the initiatives taken by the Country Landowners Association to encourage landowners voluntarily to offer greater access. I hope that the CLA will discuss those matters further; I think that its members deserve much credit for their action in developing access assessment and their access register—which I am prepared to take further. With the statutory countryside agencies, we shall consider how to build on that work in developing our own proposals.

However, the key point is that the CLA tried to deliver voluntarily, but it was not able to do so. When assessed against the key criteria—especially that of permanence—set out in our consultation paper, a voluntary approach cannot deliver. By its nature, it cannot deliver permanence. With regard to extent, we have tried for 50 years to extend access and achieved 3 per cent. of our target; extent has to be statutory, if we think that 4 million acres is an appropriate area for access. As for the cost of access, the consultants showed that a voluntary right of access would probably cost four times as much as a statutory right. For all those reasons, a statutory right of access is needed and that is the appropriate way in which to proceed.

Many hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle, are keen that access legislation should be announced—

It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Object.

Object.

Object.

Object.

Object.

Object.

Object.

I am grateful for this opportunity to raise an issue that may seem, to some, to be a load of rubbish. However, rubbish—or how we dispose of it—is a major challenge facing public authorities up and down the country. The central problem, which the Government must take considerable credit for tackling, is that we cannot simply carry on putting rubbish into holes in the ground with an "out of sight, out of mind" approach. There must be, and are, better ways of disposing of the waste produced by an advanced industrialised society at the end of the 20th century.

In an impressive document entitled "Less Waste, More Value", the Government have set out a framework defining a hierarchy of ways of disposing of waste, which I applaud. At the top of that hierarchy is recycling. The target set by the previous Government was for 25 per cent. of household rubbish to be recycled by 2000. There is a long way to go, because only 7.5 per cent. of household waste was recycled in 1996–97. Incineration—obtaining energy or, even better, combined heat and power from waste—is next in the waste hierarchy. I want to focus on the planning and delivery of incineration projects.

I shall raise three specific topics on which I would welcome a response from the Minister. First, most new incinerators will be built under the private finance initiative process. That raises the difficult issue of the compatibility of open and informed public debate about the best way to dispose of waste and the secrecy imposed by the commercial constraints of the PFI process.

Secondly, how are we to deal with legitimate public concerns about dioxin emissions from incinerators? Thirdly, sensitivity is needed in selecting the right location for municipal waste incinerators, to meet the needs of local residents who are affected by traffic generated by the plants.

I hope that this is an appropriate time to have the debate because, in answer to a parliamentary question from the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton), the Minister said:

"Government guidance on the location of incinerators is included in Planning Policy Guidance note 23 'Planning and Pollution Control'. This will be updated soon when Planning Policy Guidance note 10 'Planning and Waste Management' is published."—[Official Report, 1 February 1999; Vol. 324, c. 471.]

I am aware that "soon" is a term of art for the civil servant; it does not mean quite the same thing when the Tea Room staff tell me that one of their delicious bacon sandwiches will arrive "soon". The word is designed to give maximum flexibility to Ministers, but I hope that the Minister can give me a little more guidance on the likely time scale for the publication of the revised PPG10.

The first substantive issue on which I invite the Minister to respond is the effect of the PFI process. Paragraph 3.3.5 of "Less Waste, More Value" deals with incinerators and rightly recognises the need for

"full public involvement in the planning and design of projects".

That is right and is to be applauded. However, modern incinerator plants that meet today's rigorous environmental standards are expensive and long-term projects. Although the disposal of waste is a function of public authorities, the size of those projects means that they can be developed only by private companies through the PFI route.

I have no Luddite or fixed objections to the PFI, which can bring great benefits to the taxpayer, but PFI projects differ from public procurement projects in a number of key ways. I am grateful for the information from the House of Commons Library, which has advised me that contracts with local authorities for new incinerators typically seek a guaranteed supply of waste over a 25 to 30-year cycle to justify the investment of the private capital needed to build a new incineration plant.

Worcestershire has recently taken on a PFI project for a 25-year waste management contract. It is a total waste management system, which includes recycling, incineration and a vast reduction in the amount of waste that is dumped. I strongly welcome both the concept and the means by which it is delivered. A contract has now been signed with the Spanish company, Fosca, which appears from my dealings with it to be an entirely responsible and experienced contractor. However, as a result of the commercial confidentiality inherent in the PFI process, there has been virtually no informed public debate on the merits of that scheme. The details have seeped out and the local authority has quashed every request for information or a public debate on the ground that it would breach commercial confidentiality.

My constituents, some of whom may have to live in the shadow of an incinerator constructed to serve the whole county's needs, rightly wanted a debate on the merits of incineration and the appropriate location for an incinerator. They could not have one, as the issue was decided under a veil of secrecy and commercial confidentiality. Even some local councillors did not know what was going on. The contract, which spans some 25 years, has now been signed by the county council. We are all signed up to a waste management package, including an incinerator.

A public education exercise has now begun and a planning application will be submitted. However, that can be considered only on limited planning grounds. Pollution control issues will be dealt with by the Environment Agency, but those will be limited to technical issues.

There is no opportunity in that process for local people—even local councillors—to have their say on the overall strategy. The demands of commercial confidence in the PFI process come into direct conflict with the openness that the Government rightly require from public authorities in "Less Waste, More Value".

I do not expect a complete answer to this problem today, but I hope that the Minister accepts that there is a serious problem of open government in the PFI procurement process and will agree to consider it in detail and come back to me in writing.

The second issue that I wish to raise is the inter-relationship between site location for incinerators and emissions. It is a planning issue and I hope that it will be addressed in the new PPG10. Anyone living near an incinerator is entitled to be concerned about emissions, particularly dioxins. Those waste products from certain chemical processes are extremely persistent in the environment and, in February 1997, the World Health Organisation's International Agency for Research on Cancer classified them as a known carcinogen.

Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution, which is now part of the Environment Agency, produced a report in August 1995, which stated:

"Municipal solid waste incinerators built in the late 1960s and early 1970s have been the dominant source of dioxins in recent years contributing an estimated 70 per cent. to total UK emissions."

I have no doubt that the authorities at the time considered—against the objections of environmentalists—that the incinerators constructed in the 1960s and 1970s were safe. We now know that, by modern standards, they were not. Only half a generation ago, parents and environmentalists were right and the so-called "experts" were wrong.

New levels of emissions required under the European Union's hazardous waste incineration directives are now tightly controlled. The British Government set their own level for dioxins, but there is still room for improvement. I am grateful to the Library for confirming that, for example, the level set in the Netherlands for dioxin emissions is 10 times stricter than the level set in Britain.

To be fair to the 1995 inspectors' report, it suggests that new regulations on incinerators will cut emission levels, but dioxins will still be released; and that incineration will still represent 10 per cent. of dioxin emissions in the United Kingdom.

Targets and limits are all very well, but no industrial process is 100 per cent. guaranteed. In a parliamentary answer last year, my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment accepted that two plants had breached dioxin levels set by the Environment Agency. That comes on top of dioxin hotspots in Hampshire, which the Environment Agency has concluded are caused by four local incinerators. Although it is accepted that, of themselves, those hotspots could not be a direct risk to human health, none the less, I am sure that they will be of concern to local residents.

There is legitimate public concern about the operation of incinerators. I contend that, if public confidence in this method of waste disposal is to be increased, it is highly inappropriate to locate incinerators in the immediate vicinity of residencies or schools. Some industrial processes can operate perfectly satisfactorily near people's homes, but I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to accept, and to make it clear in the planning guidance that is shortly to be published, that municipal waste incinerators are not among them.

The third issue that I invite the Minister to consider is transport. Waste incineration to recover energy or power and heat from waste is a green issue. The waste is mainly transported to incinerators by lorries, and the ash is taken away in the same manner. Ash occupies only about 40 to 50 per cent. of the space that compacted dumped waste would occupy. However, for a large incinerator, that is still many hundreds of 40-tonne lorry loads going in and out of a plant each day. It would be ironic and counter-productive if this green measure were to make the lives of local residents an environmental misery due to the noise, congestion and pollution caused by lorries coming to and going from the site.

Paragraph 5.5 of planning policy guidance 23 states that planning decisions must ensure that

"waste is recovered or disposed of without harming the environment and in particular without endangering human health or causing a nuisance through noise, or adversely affecting the countryside or places of special interest."

I invite the Minister to reflect on the fact that there is a slight problem. Under the regulations, people who live in the countryside are being afforded greater protection than those who live in urban areas. Surely the rights of people in towns not to suffer unacceptable levels of congestion and inconvenience are just as valid as the rights of those who live in the countryside.

On incinerators, paragraph 5.17 of PPG23 states:

"Planning authorities will need to take into account visual impact, noise, storage facilities, traffic considerations and transport requirements (both in relation to the waste input and the removal of any residues). The location of the incinerators will be a balance between the source of the waste to be incinerated and the place of disposal of the residues, in order to minimise the transport requirements of such developments."

I urge the Minister to emphasise and highlight those recommendations in the planning guidance to be issued, and to reflect on one particular matter.

Could the Minister ensure that proper account is taken of the cumulative effect of waste transport and other transport using access roads to a site before any local authority can properly consider a planning application for an incinerator? Could he formulate the guidance so that it cannot be an answer to a transport planning objection that lorries already use an access road, or that it carries some industrial traffic, so more lorries cannot make any difference?

Some level of traffic is acceptable on access roads, but there is a point at which greater levels of traffic, especially on roads that pass by people's houses, would add to congestion and pollution and environmental degradation of the area. Incineration can only be justified as a green measure. Local authorities should be directed to approve planning applications only if the total effect on road congestion and pollution of the application is justified, taking account of the existing traffic on the road, that which is reasonably anticipated from the growth of industrial development in the area, and that related to the incineration plant.

I do not oppose all incinerators, and I accept that, for waste that cannot be recycled, they have a place; but they raise complex issues that must be dealt with in a sensitive manner. A residual concern is that the local authority that has a duty to dispose of the waste is often the same authority that must consider an application for planning permission for an incinerator to discharge that duty. It may also be the same authority that is party to a private finance initiative agreement with the applicant for planning permission, and the same authority that may incur financial loss, to be paid for by council tax payers, if planning permission is refused and the project is delayed. It may also be the authority that will prevent the level of that loss from being disposed to the public, or even other councillors, owing to the commercial confidentiality requirement in the PFI contract. The current procedure is not designed to build public confidence.

I hope that my hon. Friend and other Ministers in his Department, which influences various stages of the process, will consider those conflicts carefully before issuing further planning policy guidance on the development of incinerators.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Lock) on securing the debate, and on taking the opportunity to raise a matter that is not "a load of rubbish", as he nicely put it at the beginning of his speech, but extremely important. He made a number of pertinent comments. It is refreshing to be able to reply to an Adjournment debate that has raised issues of real concern, rather than less significant matters.

My hon. Friend will understand that I cannot speak about any specific proposed facilities that may become subject to formal planning processes. I can, however, outline the general issues relating to planning policy in respect of incineration, and try to respond to the hon. Gentleman's questions about the PH and environmental protection.

In England, we produce about 122 million tonnes of ordinary, non-hazardous waste each year. The bulk of it comes from industry, but substantial amounts come from households and the commercial sector. Waste must be dealt with quickly, for amenity and health reasons, but simply disposing of it also means some loss of useful material. Two key principles of sustainable development are that good use should be made of waste to reduce as far as possible the demand on natural resources, and that the disposal that is undertaken should have the minimum environmental impact; but it is also important for the amounts of waste generated in the first place to be minimised.

Those matters were addressed in the Government's consultation document "Less Waste: More Value", issued last year. I appreciated my hon. Friend's welcome for that document. The issues will be considered in detail in the forthcoming new waste strategy for England and Wales. Parallel initiatives are under way in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

We need to reduce the amounts of waste, to reuse and recycle effectively and to recover value from as much as possible of the remainder. Even so, a residual proportion of wastes will still have to be dealt with by either landfill or incineration. Landfill takes up large areas of land, and may limit subsequent use of the land. In contrast, incineration can be undertaken on a smaller site, but is a long-term process. A balance needs to be drawn between the two approaches.

As my hon. Friend knows, a proposed new European landfill directive is now at an advanced stage. If adopted later this year, it will set exacting targets for a reduction in the amounts of waste dealt with by landfill. It will require biodegradable municipal waste going to landfill to be reduced to 75 per cent. of that produced in 1995 by 2006, to 50 per cent. by 2009 and to 25 per cent. by 2016. Those targets can be put back by up to four years by those member states, such as the UK, which, in 1995, put more than 80 per cent. of their collected municipal waste to landfill.

There will need to be a major and urgent change in the ways in which we deal with wastes to meet those exacting targets. Even if the best efforts are made to minimise waste and the maximum credible levels of recycling and composting are undertaken, there will still be a substantial amount of material for which incineration is the only credible option.

Incineration is a much more effective way in which to recover energy from waste than, for example, tapping gas from landfills. However, when power is generated, only about 30 to 50 per cent. of the input energy is converted into electricity. The remainder is dissipated as waste heat and through cooling systems. Imaginative combined heat and power schemes can utilise that additional heat to bring direct benefit to local communities. Although incinerator residues will, in general, be landfilled, as my hon. Friend recognised, the amount is much smaller than the amount involved in burying untreated waste.

Even so, waste management facilities can be unpopular with the general public. There has been substantial public opposition to many proposed waste incineration facilities. The concerns are often dominated by local traffic implications—to which my hon. Friend rightly drew attention—the fact that such facilities are generally permanent compared with landfills, and fears about emissions that are harmful to health, which he also raised. I shall take each of those concerns in turn, together with the other issue that he raised: the PFI.

In the interests of safety and to minimise nuisance, it is important that facilities are served by a good road network, have clear access and minimise lorry movements close to dwellings. Proposals for new sites may incorporate provisions for access improvements.

In addition, the Government's new integrated transport strategy "A New Deal for Transport: better for everyone" draws attention to the need for greater use of rail and river transport, fewer and shorter journeys where possible and less empty running. That applies as much to transportation of waste as to other movements of materials.

It is often necessary for large incinerators to have a protracted operational life because of the scale of the capital investment that is required. It is not possible to avoid that, but it means that particular care is needed in selecting potential sites, taking into account future provisions for development as well as current local issues. Subsequent management should also take heed of local people's concerns.

It is probably fair to say that the most important factor in public opposition relates to fears that incinerators will have harmful effects—if not now, possibly in future—if different materials are burnt in them. The performance of some incinerators in the past was poor in terms of the amount and types of emissions to the atmosphere. Following the introduction of stringent new pollution control standards under part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, all existing incinerators were either upgraded to meet exacting environmental standards or closed.

All new facilities—I hope that this reassures my hon. Friend—are now required to meet very high environmental standards in terms of emissions and for all other aspects of operation, within authorisation that is issued by the appropriate regulatory authority, usually the Environment Agency. That authorisation sets out operational requirements. Those are enforced by the agency to ensure that facilities are designed, constructed and operated to the highest standards. Those controls remain in place to prevent any unauthorised materials from being incinerated at some future date.

Those tough domestic controls are now reinforced by an EU hazardous waste incineration directive and a proposed non-hazardous waste incineration directive. Modern incinerators need no longer be the "bad neighbour" developments of the past.

Does the Minister agree that, from both a capital investment point of view and a transport point of view, there is perhaps a good case for having small local incinerators that are based in the community where the waste is generated?

I will come to that point. The location of incinerators and minimising the journeys that are needed to take material to be incinerated are important issues. In certain cases, small local incinerators may be appropriate. However, in others, greater size is necessary to make a venture economically viable, particularly when linked with a combined heat and power facility.

In my constituency of Greenwich, a large proportion of municipal waste is transported to the very near south-east London combined heat and power plant—which provides an effective facility for our part of south-east London, and demonstrates that a large incinerator can co-exist with local residential communities. There are, therefore, merits in such approaches.

Identifying appropriate locations for proposed facilities is a land use issue within the town and country planning controls exercised by the relevant waste planning authority. Waste local plans should contain criteria for assessing planning applications and, often, indications of general areas within which particular types of waste management facilities may be acceptable. However, the plans must be based on careful consideration of all the relevant social, economic and environmental issues.

I have heard all that my hon. Friend has said, and I entirely agree with him. However, does he agree that—taking all the considerations in the round—a site with good road access that is away from residential accommodation is more likely to build public confidence and be acceptable than a site adjacent to houses and schools?

I hear what my hon. Friend is saying. However, as I was saying, facilities such as the south-east London combined heat and power plant, for example, are, by their nature, in areas that are close to residential accommodation. Moreover, proximity to potential users is vital in searching for the most effective environmental solution in combined heat and power plants that involve heat recovery. Sometimes, it may well be appropriate—provided that the necessary safeguards are in place, and the community is confident that those safeguards are effective—to seek a location that is in a residential area, or in an area with other users who may benefit from the heat recovery process.

The planning system also involves the determination of planning applications. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest will be reassured by the fact that—when there are concerns that a local authority may be influenced by considerations other than the purely planning ones that should be the primary concern in assessing such matters—there are provisions for contentious cases to be called in for decision by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions after a public inquiry process. There is the option to consider a call-in request also when it is felt that issues of national significance should be taken into account. Applicants will, of course, have a right of appeal against a local authority planning refusal, a failure to determine the application or imposition of planning conditions that are thought to be unreasonable.

There has to be greater appreciation of the fact that there are strong environmental arguments for locating waste management facilities close to the areas where the waste arises. The "proximity principle" helps to ensure that problems are not simply exported to other regions. Local communities need to appreciate that the waste that they produce should, as far as possible, be dealt with locally, and that they will have to accept the necessary facilities. That will help to ensure that environmentally damaging bulk transportation of materials is kept to a minimum.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest rightly asked when the new planning policy guidance note 10 would be prepared. He also said that "soon" was a word enjoyed by civil servants. Although I am not able to give him the precise timing, I can assure him that Ministers are very conscious of the need to proceed on the matter and that we shall soon consider both the new guidance and the timing of its publication. I hope to be able to give my hon. Friend some good news on the matter in the reasonably near future.

I conclude with a few words about the private finance initiative, a point that my hon. Friend also raised. The Government are keen to ensure that commercial confidentiality is not used as an unnecessary excuse for withholding information about PFI or other contracts. The Department supports the Government's approach that a public sector body should withhold information on commercial confidentiality grounds only when disclosure would cause real harm to the legitimate commercial or legal interests of suppliers, contractors, the public sector client or any other relevant party.

A representative from my Department has written to the clerk of the council in Upper Arley parish in my hon. Friend's constituency stressing that our guidance note "Local Government and the Private Finance Initiative", published in September 1998, encourages local authorities to be as open as possible in the information made available on PFI contracts. In view of what my hon. Friend has said this afternoon, I undertake to look further into the case, and I shall write to him.

I hope that I have made it clear that the Government take the issue very seriously indeed and are seeking to find the best possible environmental option for dealing with waste, while at the same time reassuring local communities about issues that, perfectly understandably, have caused concern. As my hon. Friend recognises, it is not an easy issue; it must be approached with determination and with sensitivity to the conflicting environmental, social and economic issues. I believe that we are moving in the right direction and that the policies that we are promoting will help to ensure that in the years ahead we deal with the problems.