When he last met the chairman of the Environment Agency to discuss the performance of the agency; and what matters were discussed. [123989]

I hold quarterly bilaterals with the chairman to discuss the agency's performance in England. At our last bilateral on 24 February, we discussed the following: priorities for the agency, developing the agency's relationship with Ministers and the Department, and handling complaints and board and staff appointments.

When my right hon. Friend next meets the chairman of the Environment Agency, will he discuss with him the report of the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs on the Environment Agency—a hard-hitting report? Part of the report deals with fly-tipping. Attention is drawn to the appalling abuse of the landfill tax by cowboy firms fly-tipping domestic, industrial and building waste. If the Environment Agency argues that it needs more resources, which it will, will my right hon. Friend obtain from the Chancellor a fraction of the abundant proceeds of the landfill tax to tackle that serious problem?

Yes, we are extremely concerned in the light of the Select Committee's comments on numerous issues, particularly about the licensing exemptions, and in the light of revelations in "Dispatches" and the article in The Guardian. We are reviewing the situation as a matter of urgency and I shall make a statement as soon as I can. The Ecotec consultancy has examined the matter on our behalf, and recommended that charges be levied in order to pay for regular Environment Agency inspections. I am concerned about the abuse of licensing exemptions, and I have every intention of cracking down on it.

Next time the Minister meets the chairman, will he raise the question of the agency's responsibility for flood defences? He may recall that some years ago my constituency suffered a flash flood in which properties were swept away, since which time the agency has regularly cleared Stanford Hall brook. It has ceased to do so over the past two years, with the excuse that it has higher priorities. Surely that is a false economy? The reason why my constituency has not suffered flooding recently is that the brook is kept clear. Does it not make more sense to prevent flooding than to deal with the problems afterwards?

The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly fair point. It is not my direct responsibility in regard to the Environment Agency; it is a matter for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, but I shall draw the specific details to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister, and I am sure that he will write to the hon. Gentleman.

I understand the view that charges should be imposed on some of the people involved in landfill, but does my right hon. Friend accept that with regard to fly-tipping, charges are irrelevant? What is needed is the effective prosecution of those who are spoiling urban and rural landscapes.

Again, I strongly agree. That is part of the review that is taking place. There has unquestionably been some increase in fly-tipping, although I think that it is not as great as many people believe. Most of the fly-tipping is of household waste, and there is no levying of landfill tax for household waste. However, it remains an issue, and in some areas there has been increased degradation of the countryside, which is one of the subjects of the review.

Further to the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles), is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the way in which the Environment Agency deals with flooding problems, particularly at Lindfield in my constituency, where there have been continual problems? The matter continues to be batted back and forth between the Environment Agency and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Will the right hon. Gentleman look into the matter, to see whether he is entirely satisfied with the way in which the Environment Agency carries out its duties in that regard, and what could be done to improve the speed and facility with which such matters can be drawn to a conclusion?

I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food have heard what the hon. Gentleman said. As he implied, the problem is the relationship between MAFF and the Environment Agency. That is not my responsibility, but again, I will draw the hon. Gentleman's perfectly reasonable point to the Ministry's attention and ensure that he gets an answer.

What progress the Government are making in reducing disadvantage in coastal towns. [123991]

The Government are continuing to address the needs of disadvantaged areas, including coastal towns, through national and regeneration programmes. A consultation framework on the national strategy for neighbourhood renewal was published by the social exclusion unit in April.

While I welcome such initiatives as the single regeneration budget and neighbourhood renewal in tackling disadvantage in coastal towns, may I suggest a course of action that could have a dramatic impact on residents in Grimsby and Cleethorpes—a revision of council tax bands? With 50 per cent. of properties in band A, that band is far too wide. In our area, we need new, lower bands so that the most disadvantaged in my community pay less council tax.

I appreciate the way in which my hon. Friend has continued to push for her area. I am sure that that has had something to do with the successful SRB funding for the area. As she knows, the Government continually keep under review how council tax is working. A number of authorities and organisations have asked that we consider banding, especially that of band A, because people who live in mobile homes, for example, feel that it is an extensive band. We shall continue to consider the matter, but I cannot promise my hon. Friend action this side of the general election.

Given the importance of tourism to the generation of prosperity and to the reduction of disadvantage in coastal towns, will the right hon. Lady take the opportunity comprehensively to rubbish the report produced by the Minister for the Cabinet Office, entitled, "Rural Economies", which advocated the imposition of a tax on restaurants and hotels in rural areas?

As usual, the hon. Gentleman is all over the place. I know that there is not a coastal town in his constituency.

As for helping coastal towns, will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that whether it is a question of aiding tourism or economic development, transport and communications have an important part to play? When can we hear some decisions about improvements to the A595 in west Cumbria, which are critical to the future economic and social well-being of coastal towns in the borough of Copeland?

My right hon. Friend is concerned with particular issues in the coastal area of Cumbria that he represents. It is one of the most beautiful constituencies in the country, but it has severe problems. I know that my ministerial colleagues in the transport part of the Department are continually considering demands for roads and for improving transport, especially to areas of deprivation. I know that they will have heard what my right hon. Friend has to say.

What representations he has received concerning the construction of new waste incinerators. [123992]

I have received many representations on all of the policies in the new waste strategy.

Given the latest evidence from the United States, which confirms the views of experts at the Imperial Cancer Research Foundation that the release of dioxins by incinerator plants into the atmosphere poses a serious threat of cancer, does the Minister recognise the concerns of my constituents in north Guildford that no new incinerator plant should be built in Britain until this threat of cancer has been properly investigated by British experts; and the Minister can give absolute reassurance that the threats can be discounted?

We believe that incinerators form a necessary though probably small part of the waste management strategy. It is impossible otherwise to achieve the requirements of the landfill tax directive, which are mandatory. They are to reduce the amount of household waste going to landfill from 85 per cent. at its current level to no more than 35 per cent. of 1995 levels by 2016. That is a shift in any one year of up to 33 million tonnes. If we can all do that by reducing the amount of waste created or by a large increase, which is exactly what I intend, in recycling, re-use and recovery, that is fine. However, incinerators are bound to play a small part.

Under the November 1996 EU directive, emission standards are vastly tighter and stricter than they were in the 1960s. Dioxins must be no more than one part in a billion per cubic metre, and that is a minuscule amount. Far more dioxins are released on Guy Fawkes night from the burning of wood than are released from the regular use of incinerators.

I am rather surprised by the hon. Gentleman's point because, in the Tory Government's 1995 waste strategy, of which the Leader of the Opposition, as Secretary of State for Wales, was a co-sponsor, said:

The Government—

that is, the Tory Government—

agreed … that incineration with energy recovery should play a larger part in waste management in the future.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his response to the question. If we could get recycling under way and introduce combined heat and power to burn domestic and industrial waste, that may not do away with the need for incineration, as advocated by the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn), but it would help the economy and reduce waste and the need for more landfill sites. More recycling and more combined heat and power would meet the Government's policy requirements.

The Government are extremely keen to see a big increase in good quality combined heat and power and in the use of renewables, and that is why both have been exempted from the climate change levy. We are also pursuing a massive increase in recycling. I made it clear in our strategy document that the Government intend to double the level of recycling within the next three years and to triple it within five years, and to reach a level of 30 per cent.—up among the European leaders—by 2010. If we do all that, incineration will play a relatively small role.

When the Minister considers his policy towards incineration and the Opposition's more environmentally friendly policy, will he and his colleagues take to heart the comments of the Green Alliance which, in its parliamentary newsletter, says that the Conservatives have

succeeded … in catching the public mood by acknowledging recent scientific unease and public concerns over incineration?

He should take that to heart because the director of the Green Alliance, who wrote that, has just been appointed his Department's environmental adviser. Does he agree with his new adviser that the Opposition's policy on waste is better and greener than his policy?

I certainly do not believe that a Government who produced a level of recycling of 2 per cent. in 1992 have any claim to being environmentally conscious. The current level of 9 per cent. is far too low, but under the previous Government it was no less than pathetic. What we have seen, which is beginning to be the Opposition's trademark, is a degree of opportunism in rejecting the previous Government's policies and coming up with the exact opposite. The electorate will know what to make of that.

If he will make a statement on beacon councils. [123993]

We want all councils to take part in the beacon scheme because it gives them the opportunity to learn from those that are already achieving the best. More than 40 councils are now running learning events, which have already been attended by some 2,000 people, and 11 new service themes have been announced for the second year. We are now inviting councils that believe that they offer excellence in those themes to apply for beacon status.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. I am sure that she is aware than Kirklees council in my area has already achieved beacon status under a Labour administration, and I am now concerned to see that that scheme is properly evaluated to ensure that services remain at a high standard. Does my hon. Friend have plans for a continuous evaluation scheme; and, if so, how will that benefit my constituents, and how can they ensure that there is continuous improvement?

Kirklees had an impressive bid through its strong partnership with tenants, upon which its repairs and maintenance service is based. My hon. Friend is right to say that the whole point of the beacon scheme, with other measures, is to improve the standard of public services. That is all the more necessary after the run-down of public services that took place under the previous Government. Evaluation is therefore vital.

We have appointed researchers jointly with the improvement and development agency and Warwick university to evaluate the dissemination that is taking place. Longer-term evaluation will ascertain the extent to which the beacon scheme improves public services. That improvement is our clear aim.

Is it not ironic that the Minister is granting beacon status to councils when she is also diverting council funding, reducing councils' financial freedom through specific grants and capping, undermining their authority through an obsession with regional government and directly elected mayors, while simultaneously imposing structures that councils do not want? Is it not time that the Government left local government alone, encouraged local democracy and returned real powers and responsibilities to local councils?

If the criteria for leaving councils alone is the neglect of local government and public services that occurred in 18 years of Conservative Government, we would not want to compete with the Conservative party and we could not begin to do so. I have told the House on many occasions about the Government's extra funding for councils, but it is clear that Conservative Members do not want to listen. Our funding has increased by 8 per cent. in real terms in the past three years, compared with a 4 per cent. cut in real terms in the three years that led up to the general election. That is the measure of our support for local government. We are determined to make it strong, and provide good public services.

On the new regimes and political management, the best councils are doing that already; we are simply enabling the others to come up to speed.

How many (a) commercial fishermen have been lost at sea and (b) fishing vessels have (i) capsized and (ii) foundered in each of the past three years. [123994]

Over the past three years, the total number of fishermen who died as a result of their vessel being lost or of falling overboard is 53, and the number of vessels that capsized or foundered is 60. This year, there have been 14 deaths up to May.

It is deeply regrettable, but given the hazardous occupation that those men follow and the seas that they are often in, men and vessels will be lost. However, some of the terrible losses happen because of inadequate safety equipment, poor safety training and negligence. What will the Department do to reduce those dreadful statistics? Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a sharp discrepancy between the training programmes on safety that are offered to merchant navy personnel and those that are available to fishermen? Something needs to be done soon.

I first pay tribute to my hon. Friend's long-standing interest, which, I recall, stretches back more than 30 years, to the time when we were at university together. We went to one of the élite universities—Hull.

I was a mature student, my hon. Friend was an immature student.

I readily own up to that. My hon. Friend has also worn better than me over the years.

For a variety of reasons, the industry has a sad safety record. I am sure that my hon. Friend would agree with that. Part of that is due to the culture in the industry, which in the past tended to treat safety regulations as some sort of Government interference, whereas they should be the norm in an industry as dangerous as fishing.

We have introduced a safety code for vessels under 12 m. We also have a three-year joint initiative with the industry. Arising from that, one possibility under consideration is the provision of mobile training facilities. That would, I think, deal with my hon. Friend's point about taking training to fishermen rather than holding training sessions elsewhere.

The Deputy Prime Minister, who also takes the matter seriously—and who was at university with my hon. Friend and me—has so far held two meetings with representatives of the fishing industry this year to discuss safety.

Given that 11 lives have been lost in my constituency during the period under discussion, I am sure the Minister accepts the seriousness of the problem. It is particularly serious for smaller and single-handed vessels. In view of his earlier reply, would the Minister be prepared to expand on the timetable for the introduction of a safety code for vessels measuring less than 12 m?

The code is being introduced this year.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, although there may not be many fishermen left in the country, in a fishing community like Lowestoft everyone knows a fishing family, and everyone knows a family who has suffered a bereavement at some point? Ties are strong, and it is an emotive issue.

I am concerned about the seaworthiness of, in particular, small fishing boats in Lowestoft harbour. Fishermen are hard-pressed because of general difficulties affecting fishing. Will my hon. Friend give special consideration to safety grants for smaller vessels? I think that that is the way in which we could save the most lives.

We think that what is most needed is safety training, rather than grants.

I feel that skippers and employers—although I know that many fishermen are self-employed—could take more interest in the risks to which their crews are exposed. It should, for instance, become the norm for fishermen to wear life jackets when on deck. Unfortunately it is not the norm, thus far at least.

This is a serious subject for all of us who represent fishing constituencies. Why, in the light of the tragic figures that the Minister has given, have the Government—as an economy under the comprehensive spending review—cancelled fishing vessel safety equipment grants? Surely they should consider that decision seriously, and, if necessary, reverse it.

The money spent on safety equipment should have been spent on vessels in any case. That is why we are concentrating on promoting safety training for crews. We made the change because we think that it will be more effective.

What steps he is taking to ensure the safety of cyclists in London. [123995]

We are supporting London local authorities in the creation of the London cycle network, which aims to develop 2,900 km of cycle routes that are safe and convenient. As part of that initiative, a design manual has been produced by the boroughs to assist in achieving high standards of cycling safety.

That is jolly good, but there is not one secure bicycling lane in Trafalgar square, Parliament square, Whitehall, Millbank, Victoria street or any of the access roads leading to this place. Why is that the case, after 18 years of Conservative government and three years of Labour government?

I know that my hon. Friend takes a deep interest in this matter. Indeed, he has just tabled no fewer than 16 questions on it, which I am delighted to say were answered before this Question Time.

The latest available figures suggest that cycling in London is increasing, especially in the central area. Moreover, I am pleased to say that the figures for cycling accidents continue to show a slight decrease in London, against a background of increasing cycle usage. My hon. Friend is right, however: a key aspect of cycling safety is the separation of the cyclist from traffic. Nearly half the London cycle network is now in place, and I am also pleased to say that this year we have increased the allocation to London boroughs for the network to £6 million.

As a regular cyclist—unlike Ministers in their chauffeur-driven limousines—and while acknowledging that the Minister has been a cyclist in the past, may I ask whether he agrees that one of the contributors to risks for cyclists is the condition of the roads? The roads in London are in their worst condition since the 1970s, with 70 per cent. of local authorities complaining that the condition of the roads is a risk to road users. At the present spending rate, it would take 70 years to resurface all London's roads. When will the Government admit that they are spending less on road maintenance and, indeed, less on the London cycle network than the previous Government?

Of course, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the condition of roads is an essential aspect of successful and expanding cycling. That is why the Government are taking pains to compensate for the Conservative party's deplorable record in government and why, in the first four years of this Labour Government, we will have spent an extra £2 billion in total on the condition and improvement of our roads. Let me not be wholly curmudgeonly about the matter by saying that, of course, I look forward to the hon. Gentleman joining me in our wobble to Westminster next Tuesday as part of national bike to work day, along with no fewer than 75 other Members of the Houses of Parliament.

If he will make a statement on housing investment. [123996]

If he will make a statement on the housing investment programme. [123998]

The Government are committed to delivering major improvements in the quality of housing and in the performance of social landlords to deliver our vision for housing as set out in the recent housing Green Paper. We have substantially increased the resources for housing investment—around £5 billion extra over the lifetime of this Parliament—and we ale ensuring that the available resources are used as efficiently and effectively as possible.

I very much welcome the extra resources to which my hon. Friend refers, which have meant that Doncaster council's housing investment allocation has increased by 51 per cent. this year. That has allowed the council to make repairs and improvements to the housing stock in greatest need. However, over and above the immediate capital improvement, the problem remains of long-term changes in housing requirements that arise from demographic changes. For example, more accommodation for single people is needed in Doncaster. What steps is my hon. Friend taking to ensure that local authorities can meet those new challenges?

My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point about the need for local authorities to be conscious of changing demographic trends. In our housing Green Paper, we encourage local authorities to develop a more strategic role in which they will oversee the need for all types of housing in their areas, rather than concentrating solely on the provision of social housing, which many have in the past. There will be further increases in housing investment programme allocations in the coming year, in which the comprehensive spending review provided for an additional 25 per cent. uplift on top of this year's very considerable increase. I hope that my hon. Friend will see the real benefits of that in Doncaster.

I, too, welcome the extra investment in housing that my hon. Friend has announced and congratulate him on his success in securing the funds from the Treasury, but bearing in mind the fact that high house prices in London have pushed up the demand for affordable housing and the previous Government's neglect of social housing—I think of the Rayner's Lane estate in my constituency—can he assure the House that he will continue to press the case for the extra investment that London's affordable housing stock so desperately needs?

My hon. Friend makes an extremely fair point, and I am grateful to him for his kind remarks about the uplift in the housing investment programme allocation in Harrow, which was no less than 66 per cent, up on the previous year. Of course, that means that the local authority will be able to do substantially more to tackle the backlog of poor conditions. He makes a very fair point about the continuing severe pressures in London and the south-east. He will be aware that in our housing Green Paper we have set out several proposals, including a starter home initiative to assist those who wish to buy their homes but are unable to do so because of exceptionally high prices. We believe that that, together with continuing increases in the improvement of the existing social housing stock and the provision of new social housing through registered social landlords, will make a significant contribution to tackling those real problems.

Why does the Minister think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer rejected his Department's representations before the Budget to harmonise the rates of value added tax—in particular, to bring them down—on housing repair and renovation of derelict sites? Does not he agree that the absence of such a measure makes it harder to achieve the objectives of his Green Paper? Does he intend to return to that subject in the urban White Paper, which appears to be the last opportunity to put that essential piece of the jigsaw in place?

The right hon. Gentleman will be well aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in his Budget statement that he would welcome a debate on the use of economic instruments to encourage regeneration and specifically proposed consideration of changes to the stamp duty regime for brownfield areas. The matter is under debate and I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman will continue to campaign on it vigorously, as he has in the past, because there are real issues about how we best attune economic instruments to work with the grain of Government policy to encourage brownfield development and the regeneration of our cities.

I am sure that the House welcomes the Government's decision to follow on from the previous Government and to use private finance to take over council estates—Conservative Members certainly do—but what are the Minister's thoughts on encouraging private landlords to put their houses up for rent further to allow people to get into family homes? In particular, do the Government have any plans to solve the problem of people refusing to pay rent? Those bad tenants are difficult to remove from private tenancies, which puts many people off renting out their houses.

As the hon. Gentleman will know from reading our housing Green Paper, we attach considerable importance to working with the private rented sector to improve its supply and its quality. He will be aware that, at its best, it provides good-quality accommodation on favourable terms that people welcome. Equally, there are terrible abuses at the wrong end of that sector. There are some poor tenants, and also some poor landlords. We are working to improve standards by encouraging investment by responsible landlords and through arrangements such as the approved letting scheme, on which I have recently focused to encourage high standards. We are also committed to introducing licensing in multi-occupied houses to bear down on abuses at the bottom end of the sector.

Like many others, I welcome my hon. Friend's commitment to extra investment in housing, but may I put a special case to him? Will he consider the problems of new towns and new town housing stock, much of which is the same age and needs repairs and maintenance at the same time? That makes it extremely difficult for councils to have a rolling programme of repairs and, if left, minor repairs become major. Will he meet me and representatives of my local authority to examine ways to find the funding to do the much-needed repairs in my constituency?

My hon. Friend raises a perfectly fair point about the characteristics of some new towns in which the housing stock was developed in a particular period when the emphasis was very much on the need for family housing. There may be a need to make changes in the housing stock to respond to changing demographic patterns—a point to which my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton) also alluded. The Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), and I have met delegations from new town areas and other areas with similar characteristics to discuss the impact of the new housing finance arrangements that we intend to introduce from next April. I am happy to consider representations from my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Angela Smith) and her constituency on that subject.

I am sorry that the Deputy Prime Minister is not here to respond to this question as I know that he takes a close personal interest in low-cost housing.

On housing investment, can the Minister explain why he dismissed the Serplan recommendation that 40 per cent, of the new houses to be built in the south-east should be affordable homes? Will he now clarify what he meant in The Sunday Telegraph when he implied that he would punish councils in the south-east of England that voted against his proposals to concrete over the countryside of the south-east? Does he not realise that the purpose of consultation is to listen and that the purpose of decentralisation is to let local people decide? Does not his arrogant and petulant response to yesterday's vote illustrate that he is out of touch with people of the south-east of England and that all his claims to have decentralised and to have moved away from predict and provide were a hollow sham?

The hon. Gentleman will be well aware of the piece in The Sunday Telegraph in which the description was an accurate statement of his personal view of the process. However, it was not in any way an accurate representation of my views and I should like to put it on the record that there was serious misrepresentation in it.

As the hon. Gentleman knows only too well, I have made it quite clear that we shall listen to all representations on the RPG—regional planning guidance—for the south-east. We shall listen to the views of the 39 Serplan authorities that voted according to the hon. Gentleman's whip, and to the 30 that voted the other way. Personally, I regret very much that, as a result of the hon. Gentleman's intervention, a body that previously operated on a consensual basis to try to bring agreement on these important issues is split on party political lines. That does no service to the sensible process of trying to reconcile two hugely important issues: housing provision for people in need and the protection of the countryside. The Government are committed to those objectives and, as the hon. Gentleman knows only too well, we shall pursue policies that respond to those responsibilities.

If he will make a statement on the progress of the review of separation distances for GM crops undergoing farm-scale trials in the UK. [123997]

My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food explained to the House on Thursday 8 June that his Department is conducting a scientific review of separation distances and their relationship with crop varietal purity. He is also consulting interested parties, including conventional and organic farmers, and will take account of any lessons that can be learned from the Advanta seeds issue.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Has he formed an opinion about the risk matrix-based separation distances recommended by the National Pollen Research Unit? Will he take a lead in the matter and can he guarantee that new separation distances will be put in place before the 1 August notification deadline for new, autumn-sown, genetic modification farm-scale trials?

I am concerned about the issue, as my hon. Friend knows. We are examining appropriate separation distances as a matter of urgency. Indeed, we take seriously the variable matrix model produced by the National Pollen Research Unit, which is supported by the Soil Association, with which I have been having discussions, and others. The survey is being conducted by MAFF, to which those proposals should be sent.

Contamination and separation distances are traditional, having been determined by agronomic practice over 50 or more years, and 99.5 per cent, of the pollen will not get beyond those distances. However, small—sometimes vanishingly small—amounts of pollen may, and indeed can, travel considerable distances. The problem is knowing exactly where to draw the line in a continuous deposition level over long periods.

The Mayall family have been farming at Pimhill in my constituency for 51 years. Their organic farm is a highly successful enterprise. Important GM trials are taking place not very far away. It is absolutely vital that we establish safe separation distances as soon as possible. GM crops have been grown in bulk in the United States for more than 10 years. How many visits have the Ministers' officials made to find out what the distances are there?

I cannot answer the specific question, but I will ensure that the hon. Gentleman receives an answer. We have been increasing the number of visits made by the Central Science Laboratory, which took over from the Health and Safety Executive in the supervision of GM sites.

I repeat that I am concerned about the issue. There should be due and adequate notification of GM trials. We have arranged local meetings in villages and towns so that people are properly informed and can make representations.

I am concerned that we should have a fresh look at the matter by the August sowing deadline, which my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) referred to, and that we shall be able to establish a fairer cordon sanitaire, possibly on the variable matrix model, which I favour. It is false to pretend that any distance will prevent all contamination; the question is how we can minimise that to a level that is acceptable to those buying the product, because they will have to determine what degree of GM food in a non-GM product is acceptable.

What steps his Department proposes to take to assist those local authorities with large numbers of empty private sector houses. [124000]

We are considering the recommendations of the empty property advisory group which are aimed at building on the steps that we have already taken to assist local authorities. In addition, from this year we are requiring all authorities to account to local people for their actions by publishing indicators of their performance in tackling empty privately owned homes.

My hon. Friend will know that Burnley has almost 3,000 empty private sector terraced houses, in addition to many private sector houses that need major renovation. Do the Government accept that it is a problem that Burnley and councils in a similar situation cannot solve alone? Government help is needed and people must work together.

The Government certainly accept that the problem cannot be solved by councils alone. Many other parts of the north, including my constituency in Sunderland, have a similar problem. That is one of the reasons why we have set up the empty property advisory group, and we certainly recognise that help will be needed.

If tackling the scourge of empty homes is so important to the Government, why was no reference made to it in any of the 43 key recommendations in the housing policy paper? Will the Minister acknowledge that there are 750,000 empty homes in this country, and that a quarter of them are in London and the south-east? Would not it be better to start bringing those back into use before concreting over the green belt in the south-east?

As a way of making that happen, will the Minister join the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), me and many other Members in a campaign to persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer to change the crazy VAT arrangements whereby one pays full VAT on renovation to bring homes back into use and nothing on new build?

There have been recommendations on empty homes. Although the original question was about private housing, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is a serious problem of empty public housing in London. We are doing all that we can to encourage local authorities to deal with it. It is partly a question of resources, and over this Parliament, we are putting an extra £5 billion into housing. As the hon. Gentleman knows, VAT is a matter for the Chancellor, who will have heard the point made by the hon. Gentleman and many others.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the large number of Victorian properties which were formerly used as hotel accommodation that lie empty in seaside resorts? Many are sold cheaply at auction—a 10-bedroomed property in Morecambe sold for £4,000—and are bought by unscrupulous absentee landlords who provide poor housing in the rented sector. That problem faces all British seaside resorts, especially Morecambe, and I am interested in the Minister's plans to deal with it.

Unscrupulous absentee landlords are not a problem only in seaside resorts. Sunderland has exactly the same problem; I hesitate to class it as a seaside resort, although it is on the sea. It is one of the reasons why we will introduce licensing for houses in multiple occupation. We have some other measures in mind. We recognise that it is a serious problem.

It is important in these considerations to make a clear distinction between so-called management vacants—those houses that are ready to be re-let shortly—and the total number of vacants. Will the Minister confirm two things: first, that the five authorities with the highest number of vacants and the highest number of management vacants are all controlled by the Labour party? Secondly, will he explain why 7.5 per cent.—I believe that that is the figure—of management vacants in the Deputy Prime Minister's local authority of Kingston upon Hull are ready to be let tomorrow, but, for some reason or other, are not being let?

One of the reasons is that, in the north of England, which is generally controlled by Labour authorities, there tends not to be the same demand for housing, public or private, as there is in the south.

indicated dissent.

It is a fact, whether the hon. Gentleman agrees or not. There is no point in him shaking his Wiltshire head. It is one of the facts of life, with which anyone in government must grapple. Who knows, one day he and his colleagues may be faced with the same problem. There is a massive surplus of demand in the south and insufficient demand in the north. Of course that gives rise to vacancies. We are anxious that those vacancies be properly managed and we are taking steps to do so.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, in certain circumstances where there are many empty properties, comprehensive redevelopment of an area is the best solution? If so, does he share my concern at the recent ruling of the European Commission, which has declared that gap funding is outwith state aid rules? Is he aware that that ruling is threatening many housing and other redevelopment schemes on brownfield sites, including the proposed Holbeck urban village in my constituency?

I am aware of the European Union ruling; we are looking at it. I agree with my hon. Friend that sometimes the best solution is wholesale redevelopment. That is happening in some parts of the country, including, as he says, in his constituency.

If he will make a statement on the incidence of road accidents in North Yorkshire in the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [124001]

The total number of personal injury road accidents in North Yorkshire, including the City of York, in the last three years for which published figures are available, was as follows: in 1996, 3,274; in 1997, 3,315; and in 1998, 3,278.

Does the Minister agree that 160 injuries and deaths in accidents per 100,000 of population—her own Department's figures—gives North Yorkshire the worst road accident rate in the country? Most of the traffic is coming from and destined for parts outside North Yorkshire, and is putting increasing pressure on North Yorkshire county council's highways budget. If the Government proceed to detrunk, which is their announced intention, it will be totally unfair and unjust to ask the council, against the background of those figures, to meet the total contribution.

The written answer that the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), gave to a question about road accidents in relation to static population did give that figure for North Yorkshire but, as the hon. Lady knows, and as North Yorkshire police have pointed out, North Yorkshire is a very large county in terms of area and road miles—it has 6,000 road miles. However, it has a very small population. Therefore, any comparison of accidents in relation to population will give a relatively large figure. If we relate accidents to road miles in North Yorkshire, the incidence is no higher than the national average; indeed, it is somewhat better. We are not, however, complacent.

The Government have given North Yorkshire a 58 per cent, increase in its local transport capital settlement—to the tune of £8.5 million—so that it will be able to put even more emphasis on local safety measures. In the past few years, North Yorkshire has certainly been reducing the number of road accident casualties and serious injuries. I am sure that the hon. Lady will be pleased to note that, since the previous general election, in North Yorkshire, the number of road accidents, the total number of casualties and the number of those who are killed or seriously injured in accidents have all declined significantly.

I welcome the improvements that my hon. Friend has just described in road safety, particularly on trunk roads, in North Yorkshire. However, will she consider speaking with people at the Highways Agency about progress on the A64 corridor to Scarborough, examining very carefully the growth in traffic that has occurred in the corridor since the general election, and reviewing progress on possible future work on the A64?

Certainly. As the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) will know—at the end of February 2000, she received a letter from the Highways Agency outlining all the initiatives on trunk roads, particular safety studies and traffic calming in North Yorkshire—the A64 trunk road and the A1 Bramham to Scarborough are the subject of a route improvement strategy for improving safety, particularly in relation to the A64 between the A1 and Scarborough. The strategy has recently been presented to the regional planning forum for its agreement, and includes a variety of individual proposals designed to deal with the problems that my hon. Friend rightly raises.

What recent representations he has received from the RMT union on the provisions of the Transport Bill. [124002]

My Department has received a number of representations about the provisions of the Transport Bill and has met a wide range of organisations and individuals to discuss matters of mutual interest. The organisations include, of course, the RMT, which Ministers meet from time to time. Most recently, on 1 June, my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Macdonald of Tradeston met the RMT.

I am particularly sorry that the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions is not in the Chamber at least to listen to this question, as it is really directed at him. Does the Minister believe that the Deputy Prime Minister's tenancy of an RMT flat contravenes both the spirit and the letter of the ministerial code of conduct's provisions on trade unions, which state:

care must be taken to avoid any actual or perceived conflict of interest … Ministers should arrange their affairs so as to avoid any suggestion that a union of which they are a member has any undue influence … and should receive no remuneration from a union …?

Does the Minister deny that the Deputy Prime Minister's action also contravenes paragraph 109 of the code? It states:

Where there is a doubt it will almost always be better to relinquish or dispose of the interest.

Has the Minister found that the relationship between the Secretary of State and the RMT has in any way enhanced or detracted from the workings of his Department?

The hon. Gentleman is trying to make political capital out of something that is old news. The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards investigated the matter and rejected all complaints against my right hon. Friend.

Quite frankly, if the hon. Gentleman is seriously trying to make the imputation that the Government have conferred favour on the RMT in our transport legislation, he has utterly failed to do his homework on the matter. While providing for the more effective regulation of the railways through the new Strategic Rail Authority, the Transport Bill falls far short of the RMT's desire for re-nationalisation of the railway industry. The Bill's proposed National Air Traffic Services public-private partnership is also in direct opposition to the RMT's official policy. In that context, I might also point out that the RMT is not exactly wildly enthusiastic about the London Underground PPP.

The truth is that the Government serve the public interest. We need no strictures from the official Opposition, with their long and discreditable record of subservience to vested and sectional interests.

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Given the Minister's unsatisfactory answer, I shall raise the matter in an Adjournment debate.

If he will make a statement on the activities of the regional development agency in the west midlands. [124003]

Advantage West Midlands has been in existence for just over a year. A major activity in that time has been the production of the west midlands regional economic strategy which was endorsed by its partners in the region. Another important task was leading the Rover task force at the request of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. It is due to produce its final report at the end of June.

Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Mr. Alex Stephenson, the chairman of Advantage West Midlands, and his colleagues on their speedy and efficient work on behalf of the taskforce established in the wake of the BMW-Rover crisis? Will she also confirm that in its first full year of operation, Advantage West Midlands has been responsible for attracting record levels of direct foreign investment to the west midlands, resulting in 5,000 new jobs and safeguarding a further 9,500 jobs in the region? Does that not demonstrate the value of such agencies, and is it not an argument for nurturing and strengthening them, rather than sniping from the sidelines or threatening to dismantle them as the Opposition do all too often?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The regional development agency enabled people in the west midlands to work together under an organisation that already had an extensive network in the area, and the chairman of AWM, Mr. Alex Stephenson, to lead an effective response to the announcement from BMW. In addition, because the regional development agency has drawn the task force together and developed its work, the west midlands is now well placed to take that work further, to make sure that the response is not what we originally saw in respect of Rover and to develop a sustainable strategy for the future of car manufacturing in the area. Indeed, I can confirm its outstanding success to date. Everyone involved—including those who associate with the Conservative party and who are now involved with regional development agencies—thinks that the Conservative party has totally lost its way and is wrong to talk about getting rid of regional development agencies.

I beg to move amendment No. 101, in page 1, line 12, at end insert—

', and is at least 10 hectares in size'.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 102, in page 2, line 17, leave out "wholly or predominantly" and insert—

'of at least 60 per cent.'.

No. 306, in page 2, line 21, at end add

', and to which the public has a general right of access'.

In Committee, the Minister described the Bill as "messy". He was right then, and, unfortunately, he is still right. He will be as aware as anyone that the countryside's dislike of the Government is growing by the week. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will therefore respond positively during our debates to our attempts to improve the Bill.

This group of amendments—particularly amendments Nos. 101 and 102—represents an attempt to continue to make this part of the Bill less impracticable: one of our main complaints about the Bill concerns its impracticability. The Government should be aware that as they stir up opposition in country areas with other measures that we have heard about this week, it is all the more important that this Bill should not cause further friction between the Government and their officials, and those who live and work in the countryside. Let me give an example of the effects of many of the measures in part I of the Bill. Every farmer contemplating providing permissive access as part of a stewardship scheme or diversification initiative will now have that income-earning opportunity removed. It is precisely because upland farmers will be the people most affected by the right of access as defined in the Bill that it is important that the provisions in part I should be made as workable, and non-disruptive to their businesses, as possible.

Where is the hon. Gentleman's evidence that the measure will cause any problem? As was pointed out on Second Reading, such provisions have applied in most of the Lake district for more than 100 years—and in large chunks of the Peak district as a result of access agreements negotiated by the national park—without causing any difficulties at all. If such arrangements do not cause a problem in those two areas, where is the hon. Gentleman's evidence that it will cause problems elsewhere?

The hon. Gentleman is tempting me down a route that is not entirely germane to the amendments. However, the upland areas in particular contain the farms which are under the most economic pressure: they are suffering from the worst economic crisis that many can remember. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, who is knowledgeable on these matters, will agree that for the Government to deny money-raising opportunities to upland farmers in the climate in which they are forced to operate today is particularly unfortunate.

In this group of amendments and others, we will seek precisely to ensure that the right of access—which we did not oppose on Second Reading—is as practicable as possible so that all those who have to make it work, particularly in the uplands, can feel that, although the Government are making their lives more difficult in many ways, they are not making it unnecessarily difficult through the detailed provisions of the Bill.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the important distinctions to be made between the arrangements applying to the Peak district and Lake district national parks and the provisions of the Bill is that, in those areas, the authorities are able to designate where people are allowed to walk? They may choose to allow people to walk anywhere, but they are certainly allowed to offer them designated access points—mainly linear access. That is quite different from what is proposed in clause 1.

My hon. Friend makes the point that there are many differences between the designated national parks and other areas where access will now be allowed. Each has individual characteristics and it is important—precisely because this House cannot and should not pass legislation that bears differently on different parts of the country—that the legislation that we pass should not disadvantage those who are already in the most difficult economic circumstances.

The purpose of amendment No. 101 is to make practicable the provision of access to areas permitted under the clause. We are seeking to introduce greater consistency to the Bill, which has as one of its many faults a degree of inconsistency. The Government recognise in clause 4(5)(a) that pieces of open country may be so small that access should not be required. The amendment proposes a de minimis limit of 10 hectares, to ensure that that perfectly sensible provision in clause 4 also applies in clause 1.

I am sure that the Minister will recognise that there are many reasons why that should be the case. In all cases, there are many costs associated with providing the access land—whether related to signing, to providing wardens or to making byelaws. Quite apart from the economic effect on farmers and other landowners, there will be costs on the public purse. We want to ensure that the extra access actually provides the most advantage to those who want to use it—the walkers—and that it is targeted towards decent-sized areas of land that offer the greatest public benefit. We keep using the phrase "right to roam". Clearly, the right to roam is of less use on a small parcel of land because less roaming can be done there.

We want both to restrict the additional costs that arise from the Bill and to maximise the leisure and health benefits that will accrue if more people are encouraged to walk in the English countryside—one of the matters that does not divide those who hold differing views as to the merits of this part of the Bill. There is little point in a right to roam if there is not enough land over which to roam, so it would be a good idea to establish a minimum size for access land.

Many of those with the greatest knowledge of such matters agree with us. The point is well made by the National Farmers Union, which supports the amendment because, without it, many small areas of land that are difficult to reach could fall under the definition of access land. That would be especially relevant in the uplands. If such places were difficult of access, new areas of access land would have to be created in order to reach them. Those places might be small, of limited interest to the user and awkward to map and manage.

I hope that the Government will take the amendment in the spirit in which it is intended; it would improve the practical application of the measure without denying to any great extent the right of access to any area.

Amendment No. 102 is an attempt to improve the Bill by adding greater precision to the definitions of access land. Currently, the phrase "wholly or predominantly" is used. We want to make the wording more practicable by changing it to

at least 60 per cent.

We all have a vague idea as to the meaning of "predominantly", but the scope of the provision is unclear none the less. In Committee, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), said that "predominantly.' meant anything more than 50 per cent. Our proposal is that it should be 60 per cent. Other people have suggested 66 per cent.

I shall take the unusual step of referring to a briefing that is in disagreement with the amendment. The NFU agrees that further clarification is needed, but thinks that our amendment sets too low a threshold. That is one point of view. However, it is unarguable that some sensible and definite level needs to be set; otherwise confusion will reign and it will not be clear whether the measure is being applied fairly.

There are some other problems—literally around the edges. The definition of whether and how far the land can extend beyond the edge of the heath in certain circumstances is clearly relevant too.

I am aware that the expression "wholly or predominantly" has been taken from access agreements and orders made under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. However, there is an important difference between such orders and those that would be made under the Bill. The provisions made under the 1949 Act applied by agreement or by a carefully considered order and were subject to compensation. We shall discuss compensation later, but the key point is that those provisions were not likely to be applied to land that was not obviously open country. The Bill will impose that regime on 4 million acres of open country and it is obvious that the definitions require more precision if they are to be applied to such land.

Other legislation applying to land designations—to sites of special scientific interest, for example—does not use the word "predominantly". If the Government wished to accept the amendment, they could satisfactorily argue that it followed precedent. There are better ways of defining land areas than that used in the Bill.

Does amendment No. 101 spring from the premise that the privacy appertaining to a small piece of land is inherently greater than that which applies to a larger piece of land, or is it my hon. Friend's contention that it is merely a matter of practicality that informs the amendment?

My hon. Friend tempts me into a debate about principle, which I suspect you, Madam Speaker, would not find acceptable in this context. I merely say that practicality is the predominant issue in this group. However, I am aware that many hon. Members on both sides of the House have views about the principles involved.

Should they wish to, the Government could accept amendment No. 102 in the full knowledge that they would merely be following the legislation that set up the sites of special scientific interest, which hon. Members on both sides of the House supported. I recommend that the Government follow that example rather than that used in the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949.

The hon. Gentleman has referred to the size of the area of land and to practicalities, but is he aware that at Hawes in Wensleydale, north Yorkshire, is the Hardraw force, one of the most beautiful waterfalls in the country? It is made more interesting by the fact that, in the 19th century, it was destroyed by severe flooding and was rebuilt in a magnificent way by the then landowner. If the hon. Gentleman prevents the public from having access to small parcels of land, he will deprive them of the opportunity to see the one small feature that is worth visiting in an area of many square miles. Will he respond to that point?

I will happily respond to it. I am not aware of that waterfall, but I shall make a point of visiting it. I am advised by my hon. Friends who know the area that a footpath runs right to the waterfall, so there is already access to it. The hon. Gentleman's example is not relevant to the Bill and to the access provisions, because access is already provided. Even if there were not a footpath to the waterfall, I remind him that it is open to any landowner to provide voluntary access, in the way that many do. As the hon. Gentleman said, a public-spirited landowner repaired the waterfall in the 19th century. I hope that his descendants—if they still own the land—are equally public spirited and would wish the public to enjoy the full beauty of that waterfall.

The hon. Gentleman's point is not relevant to my point, which is that, if the Bill is to have largely beneficial effects, it needs to be as practicable as possible. My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) will speak to amendment No. 306, which deals with a specific issue but which is also concerned with the overarching point that the Bill should be as practicable and tidy as possible. In that spirit, I commend the amendments to the House.

I shall speak to amendment No. 306. I fear that, inadvertently, the Bill will extinguish the rights of the villagers of Great Wishford in my constituency and remove their ancient privileges.

Prior to the Commons Registration Act 1965, there was considerable doubt over what land was subject to rights of common, and what rights of common existed over common land. In order to ascertain exactly what common land existed and to provide for the management and improvement of common land, the Commons Registration Act 1965 introduced a scheme for registering common rights that were claimed to be in existence. I know that the Minister for the Environment referred to that in Committee.

Under the 1965 Act, among other things, common land and rights over common land were registrable. After July 1970, no land could be deemed common land unless it was registered under the Act, and no rights of common were exercisable over any land unless they were registered under that Act or had been previously registered under the Land Registration Acts 1925 and 1936.

Examples of rights of common are the right of piscary—the right to catch and take away fish; auceptary—fowling; turbary—the right to take peat or turf for use as fuel; and estovers—the right to take wood from the land of another for a specific purpose.

On 29 May each year—this year was no exception—the villagers of Great Wishford celebrate Oak Apple day. It was during the Whit recess this year, so fortunately I was able to enjoy it. I did not get up at dawn to exercise the right with the villagers to go into the forest to gather wood. In a very ancient ceremony probably going back to the 14th century, the boughs of oak that have been gathered are taken into Salisbury cathedral, a dance is performed in front of the altar, and the villagers shout, "Grovely, Grovely, Grovely and all Grovely", and go back for a jolly good feast.

That is history and reality and, for the souls of Great Wishford, a treasured part of their heritage. The Wilton estate, and the Earl of Pembroke in particular, fully support and welcome the continuation of those rights. That is not in question. No one is suggesting that those rights should not exist—on the contrary, we want to preserve those rights and privileges for the villagers of Great Wishford. Everyone recognises them as an essential part of the character of the life of Great Wishford.

There has been great uncertainty, however, on the part of that estate and the Oak Apple club, which was formed almost two centuries ago to ensure the perpetuation of those ancient rights, about what the rights comprise. That was fully investigated a couple of years ago, and everyone in the parish received a letter jointly from the parish council, the Oak Apple club and the estate to clarify the position.

The rights have existed since time out of mind, and they were recorded in a charter of the forest court of Grovely in 1603. All but one of those rights were abolished under an Enclosure Act of 1809 in return for a grant of allotment land outside the wood. The only right not abolished was the right of estovers—the right to collect dead wood. That is now registered as a legal right under the Commons Registration Act 1965. The other ancient custom that has been resurrected is the collecting of green oak or hazel boughs on 29 May each year, and that continues.

The right of estovers is defined under the Commons Registration Act 1965 as

the gathering and bringing away of dead snapping wood boughs and sticks

over the whole of Grovely wood. The right can be exercised by all the inhabitants of the parish of Great Wishford, subject to these conditions: the collecting of dead wood must take place on foot. If required, a handcart may be used, but there is no right to take a vehicle beyond the main entrances to the wood. The right does not include any right to roam freely over the wood for purposes of recreation, referring only to the collecting of dead wood. The exercise of one's right to collect dead wood does not mean that one has a right to exercise a dog. The exercise of the right must not interfere with the owner's lawful use of the land.

That is all agreed. As far as I am aware, no one in the village disputes it. The management of Grovely wood is undertaken half by the Wilton estate and half by the Forestry Commission. They are involved in the responsible and far-sighted management of that land. The policy of the estate is to welcome and support public access, as far as is reasonable, within the constraints of other management considerations. In addition to the right of estovers, there is a network of bridle paths. Indeed, there are permissive bridlepaths in addition to the public rights-of-way network, an increase in the amount of way-marking and the placing of maps at the main entrances to the wood to show the extent of public access. That is all clear. However, it seems that the Bill, which has many good points, will give any member of the public the right to enter and remain on any common land for the purposes of open-air recreation, subject to his observing various restrictions. Access will also be allowed with a dog, subject to certain restrictions.

The effect of the Bill would be to allow the general public unlimited access to about 2,000 acres of woodland which previously was subject to only very limited rights of access for a very limited group of people—the villagers of Great Wishford.

The landowner may be able to restrict access for up to a maximum of 28 days in any year, but I am sure that the Minister will understand the implications of the matter. Grovely wood has never been common land in the loose sense of the term. A particular common land right—the right of estovers—was formalised in 1970, but it was never the intention of anybody, landowners or villagers, that the whole of this important woodland should become common land in the way that that is implied under the Bill. I am sure that there are many similar cases throughout the country—

Is my hon. Friend aware that on 28 March, in Committee, I asked the Minister for the Environment whether under the Commons Registration Act 1965

certain commons are registered that give rights in common to certain restricted groups of people? It seems that the Bill will give a general right of access to such common lands. If so, it will widen the definition—

in the Act—

of common land.

The Minister for the Environment said:

My immediate reaction, without receiving advice, is that the Bill is intended to have that effect. If I am wrong, I shall ensure that the Committee is informed of the fact.—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 28 March 2000; c. 25–26.].

As far as I know, we have not been given an answer. The amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) is completely pertinent to what I said in Committee.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I was aware that he had assiduously taken part in the proceedings in Committee. I have referred to a speech that the Minister made in Committee. My hon. Friend has done us all a favour by pointing out that the Minister has not replied. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman has now taken advice. I wrote to him on 15 May, and I look forward to receiving a reply.

So do we all.

So do we all, as my hon. Friend says. I know that he knows Grovely wood very well, and understands the importance to the people of Great Wishford of what I am saying.

My desire is to set out clearly the definition of common land in the Bill to make it clear that common land means registered common land to which the public have a general right of access, and that the Bill does not seek to extinguish rights of common and common land registered under the Commons Registration Act 1965, or land that had previously been registered under the Land Registrations Acts of 1925 and 1936.

It is a simple matter of trying to preserve ancient rights and privileges for the people of the parish of Great Wishford. I hope that the Minister will respond positively. If he has not had tune to receive advice, I understand that. However, I hope that he will take the matter on board, possibly even in another place. It is an issue that must be addressed. The people of Great Wishford will not take it kindly if a Government who purport to be extending people's rights to access to the countryside effectively extinguish their own ancient rights.

It is a delight to be back with the Bill. I was feeling withdrawal symptoms after a few weeks of not having my weekly fill of discussing access issues and rights of way.

The amendments are all pertinent in their way. However, I fear that I cannot personally support them and that I shall advise my right hon. and hon. Friends not to support them. That is a shame, because we worked closely together in Committee, and we found common positions with the Conservative Opposition on many issues. I feel that the amendments are misdirected, and I shall try to explain why.

Amendment No. 101 addresses the important issue of a de minimis provision, which we discussed in Committee. As I said then, I have some sympathy for the position taken by the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green)—which is that there should be some kind of de minimis provision. Where I fall out with him is over the fact that he is trying to make that a fixed figure. Ten hectares or 25 acres may seem an appropriate arbitrary figure, but in particular circumstances, it may seem entirely inappropriate to a point on the map. What is proposed is an unqualified de minimis figure, which means simply that land that falls within this category is excluded from access land.

Will the hon. Gentleman give us one example of a piece of land which currently has no rights of way and, therefore, to which the public have no access, but to which, under the Bill, he believes the public should have access, and which is less than 10 hectares?

No, because I do not have an example in mind, just as the hon. Gentleman may not have in mind an example of land which would fall under the requirements of access land and meet all the other definitions in the Bill, and which would otherwise be included in the mapping process, but which falls within that limited area.

The hon. Member for Ashford is tilting at the wrong windmill. He was on to a much better point in Committee when he talked about inaccessible land. There is a strong argument for not including inaccessible portions of land in the mapping of open country. To whose advantage would it be for land which cannot be reached by any means—which by definition will be a small portion of land because otherwise it would be accessible—to be included in the map, which, presumably, people will use as a means of identifying land over which they can walk?

Had the amendment been couched in terms of inaccessibility, its movers would have had a strong point; however, imposing an arbitrary figure of 10 hectares gives rise to the question whether there is open access land as defined in the Bill that is surrounded by common land or by a promontory which is important in recreational or leisure terms and which should be included but which might be excluded simply because of the inflexibility of the suggested formula.

I find myself in uncharacteristic agreement with the hon. Gentleman. Is his point about accessibility not strengthened by the fact that, in this context, we are discussing access by foot, and not, for example, by air? Hang-gliding and paragliding are quite properly subject to restrictions in the Bill. Does that not serve to underline the force of the hon. Gentleman's point?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support. He is right. I cannot claim originality for the concept because the proposal came from Conservative Members in Committee. However it was a sensible one which I support.

Throughout our proceedings, we have sought to make the Bill practicable—to make it work for those who wish to take advantage of access and for those who are landowners or who try to work the land and have an interest in the land, who also need clarity of definition for all sorts of reason. My main criticism of the Bill is that some areas still lack clarity.

I am not convinced that the 10 hectare proposal is a particularly useful yardstick or metrestick. Provision already exists for countryside bodies not to include land which it is of no value for them to map for the purpose of access, so the de minimis provision is essentially there but not in a defined form. The question is whether the definition adds to or subtracts from the Bill. My view is that it does not add anything and may subtract something.

Amendment No. 102 was a vexed question in Committee. All, apart from the Minister, agreed that "wholly or predominantly" was not a particularly helpful definition because it left a lot about which to argue. We suggested alternative forms of words. I proposed "almost entirely" and was told that that was equally vague. I accept that it is imprecise. "Overwhelming" was suggested as an alternative to "predominantly". Again, it is imprecise.

4.15 pm

My objection to amendment No. 102 is that I interpret "predominantly" as more than 60 per cent. The hon. Member for Ashford said that that was the NFU's criticism; it is also mine. I do not expect land that is only 60 per cent. heathland, moorland or mountain to be mapped as open access land per se. The amendment proposes an unhelpful definition, which I hope the hon. Gentleman will not pursue.

The hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) gave a complex discourse on the position in Great Wishford, and the difficulties of estovers and turbary. He made a good point about partial rights of access to common land. However, the provision to which he wants to add amendment No. 306 is not the appropriate one. I may be mistaken, but I believe he is trying to add it to a provision that excepts land from open access. The qualification would therefore make matters worse from the hon. Gentleman's point of view. The Minister will deal with that, and I shall listen carefully to the argument. The hon. Member for Salisbury made a good point, which may have to be pursued in another place. However, I suspect that amendment No. 306 is not helpful from his point of view.

I support amendments Nos. 101 and 102. I would support amendment No. 306 if I knew more about Great Wishford. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) spoke eloquently enough on that. Despite the fact that I, too, am a Wiltshire man, the amendment needs no support from me. I am confident that the Government will accept the power and logic of my hon. Friend's arguments.

Amendments Nos. 101 and 102 are vital if the Bill is to work. Many people in the countryside and Conservative Members oppose the principle of the right to roam. We do not like it because we believe that it infringes on the rights of ownership and other matters. However, it is not appropriate to consider that now. If we grant that the principle has been lost, that the Bill will be passed and rights of access will exist, it is vital that the detail be crystal clear, precise and completely understood. The measure will work only if walkers understand their responsibilities and owners understand their privileges of ownership. The Bill must strike a delicate balance between the rights of owners and the rights and obligations of walkers. Imprecision in the Bill's language will lead to confrontation and to the measure falling into disrepute. It will also mean that parts of the Bill will be disputed in court. We do not want that.

In Committee, I said that I was proud of the fact that the Ramblers Association in Wiltshire is working well with the county council and others to establish an embryonic access forum. I hope that it will become a worthwhile and useful organisation once the Bill is enacted. I am worried that, if the detail is not made clear and precision of language is not achieved, such useful co-operation between walkers and landowners will fail and there will be the sort of confrontation and argument that has taken place between walkers and landowners in other parts of England.

On amendment No. 101, it is important to be clear about what we mean by access land. When pressed, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) could not produce an example of a piece of land of less than 10 hectares, which would otherwise be suitable for access under the Bill, but would be prohibited by its size, and land that did not have some other form of access, such as a right of way, path or road. I challenge anyone to name a piece of land measuring less than 10 hectares that would not be covered by the Bill.

rose—

The hon. Gentleman, who is a well known rambler, apparently has such an example.

There may well be crags measuring less than 10 hectares to which mountaineers want access. Surely that is not inconceivable.

But the mountain itself, being more than 600 m high, would be fully accessible under the Bill. Crags measuring less than 10 hectares would therefore also be accessible. The hon. Gentleman has not given me an example of a piece of land that would not be accessible—that is, land that is not a mountain measuring more than 600 m, and is not surrounded by access land.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Of course I must give way to the president of the Ramblers Association.

I am certain that Windgather Rocks in the Peak district is within the definition in terms of scale.

I hope that, as Chairman of the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Environment Sub-Committee, the hon. Gentleman will want to take us to the Peak district to inspect the piece of land that he cites. I fear that I do not know it, but I am confident that it will turn out to be surrounded by access land, and therefore to be eligible for access. I shall, however, examine the position in detail later.

More important is the fact that, throughout the nation, there are large areas of otherwise cultivated land, in the centre of which there may be pieces of land that— possibly temporarily, possibly for a number of years—constitute heathland. Under the Bill, that land would become a small pocket of access land, although it would be foolish to allow that to happen, for a number of reasons.

Let us consider the issue from the point of view of those who want the Bill to succeed. If every pocket handkerchief—the odd hectare here and there—were included in the mapping exercise, the exercise would become bogged down in bureaucracy. It would not be possible to produce an accurate map covering the whole nation and including every minute piece of land. The value of the exercise to walkers would be greatly reduced: what is the point of a map peppered by a variety of otherwise useless bits of land, on which the average walker would not want to walk in any case?

Moreover, the burden on farmers who would have to prepare such land for reasonable access under the terms of the Bill would he disproportionate. They would have to spend a great deal of time and effort, and incur considerable costs, getting the land ready for walkers and safeguarding themselves against the various penalties that the Bill imposes—and probably no one would walk on the land, because it would not be appropriate for walking on.

A minimum of 10 hectares is essential. We should be able to tell farmers, "If it measures less than 10 hectares, do not worry about it: it will not be affected by the Bill." In fact, I would have preferred a larger figure. I think that 10 hectares is extremely modest, and the National Farmers Union agrees that that is a very small area suddenly to become access land. However, I dare say that the NFU, the Country Landowners Association and others would, like me, be prepared to compromise and agree on a minimum of 10 hectares, simply in order to prevent the conflict between landowners and walkers, which hon. Members on both sides of the House are so keen to avoid.

Amendment No. 102 proposes the deletion of the words "wholly or predominantly" and their replacement with a figure. Like the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, I think that 60 per cent. is probably too low a figure. In my view, "wholly or predominantly" means 80 or 90 per cent.; indeed, "wholly" means 100 per cent. To tempt the Government to accept the precision of the definition, however, it seems reasonable to propose a figure of 60 per cent, in relation to moorland, heathland or mountain. I do not understand why the Government do not want to accept that. Surely, if we introduce precision we shall be more likely to avoid conflict between the two interested parties.

The Government may say that the question of a de minimis figure is covered by clause 4(5)(a), which says that the mapping bodies may ignore certain parcels of land if they are too small. That applies, however, only if the mapping bodies are in agreement with the landowner. However, it is possible that, in a spirit of determination to give as much land possible to walkers, the mapping or access body could drive ahead with opening otherwise absurdly small pieces of land to walkers, which would achieve nothing for them or the farmers.

In these amendments and in others that my hon. Friends will move later this evening, it is absolutely crucial that, on this terribly important principle, we should state clearly and precisely what the Bill means for the public and for landowners. I am already concerned that my constituents believe that the right to roam means that they can walk anywhere. People are saying, "We have a right to roam; we can walk on your fields, gardens or wherever we like." That is the word that has gone out from this place to the public. It is important that, on Report and during the Bill's other stages, we send out messages to the public that there will be access to particular areas.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I was about to finish, but of course I shall give way.

Can the hon. Gentleman produce any documentary evidence which he could place on the record to substantiate his claim that there is a general view that people in their thousands are saying that they will be entitled to walk anywhere once the Bill is passed?

I am not sure that there is any documentary evidence about people's perceptions, but there is certainly plenty of anecdotal evidence. Many people in my constituency have asked me, "Why are you worried about rights of way? Surely, they will be finished because we will have the right to roam and can walk wherever we like." By definition, any such documentary evidence is extremely unlikely to exist because of the nature of the proposal and the fact that we are still considering the Bill, but there is certainly fairly convincing anecdotal evidence. We shall see—perhaps in a few years, the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper) might be able to say that there has been no problem. I am concerned that there may be a problem, which is why it is important that the Bill is drafted precisely.

I am in favour of precision in the Bill's wording so that people outside the House know precisely what the right of access is. I fear that I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman if he is arguing that the Bill should be woolly and imprecise because he believes that there will be no problem. It is vital that we get it right so that people know precisely what the right of access is. That will reduce time in the courts, but, more importantly, it will ensure that the important relationship between farmers and walkers is preserved, as I believe it should be, in a warm and friendly way.

I hope that the Government do not concede those amendments. The hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) pleads for precision, but that will come from the mapping. The general public will be able to look at precise maps. I would argue that, certainly in the north and south downs, many small pockets of land would not be included under amendment No. 101. Certainly, on the gritstone edges along the Pennines—areas where people like to rock climb—many fields come up almost to the bottom of the cliffs that are climbed. The moor often slopes away above the climbing area, but in several cases, it has been replaced either by forestry or, in one or two cases, by cultivated fields. I suspect that quite a few areas that are important for access would be lost under the amendment.

On amendment No. 102, such a percentage would not produce precision because the landowner would agree that a bigger area should be considered and say that the percentage is less than 60 per cent. in that bigger area. There would be a huge argument about the area over which the 60 per cent, should be measured. The amendment is nonsense, and I hope that the Government will stick to their guns.

The Government will stick to their guns. Under amendment No. 101, open country of less than 10 hectares would be excluded from the right of access. As we said in Committee when a similar amendment on common land was debated, we believe that 10 hectares, which is about 25 acres and the equivalent of about 15 football pitches, is substantial and, therefore, could be valuable for the purposes of access.

4.30 pm

To take up the point raised by the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray), although he may have been referring to another clause, clause 4(5)(a) already provides for the countryside bodies—not only the mapping bodies in agreement with the landowners—to exercise their discretion and to apply a minimum size threshold in deciding whether to map an area of open country. We believe that the decision to determine a threshold is best left with them. I do not disagree in principle with the concept of a de minimis threshold, but it is not wise to pick an arbitrary figure, whatever it may be. The decision is best left to local discretion.

The provision will allow the countryside bodies flexibility in making their decisions. They will be able to consider whether a threshold is appropriate in a particular case and, if necessary, to apply different thresholds in different cases. I do not want to tie the hands of the countryside bodies so as to bind them either to exclude or to include all land of a particular size.

On amendment No. 102, we debated the definition of "predominantly" at length in Committee and I can assure hon. Members that the Government's view has not changed. The amendment would substitute a threshold of 60 per cent, for "wholly or predominantly" in determining whether, in clause 1, the countryside bodies should map land as open country. We chose not to define or replace "predominantly" by reference to any percentage or figure because that would be too prescriptive. The usual definition will therefore apply—that is, "mostly" or "prevailing". I pray in aid the hon. Member for South—East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), who was good enough to say in Committee:

I happily accept that a percentage figure would be too specific.—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 4 April 2000: c. 119.]

I agree.

On amendment No. 306, I originally thought that the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) may have misunderstood the intentions of the Bill. Part I will give people a new right of access to open country and registered common land, subject to sensible restrictions and limitations. It does not affect common land to which there is an existing right of access; access to such land is preserved by clause 15. The amendment would create no new rights of access to common land. However, having listened to his speech, I understand that this is the Great Wishford question.

indicated assent.

The hon. Gentleman's concern is whether common land to which a small local population have privileged access should be opened to all. If the land over which the rights are exercised is registered under the Commons Registration Act 1965, as he said, the statutory right of access under the Bill will extend to the land. If the rights are registered, they are protected under the 1965 Act and there is no question of the Bill interfering with them.

The hon. Gentleman nodded a moment ago, but I was not sure whether he was indicating that the land is explicitly registered common land. If it is woodland, which is not part of the increased right of access under the Bill unless it is voluntarily dedicated by the landowner, I imagine that the Bill would not give general access to it. However, it may be better to examine the precise details of Great Wishford—although I was not specifically briefed on it before the debate, I would like to get it right—and I undertake to reply to the hon. Gentleman. He said that he wrote to me on 15 May; he should certainly have had a reply by now. I apologise and will see that he gets one in the next week.

I have a good deal of sympathy with what the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) said about the alternative of inaccessible islands. I accept that there may be some areas to which there is currently no legal right of access. However, I would not wish to exclude such areas automatically, as authorities have powers to provide access to them. The public should be made aware that such areas are currently out of bounds so that they can seek access when appropriate by applying pressure on the access authorities to act.

The right hon. Gentleman's last sentence was helpful. However, the moment that the local authority succeeded in getting access, the land would no longer be inaccessible and would be back on the map. The dilemma, therefore, is not wholly impossible.

If I have understood the hon. Gentleman correctly, I believe that he has answered his own question.

The Bill will give people a statutory right of access to all common land registered under the Commons Registration Act 1965, subject to provision for excepted land in schedule 1. We gave the public that commitment in our manifesto and we are determined to deliver on it. The amendments do not assist in defining the extent of access under the Bill. I accept the general principle of precision and accuracy, but there are better ways of achieving the Opposition's aims, as I have made clear. I therefore call on the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) to withdraw his amendment.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) for his amendment and for his insight into his constituents' traditional leisure activities, with which they should certainly be allowed to carry on. I hope that my hon. Friend achieves his aim of ensuring that there is no damage to the traditions of the villagers of Great Wishford, once he and the Minister have resolved what may, or may not, be their differences.

Like the Minister, I was not clear about what the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) was saying in his last intervention. The hon. Gentleman appeared to be saying that he wished inaccessible land not to be included unless it was accessible. However, he now has a chance to clear that up.

I obviously need to provide clarification. The Minister appeared to be saying that inaccessible land should be included on the map because it may become accessible at some later stage. I was saying that, once such land became accessible, it would no longer be defined as inaccessible and would appear on the map, so the Minister did not have a problem.

I hope that the House thinks that that has cleared the matter up. The hon. Gentleman appears to be saying that, if land is accessible, or even potentially or putatively accessible, it is not inaccessible. He and the Minister described my formulation as imperfect but, to be perfectly honest, it is better than that.

Several points have been made about the 60 per cent. definition that would replace "wholly or predominantly" being too low. As I have said, there are arguments to be made on that. I take the point made my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) and others: perhaps I am being too moderate. I can accept my hon. Friends regarding me as too moderate, but being so regarded by the Liberal Democrats is a savage blow from which I shall seek to recover. The point still obtains that there will be confusion and a sense of unfairness if widely different definitions are used in different parts of the country. When the Bill is debated in another place, the Minister should try to give better, clearer guidance on the issue.

On amendment No. 101, the Minister said that he preferred a discretionary de minimis threshold. Again, either he or the countryside bodies should, at the very least, give some kind of guidance, not least because, if individual cases are to be decided locally, there will be serious resource implications. One of the overall problems is that the Bill imposes many extra duties not only on farmers and other landowners but on local authorities, without compensating them with increased resources. Every time the Minister says, "I shall leave that to be decided locally", he adds an extra cost for which he is not providing compensation, so other essential services will be damaged.

My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. Does he agree that local authorities have plenty of money with which to deal with these matters and to hire, at the snap of a finger, as many people as are needed, whereas farmers and landowners do not have the necessary resources? Local authorities will tell their finance committees that they need the money and will easily be able to do the work, but a further, intolerable strain will be imposed on already hard-pressed farmers and landowners.

My hon. Friend is right to point out that there will be variations in the ability to pay for the extra work that the Bill imposes on bodies in both the public and private sectors.

The amendment seeks to reduce the amount of extra work, but I hear what the Minister says, and I am sure that the other place will give the Bill full consideration. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

I beg to move amendment No. 195, in page 40, leave out line 6 and insert—

'1. Land on which the soil is being, or has at any time within the previous twelve months been, disturbed by any ploughing or drilling undertaken for the purposes of planting or sowing crops or trees.'.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendment No. 196.

Amendment No. 1, in page 40, leave out lines 19 and 20.

Government amendments Nos. 197 to 199, 207 and 187.

Amendments Nos. 195 and 198 give effect to my undertaking in Committee to introduce a clearer definition of the exception from the right of access to cultivated land set out in paragraph 1 of schedule 1.

The amendments provide that land will be excepted if the soil has been disturbed within the previous 12 months by ploughing, drilling or similar agricultural or forestry activities for the purposes of planting or sowing crops or trees. They will ensure reasonable certainty for farmers and walkers about whether land is excepted from the right of access, dependent on whether land has been recently cultivated for the purpose of growing annual crops.

I well remember our discussion on this matter in Committee. The right hon. Gentleman may recall that, at the time, I asked him about the reseeding of heather moorland. Enlightened landowners, of which there are many more than he would believe, do their best to try to get rid of rank heather by burning, and if they cannot do so, they try to reseed it, but it takes a long time to set. Will such land also be excluded?

I undertook to examine that issue further, and I am still doing so. I promise that Ministers will respond to that by the time that the Bill reaches the upper House. During the Committee proceedings, which ended only a couple of weeks ago, I offered, perhaps unwisely, to examine many issues. I have worked through a great many of them, but I am taking further soundings on others.

I make it clear that the amendment should be seen as a long stop; it is not intended to provide a mechanism for excluding access to any land that has been improved or semi-improved, which, as I have indicated, is a function of the mapping process. The amendment simply recognises that in certain circumstances the use of open country or registered common land will be incompatible with continued access.

4.45 pm

We recognise that the amendment will not provide for every conceivable circumstance. There may be occasional cases where the agricultural use of the land is incompatible with freedom of access, but where the land does not fall into any of the exceptions in schedule 1. That would apply to multi-annual crops such as rhubarb or vines. We are considering whether a further amendment is necessary in another place for such cases. However, where necessary, it will always remain open to the landowner to apply to the countryside bodies or national park authorities for a direction to exclude or to restrict access under clause 22. That will ensure that, even where land is not excepted, farmers' interests are safeguarded.

Government amendment No. 197 amends the definition of "building" as used in paragraph 2 of schedule 1, so that the right of access would not extend to land covered by any structure or erection, including tents or caravans. That is a sensible amendment, which will meet a number of the objections raised by hon. Members in Committee.

Government amendment No. 199 responds to the concern expressed in Committee that land would not be excepted from the right of access if it had been developed without planning permission, but the time limits for enforcement action had passed. The amendment rectifies that anomaly.

Another issue was raised in Committee. I was asked to consider further the merits of excepting land used for animal pens from the new right of access. We have therefore tabled amendment No. 196 to introduce an exception for land covered by pens while they are used for the temporary confinement of livestock. Again, I am grateful for the discussion in Committee. That is a sensible amendment.

Amendments Nos. 207 and 187 are consequential to amendment No. 196 and simply move the definition of "livestock" to a new home in the general glossary at clause 41. As a result, the definition will apply to both schedule 1 and schedule 2. I hope that the amendments will be seen as reasonable and will be welcomed. I am aware that the exact definition of "livestock" for the purposes of restrictions on dogs has been the subject of continuing debate. Again, it is one that we will doubtless revisit as the Bill progresses through Parliament.

If I may, I shall leave any response to amendment No. 1 to a later stage.

I welcome the Minister's response on a number of issues—particularly that on livestock pens and buildings—which, as he rightly said, were raised in Committee by me, my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) and hon. Members from other parties. I note what he says about the definition of "livestock", which I am sure will be revisited. I am glad that he is still considering it. As for dealing with developments that pre-dated planning legislation, I welcome the amendment that he has tabled. He seemed to resist the idea far too strongly in Committee, but I am glad that he has had second thoughts.

My real concern is with the lead amendment, No. 195, which links with amendment No. 198. It refers to the definition of cultivated land. The Minister has referred to not including semi-improved or improved grassland. Understandably, he said the same thing in Committee, but he agreed on a number of occasions to consider or to receive advice on various issues, not least—it is the crucial one—that, in many areas adjoining open country, there will be grassland. Although I welcome the Minister's point about rhubarb and vines, both of which are important niche crops, I suspect that neither of them is very often to be found adjacent to open country, whereas grass usually does occur adjacent to open country.

The problem is whether grass should be defined as a crop. Most farmers would argue—as does the National Farmers Union, which has circulated information to, I suspect, all hon. Members—that grass is a crop. We debated the issue extensively in Committee. For a farmer who is growing grass for grazing or—more important in this context—for hay or silage, a crop of grass is no different from a crop of wheat, barley or anything else.

Does my hon. Friend, who is extremely knowledgeable about these matters, agree that for a hill farmer or a farmer with a holding on inby land, grass is as critical as any crop that he will grow? Indeed, is not grass probably the only crop that such a farmer would grow?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right and makes my point for me.

Moreover, the point holds true in countless parts of the United Kingdom, including in Wales. We do not have the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) with us today, but, in Committee, he made some extremely important points on the matter. The only crop grown by most farmers in Snowdonia, for example, is grass—which is the means by which they feed their livestock, not only in the summer but through the winter. A grass crop being grown for silage will be harrowed, rolled and fertilised, and, occasionally, even weed killer may be applied to it. The crucial point, however, is that it will not necessarily be ploughed or drilled within a 12-month period.

Grass is just as much a crop as wheat or barley, and people walking across a grass field would damage that crop's potential yield just as much as they would damage the potential yield of a wheat or barley crop by walking across it. The Minister does not seem to have taken that point on board, despite his undertaking to consider all the comments made in Committee.

In many parts of the country, even non-permanent grassland is part of a rotation. However, grassland is rarely part of an annual rotation. As you will know from your own experience, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the most common practice is for grassland to be left for two or three years, to give the grass time to improve the land's nutrient value, thereby providing nutrients for subsequent arable crops.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the views he has just expressed are particularly relevant to organic farming, in which the need to fix nutrients in the soil is particularly important? Additionally, in Wales, there is ever more organic sheep farming.

The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy has sent an admirable substitute. The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) is entirely right to say that, in organic farming, grassland rotation is critical as an alternative to artificial fertilisers in providing nutrients for crops. As I know from my original agricultural training, grass crops grown for only one year will have a minimal effect on the soil's nutrient value.

The key point is that grass crops have to be in for two or three years to have any beneficial effect. Grass is sometimes included in a rotation with conventional crops such as wheat, barley, potatoes and other arable crops, but it is left in for two or three years. Although I welcome the Minister's attempt to define "cultivated land", I am worried that the definition in the amendment would exclude that type of country.

In Committee, the Minister said:

It is also unlikely that land that has been recently cultivated would be mapped as open country.—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 6 April 2000; c. 172.]

If that is so, there is no need at all for the amendment. Either one has to define cultivation or one has to except land that has been cultivated recently. The Minister proposes a definition of what could best be described as soil disturbance within the previous 12 months, but I do not believe that it is enough. He may well say that the Opposition did not table an alternative amendment. Although that is perfectly true, we knew that the Minister had taken heed of the many points raised by me and other hon. Members on the subject and we had hoped that he would have produced a more substantial amendment.

Amendment No. 195 does not meet our desires or those of the National Farmers Union, which, although it welcomes the Government's recognition that "cultivated" requires further definition, is disappointed by the definition that the Government have used. It makes the following point:

We also feel the tine period of 12 months is too narrow as land on rotational leys can often lay fallow without being ploughed or drilled for three years or more.

That substantiates my argument.

My final point relates to other agricultural schemes such as set-aside and countryside stewardship schemes. Under the set-aside scheme, as it now operates, farmers can leave the same piece of land set-aside for more than a year. It used to be rotational; now it can be the same piece of land. It is self-explanatory that land that is set aside for more than one year will not have the surface of the soil disturbed within a 12-month period. Again, there is a problem that I hope the Minister will reconsider.

Will the hon. Gentleman explain what the problem is in allowing people access to set-aside land?

There are plenty of problems in allowing people access to set-aside land. First, access to it may involve crossing other cultivated land. Secondly, the inclusion of all set-aside land would double or treble the 4 million acres that would be affected by the Bill. That would be a huge alteration in the general perception of the impact of the Bill. Thirdly, the various environmental bodies now recognise that land that is set aside for more than a year is having a beneficial effect, particularly on traditional farmland birds—ground-nesting birds such as skylarks and lapwings. Allowing access to set-aside land would have a damaging impact on that.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me on another point that we discussed in Committee—namely, that there is at least a potential conflict with the European Union rules that apply to set-aside, in that the land has to be cultivatable but not cultivated? It is at least arguable that if land that was not cultivated was designated as access land, it would no longer be cultivatable.

That is certainly a strong possibility.

Although I welcome the fact that the Government have sought to define cultivated land, I believe that their definition is far too narrow. I do not seek to divide the House on the matter because I welcome the fact that the Government have taken a step in the right direction, but I hope that the Minister will take heed that there are still widespread concerns about the proposed definition, which I am sure will be examined carefully in another place, where I have no doubt that there will be attempts to amend the Bill.

In the meantime, I hope that the Minister will agree to look at the matter again. I hope that he understands the importance of grass as a crop for thousands of farmers who farm adjacent to open land. On that basis, I hope that he will at least agree that he might not have got it entirely right first time.

I shall speak briefly to amendment No. 1, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). It concerns military land.

Even under the Bill, vast expanses of land used by the military from time to time will remain out of bounds. My friends among the ramblers have given me a little list of the areas involved: Castlemartin in Pembrokeshire, the vast expanse of land at Otterburn in Northumberland, Catterick in north Yorkshire, Longmoor on the Surrey-Hampshire border, Salisbury plain, and Watton Brook in Norfolk.

The Bill automatically excludes from the definition of access land all land that is subject to military byelaws. Such byelaws cover all the areas that I listed, but I do not understand the reason for the exclusion. It is perfectly possible for military use and public access to coincide, as happens with Dartmoor, where separate legislative provisions apply. That example shows that there is no reason why the coexistence that I envisage cannot occur.

A powerful ally of the amendment is the Countryside Agency, whose briefing all hon. Members will have received. It states that lines 19 and 20 of schedule 1, covering the point about military land that I have just made, are too restrictive and are unnecessary, given the provisions of clause 26. That clause gives the Secretary of State powers to restrict access to access land if that land is needed for defence or national security purposes. Lines 19 and 20 of schedule 1 are therefore not necessary, and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will be able to give a little on that point.

I shall be brief. I pay tribute to the Minister, who promised to give serious consideration to points raised by hon. Members in Committee, and has done so. Some definitions have been improved. The right hon. Gentleman undertook to consider the definitions of cultivated land, pens and unauthorised development, for example, and the amendments that he has tabled prove that he has considered them.

However, I fear that I am no more content with the definition of cultivated land than is the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice). I agree that huge difficulties remain with improved grassland and with different rotations that do not fall within the specified annual scheme. In Committee, we discussed under which definition, if any, certain kinds of land fell. Such land included coed cae and ffridd land in Wales, and inby land in northern England. The matter will have to be revisited in another place.

I also hope that more consideration will be given to the definition of livestock. Moving the definition has not improved it one bit—it remains incomplete, with obvious omissions. In Committee, we fastened on the absence of deer from the definition, but we also discussed ostriches, llamas and alpacas. I still prefer the definition that appears in the Agriculture Act 1947, as it can be extended to any domesticated animal. However, even that is deficient, as it does not include horses used purely for recreational purposes.

The hon. Members for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) and for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) are right about military land. I do not see why the Bill should have to define that term several times and make it ever more inclusive of land that probably should be given to access.

The Bill contains provisions for public safety and national security purposes. The Minister assured me that he would look again at the possibility of a regular review being presented to Parliament of the extent of military exclusions from the right of access. I do not know whether he has had any further thoughts, but this seems unnecessary. I hope that if the right hon. Gentleman cannot consider that issue today, he will do so before the Bill goes to another place.

I shall speak to amendment No. 195, which has already received a lot of attention this afternoon. Before I do so, however, let me say that I am in two minds about amendment No. 1. Most upland land in Wales would be ruled out as it is used for low flying, so a military exception might find favour with some farmers in my constituency.

On amendment No. 195, I have not had the experience in Committee that many right hon. and hon. Members have had, including my hon. Friend the Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd). However, I welcome the fact that the Government have given a definition of cultivated land. What is not so welcome is the fact that the definition does not include some vital fanning practices in Wales, particularly those of sheep farmers. The Committee had a very esoteric debate on the ffridd and coed cae, the Welsh terms for particular types of land that border open access land. I am pleased that no amendment has been brought forward in that respect, as I must admit that I would hate to try to define what ffridd and coed cae might be.

Improved grassland borders on many of what will become access lands. We must address the question of access over that grassland and consider the farmers' interests. The amendment does not recognise that grassland is crop land. The Minister mentioned annual crops when he opened this short debate. I believe that the amendment is too heavily couched in terms of the needs of arable farmers and does not pay enough attention to the needs of sheep farmers. As for the declining but still vital dairy industry in Ceredigion, for example, the silage needs of the dairy farmer are taken from the cut on such fields. When the land is open to access, there may be an effect on hay and silage crops from large-scale access. The question must be looked at again—in another place, if necessary—and we must try to protect those interests.

The farming industry in Wales is in a deep depression. The income of sheep farmers is falling to as little as £4,500 a year. If we are to open access to cultivated land, the definition of "cultivation" must provide some real protection. I do not think that the amendment goes far enough. The Minister said that there would be a way to appeal through the mapping process, to apply for a direction and opt out, but that is not the answer for the several hundred sheep farmers in my constituency alone who may be affected. I do not think that the Countryside Council for Wales wants to deal with hundreds of appeals on what may be called, for the purposes of this debate, the semi-cultivated or semi-improved land. The definition needs to be far clearer.

Grassland is cultivated land in Wales. Grass that is grown on that land, cut two or three times a year, is a vital income stream for the farmer. It enables him to feed his cattle and sheep, and it enables us to get the good Welsh lamb from the first flush of spring growth. We must ensure that there is protection in the definition.

I wish to speak against amendment No. 1, in which I have an obvious constituency interest. It would be very damaging, and I suspect that when the Minister replies to the debate, he may well agree with me. It is none the less important to put my objections to the amendment on the record.

It would be wildly impractical to allow access to, for example, the Salisbury plain training area, which is near my constituency. It is not a question of its being land that might be included were it not for national security reasons, which is a broad, general and grand definition. It needs to be exempted because all sorts of military units can use it from time to time, unpredictably and at short notice. It would be wildly impractical to make it access land. Large areas of it are very dangerous—particularly the impact area, where unexploded bombs lie off the track.

Most important, there is an access regime on Ministry of Defence land that is a great deal more generous than most access regimes throughout England, under an Act passed by the last Conservative Government. We now give access to all suitable military land for recreational purposes on all sensible occasions. However, that is controlled by the military, who say when people may go on to the land and, more important, where they may go. By and large, it is linear access down tracks, and the military clearly and precisely control and restrict where people go on military land. That is eminently sensible. Simply allowing right of access across the whole of the Salisbury plain training area would be dangerous from the point of view of the walker and wholly impractical from the point of view of the military.

A large part of the Salisbury plain training area is privately owned land which is leased to the military. That land, which is not currently used for farming, would, under the provisions of amendment No. 1, not become access land as it is privately owned. At the moment, walkers have access to large acreages in Wiltshire—access that would suddenly be removed from them if amendment No. 1 were to be allowed. My contention would be that under current regulations—for example, as regards the Salisbury plain training area—more land is available to walkers than would be if amendment No. 1 were accepted. I hope that the Minister will not even consider allowing it.

With permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall respond to the points made in the debate, including those on grasslands. The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) wondered why, if mapping addresses the exclusion of cultivated land, we have the exception in the Bill at all. There are two good reasons. One concerns land that has been improved after the maps have been issued so that access is incompatible with continued access. The other is registered common land, where land is already improved but the right of access would apply any way were it not for the exception.

The hon. Gentleman asked if grass was to be considered a crop for these purposes. The answer is yes. Grass is a crop for the purposes of the amendment, provided it meets the terms of the amended exception—namely, that the land has been ploughed or otherwise disturbed for the purpose of sowing or planting grass or other crops within the past 12 months. We would not expect improved grassland to be mapped in the first place. However, I hope that that gives the hon. Gentleman the positive answer that he seeks.

I have to say that it does not. The point I was trying to get across was that grass is not necessarily an annual crop and may be down for two or three years. Therefore, although it fits all the other aspects of the criteria used by the Minister, it does not fit the 12-month criterion and therefore will not be included. If it is included as part of an arable rotation and is down for two years, it is immediately excluded from the definition.

The hon. Gentleman raises a matter that the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) raised in Committee—namely, that we give consideration to the exception of rotational leys. Again I would not expect land cultivated in this way to be mapped as open countryside in the first place. In the unlikely event of open country being converted to a rotational ley, it will be excepted from access in any year in which the soil has been disturbed. That goes further towards what the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire wants, although it does not entirely meet the point that he has just made. I am not prepared to give a commitment at this moment, but I will deliberate further on the matter and see whether it might be appropriate to table an amendment in another place.

5.15 pm

The hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soarnes), who is not in the Chamber at present, asked whether heather should be included as a crop for the purposes of the definition of cultivated land. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman, because it had escaped my memory that we had considered that matter in Committee. I am happy to reassure the House and the hon. Gentleman that it would be considered a crop for the purposes of the definition.

The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) referred to military land. He tabled an amendment in Committee that would require the Secretary of State for Defence to report to Parliament the findings of the five-yearly reviews of long-term directions to restrict or exclude access for reasons of defence. In Committee, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), indicated that, although the Government could not give any undertakings, we would consider the amendment. I have been most conscientious about that. Officials in my Department and in the Ministry of Defence have certainly held discussions on the issue. The Government wholly agree that there should be effective scrutiny of directions for long-term closures or restrictions on defence grounds, provided, of course, that defence interests are properly safeguarded. That is understandable.

We are considering the most appropriate way to meet the hon. Gentleman's concerns. If we conclude that a change to the Bill is indeed the right approach, we shall table a suitable amendment in another place. I hope that meets his needs.

My hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) mentioned military land. The amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) would ensure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence was compelled to undertake a fresh assessment of the need for restrictions on access to military training lands. I am happy to tell my hon. Friend, however, that that objective will be achieved without the amendment.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already announced, in "In Trust and on Trust: The Strategy for the Defence Estate"—it is amazing how catchy these titles are—which was published on 7 June, that he will review all byelaws imposed under section 14 of the Military Lands Act 1892 and section 2 of the Military Lands Act 1900. Thus the imposition of a separate requirement to consider the need for restrictions under clause 26, which the amendment would perhaps achieve, would merely serve to duplicate that process.

I hope that my explanation has convinced my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish that his amendment is unnecessary and that he will not press it.

I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 2, line 38, leave out from first "the" to end of line 39 and insert "next 72 hours".

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 27, in page 2, line 39, at end insert—

'( ) Where a person becomes a trespasser because of a failure to comply with a restriction imposed under section 24, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.'.

Amendment No. 103, in page 2, line 39, at end insert—

'(4A) If without lawful authority a person fails to comply with Schedule 2 or with any restriction imposed under Chapter II, he shall be guilty of an offence and liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding level 1 on the standard scale'.

Amendment No. 104, in page 2, line 41, leave out from "means" to end of line and insert—

'the period from one hour before sunrise to one hour after sunset'.

Government amendments Nos. 200 to 206. Amendment No. 105, in schedule 2, page 42, line 3, leave out "30th June" and insert "31st July".

Amendment No. 83, in page 42, line 5, leave out from "dog" to end of line and insert—

', whether the person is on the access land or is passing or re-passing on a public right of way over the access land'.

Government amendments Nos. 208 and 209.

This is an important group of amendments. The five amendments tabled by my hon. Friends and me cover three key aspects in which the Bill is deficient and, in some cases, unfair: the penalties for abuse of restrictions on access; the restriction that we want imposed on dangerous night-time access; and—especially importantly—the extension of the dates within which dogs should be kept on a lead while they are on access land. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree that those matters are especially vital, although the Government amendments that deal with potential criminal activity on access land are also important. I look forward to the Minister's explanation of them.

I first deal with amendment No. 7. The penalty proposed for breaking the restrictions on access land is merely for someone to be excluded from the owner or tenant farmer's land for the rest of the day. That penalty is inadequate and unfair because farmers will face criminal prosecution under the Bill if they discourage access. There is a need for the penalties to have a rough-and-ready parity.

I suspect, and I hope, that on this divide—if divide there be—the vast majority of farmers and walkers will be responsible, law abiding and sensible. The amendment deals with the small minority in each group. Both minorities should be treated roughly equally by the law, but, as it stands, they will not be.

A penalty of substance is necessary to control irresponsible behaviour. Instead of simply excluding the transgressor from the land of the owner or tenant for the rest of the day, the amendment would remove the transgressor's right to go on to any access land for the next three days. That not only would provide a more significant penalty, but it would prevent a farmer from being plagued by the same troublemaker day after day. All those who are responsible for working the land would find such a penalty fairer and more practical.

Amendment No. 103 and amendment No. 27, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), suggest that the transgressions covered by the Bill should be criminal offences. The hon. Gentleman is more draconian than we are in the penalties that he wishes to impose, but he will be able to explain the reason for that. None the less, the current drafting of the Bill is unbalanced and unfair on the penalties for transgressors.

Amendment No. 104 deals with the vexed issue of night-time access. I am sure that our proposal would affect a very small minority and we had a long debate about it in Committee.

Unlike me, the hon. Gentleman is clearly not a bird watcher. If he were, he would understand that one of the joys of bird watching is rising before dawn and going out into the wilder areas of the countryside so that one is there as the birds awake. If one goes out any later than dawn, one literally misses the bird on the wing. I ask him to consider that point seriously.

I have considered it. I am grateful to the hon. Lady, because she allows me to make the point that the amendment would not seek to restrict access to the period between dawn and dusk. We specifically say that access should be granted an hour before dawn and an hour after dusk. We understand that people want access for bird watching and for other reasons when the dawn breaks or when the sun sets, and that they need time to get on and off the access land. Our amendment is perfectly sensible and we do not seek the rigid dawn-to-dusk limit that applies in other countries, such as Denmark.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

The hon. Gentleman has not had a go yet, so I give way.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman; perhaps it will be the first of many goes.

My hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) mentioned bird watching, and I have watched badger setts late into the night. It is a wonderful experience, but people will not have the chance to see badgers when they are most active if the hon. Gentleman has his way with the amendment.

It depends on how many badger setts are on access land. However, let me put the case against the hon. Gentleman's view, because a balance must be struck. The Minister's draft of the Bill prevents camping even though that should be encouraged in certain controlled circumstances. Much of the land that is available for voluntary access allows for camping.

Against the more or less feeble arguments being advanced in favour of 24-hour unlimited access, I hope that hon. Members on the Government Benches recognise some of the problems. First, there are ill-intentioned people—potential poachers and potential burglars—who should not have the freedom to be in the vicinity of private dwellings at night, with every excuse to be there.

We know what the hon. Gentleman is going to say about burglars, but what about people who want to get away from light pollution simply to gaze at the stars, or who want to see a shooting comet? Does the hon. Gentleman remember Hale-Bopp streaking across the night sky? To see that in pitch blackness would have been marvellous. What about the star-gazers?

I remember seeing Hale-Bopp in my constituency—on private land, as it happens. There should be places where there is no light pollution. It is a live issue in my constituency, as it is in many others. Many villages work hard to ensure that there is no light pollution, so that star-gazing can be done, but to say that that has anything to do with the Bill and access land is nonsense.

My experience of walking at night, which I do quite frequently, is that nowhere is light pollution more manifest than in open country at night, looking down from hills towards built-up areas. The advantages of getting away from light in that way are pretty limited.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing common sense to the issue.

The hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) should not dismiss the point about burglars. He knows as well as anyone that rural crime is an increasingly serious issue. It would be perverse of the House knowingly to pass a measure that would make it easier for burglars in the countryside.

Secondly, there are safety risks to walkers. I tread delicately into the area of the Burns report, as I do not want to entice Government Members on to the subject, but those who have read the report will be aware that Burns points out that were hunting to be banned, killing foxes at night by lamping and shooting them would become a much more important method of pest control. It is a disturbing prospect that that could take place while inexperienced night-time walkers were walking over open land. [Interruption.] Hon. Members on the Government Benches find that funny, which is bizarre. If they think it funny that people going about their legitimate business—business that they are encouraging by their own action—might lead to someone being shot, they have not understood the seriousness of the situation.

There may well be a specific need for access in certain places in certain circumstances. That can always be negotiated with a landowner. Most landowners are responsible and allow voluntary access. The amendment deals with circumstances where the balance of advantage clearly lies against unrestricted access on all open land at night.

There are other countries with similar legislation. The hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) spoke about bird watching. In Denmark, the restrictions are stricter than those that we propose, but we believe that the Danes are too restrictive.

I point out to the Minister and his hon. Friends that the amendment is supported by the Association of Chief Police Officers, who take seriously the point about crime, as I hope the Minister does. The amendment also has the support of those most responsible for looking after the welfare of animals, the National Gamekeepers Organisation. Ground-nesting birds are more likely to be disturbed by night-time access. With the best intentions, people are much more likely to disturb the birds in the dark, when they cannot see where they are.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I shall make progress. He has had several goes.

Amendments Nos. 105 and 83 deal with the control of dogs. Livestock and the wildlife of moors must be protected from unmanaged access, particularly with dogs. Farmers, moorland owners, the Game Conservancy Trust, English Nature, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and others have all said that there is an extreme risk from dogs, unless they are kept properly under control. Amendment No. 105 extends for a further month, until the end of July, the period during which dogs must be on leads. I shall not go into the discursive discussion that took place in Committee about which species will be helped by the amendment, but I know that the Minister is aware that there are some species, some of them rare, that will be breeding during that period. Dogs off leads could be extremely dangerous and damaging to them.

5.30 pm

Amendment No. 83 deals with controls on rights of way crossing access land. It, too, is a practical measure.

The three areas covered by the amendments are controversial, but extremely important. If the Government cannot offer any concessions on any of them, they will be producing a Bill that will be unnecessarily damaging to wildlife and to other important aspects of life in the countryside.

I have a great deal of sympathy with the amendments in terms of dogs. If people want to take dogs on to access land, they should have them on a lead all the time.

The proposed night restrictions are ridiculous. The hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) said that other countries in Europe had such restrictions. As I understand it, Denmark is the only one. The British Mountaineering Council says that, in the past, the Czech Republic had these restrictions when it was communist. It appears that that regime had something in common with the Opposition Front Bench.

Many people go out on to access land at night, and cause no problems. When people were trying to get access to areas such as Kinder in the 1930s, they either went on a mass trespass or went on a moonlight walk. That was done repeatedly. It is pleasant to go out at night—particularly in moonlight—and walk over access land. Problems will not be caused by doing so. The Opposition, however, will be causing many problems if they say to walkers that they can be on such land for an hour before a certain time and an hour afterwards. In mountain areas, there must be a margin of safety. In effect, we would be saying, "You must be off at least an hour before the time limit in case something crops up that is difficult."

One of the most important features of mountain safety is to teach people to map read safely in difficult conditions. People can be up in a fog during the daytime, but one of the ways of teaching people to map read in difficult circumstances is to let them go up a mountain at night with a compass to try to work out the way that they should go across it.

Damage would also be done to many long-distance walks that people try to complete, perhaps crazily, in 24 hours or within another certain time limit. One of the best ones—

These are things that happen now. They happen on suitable land where landowners give voluntary access. The very fact that they are happening now means that they cannot be prayed in aid in argument for land that is not now used for them.

A nice example is to try to walk, within the area of Snowdon, all the 3,000-footers. For most of the year, that cannot be done within normal daylight hours. If someone is very fit, he might get round at this time of year. However, for most of the year, it is necessary to start or finish in the dark.

Snowdon rocks are quite difficult to walk in the dark, but it is easy to finish the walk on the Carneddau in the dark. None of the tops of the Carneddau has public rights of way. Historically, however, there is access to those areas. Such access has been by virtue of the good will of the landowners. If that works there, people should be able to go for long walks in places such as Bowland and other areas to which we would like to have access.

Speaking as someone who learned to read a map and a compass at night on the mountains above Aberdare, no doubt on private land, may I point out that the fact that access to the Carneddau already exists undermines the hon. Gentleman's point? The 3,000-footers in Wales can already be climbed under current legislation and arrangements. Why should there be night-time access to private land, much of it comprising remote hill farms?

That right exists de facto on the Carneddau, so why should it not exist on the Arans in Wales and in Bowland?

My hon. Friend speaks with due reverence of Kinder in my constituency, but is it not the case that a night-time walk, avoiding land that is currently not open access land, but which would become so under the Act, could be more dangerous than such a walk under the Act when open access will apply to a greater area?

Yes, I accept that point, but I am keen to follow the Whip's instructions and keep my remarks as brief as possible. I simply say that criminal sanctions would be wrong—both from the Whips and in the legislation. We do not want too much litigation in this area; we want co-operation and consent. The Government have got it right, and I hope that they will make it clear now that there will be no concessions on limiting night-time access and that no criminal sanctions will be applied on these issues.

The hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) said that Amendment No. 27 was more draconian than the Conservatives' approach. We have come to expect a certain wishy-washy attitude to the Bill from the Conservatives. In fact, the hon. Gentleman is wrong because, although the amendment suggests a higher penalty, it is on a narrow ground. I reject the view that there should be criminalisation of all those who find themselves at fault on the generality of the restrictions in the legislation because they could easily do so unintentionally or through ignorance. I want people to stick to the rules of the game, but I suspect that some will find themselves out of kilter with those rules and I do not want them to be turned into criminals as a result.

However, a penalty is required in the narrow area of a conservation closure to protect our most valuable conservation land, which will be clearly labelled and signposted. We need some sort of sanction in law to ensure that people take that seriously. They must realise that there is a total impediment to destroying what may be a precious habitat and that they do not have unimpeded rights of access. I hope that there will never be circumstances in which someone falls foul of such a sanction, but we need such a penalty to make a clear distinction between the most precious habitats that are protected in that way and the generality of land where such a penalty would be inappropriate. One can argue about whether the penalty should be at level 1, 2 or 3—I have no difficulty with that—but I simply say that it is something that the Government should consider.

I entirely agree with the view on dogs expressed by the hon. Member for Ashford. Current arrangements are weak and I expect them to be strengthened, if not today then at some future stage in our consideration.

We had a long discussion in Committee on night-time access. I do not propose to repeat that, not least because there is enormous scope for people to postulate various hypotheses. I do not necessarily accept that there should be a right of access at night. However, I hope that there will be access at night by agreement. Mountaineers and others have made a good case by rightly pointing out that there is a safety aspect to their activity. They may often find that they have to stay in a place overnight to be safe. I am confused by the Government's attitude. The absolute ban on camping overnight is a barrier to mountain safety. That should be reconsidered.

On Second Reading, I thought that it was extraordinarily odd that the Bill would effectively criminalise such activity, which has been carried out with minimal disturbance for generations. The measure will create problems for those who go walking and climbing.

The hon. Gentleman is not entirely right to say that the Bill criminalises the activity; it discourages it. Nothing in the Bill prevents any activity about which there is agreement under existing legislation. That is crucial. However, mountaineers who gain access to mountains through the Bill will find that, unless they have premeditated an overnight stay, they will not be able to camp. That is a difficulty.

The main problem with a right of access at night is that it removes the ability to challenge a person who is on private access land at night without good reason. I do not refer to legitimate walkers and ramblers. The measure would mean that those who were there for nefarious purposes had a built-in, cast-iron excuse for loitering outside a property at night in the middle of nowhere. The Association of Chief Police Officers perceives that as a problem.

I want to comment on the general penalty of the removal of access rights in the 24-hour period. The current position is nonsense. In Committee, I challenged the idea of the same ownership. How on earth are walkers supposed to know exactly what land belongs to whom without access to a land register? The penalty is unenforceable in its current form. For that reason, and because the penalty is very slight, it is meaningless. We could either improve its ability to be enforced or make it a realistic sanction so that people at least thought twice before disregarding the rules under the schedule. The amendment is not perfect, but if it stresses to the Government that the matter should be reconsidered, I shall support the hon. Member for Ashford in the Lobby and advise my hon. Friends accordingly.

I want to comment briefly on amendment No. 104. First, I shall deal with the point about potential criminality. The hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) has a point in a sense, but the danger is no greater than the potential for criminality when someone walks along the pavement outside somebody's house. There is a risk, but we must ask whether it is sufficient to outweigh the rights that the Bill seeks to enshrine in law. I believe that it is not.

I say to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) that the Bill would not prevent someone from challenging another person. If a farmer comes across someone in the middle of the night who appears to be up to no good, he can challenge that person although he can then claim that he is there to look at the stars or the birds. The Bill does not remove the right of someone who is worried to ask, "What on earth are you up to?"

I want to speak briefly against amendment No. 104. First, it has no logic. Existing rights of way, such as footpaths, are not subject to a dawn-to-dusk restriction. I do not, therefore, understand why such a restriction should apply to the new right. Secondly, as has been said, the amendment could be dangerous in certain circumstances. People might think, "We must hurry to get off the piece of land that we are on before we engage in unlawful activity", when it would clearly not be safe to do so.

Finally, the amendment seems to misunderstand the nature of the right that this part of the Bill provides, for which people have campaigned long and hard for many years. The opportunity simply to listen to the stillness, to hear the night, and—as my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) said—to gaze at the stars is priceless. I do not see why the amendment should deny those who want to go out at night the right to enjoy those pleasures.

I want to say something about criminality. When the Government consulted on access, the organisations that currently manage large sections of open country said that they did not believe that new byelaws or, indeed, new criminal sanctions would be necessary if access were extended. The Association of National Parks Authorities, the National Trust and the Peak District National Park Authority all said exactly that in their responses. Indeed, when more crime than one would wish takes place, it tends to take place on agricultural land near car parks and buildings—land that would not be included in the access provisions.

When malicious damage is perpetrated, not just byelaws, but other parts of the criminal law already exist to deal with it. We have the Criminal Justice Acts and the Crime and Disorder Act 1998—and, indeed, the Bill supplements protection already conferred by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Part III contains new sanctions applying to deliberate damage to wildlife and its habitats. Amendment No. 103 is not necessary, and is not thought to be necessary by those responsible for managing the kind of land that the Bill specifies.

Finally, there is a question of access at night. I will not read out all the poem sent to me by my constituent Mr. David Bangs, but I will quote from it. He writes:

The stars still shine in country skies. The light that has travelled for millions of years reaches our eyes where house lights, street lights, entertainment lights, son et lumiere lights, security lights, car lights, industrial lights drown it … County stars, the scudding moon, and silk black night belong to us all!

I apologise for not being here at the beginning of this short debate.

I want to make just one point to the Minister. When we had a courteous and, I think, well-informed discussion in Committee about dogs, I made an observation that is reflected in the amendment. I realise that the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends have had to consider many other matters, but I want to reinforce one point.

During a breeding season for ground-nesting birds, especially game birds, like this year's—which has been astonishing wet on high ground—the extra month is critical to the well-being of birds and the successful rearing of chicks by hens. During that period, it is essential for the birds not to be disturbed. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider with even more force what I consider to be the responsible and unanswerable case put by my hon. Friends and me in Committee.

Before I deal with the non-Government amendments, I want to discuss amendments nos. 200 to 205, which seek to give effect to my undertaking in Committee to provide that the commission of any offence on access land should constitute a breach of a restriction under schedule 2. That would render the offender a trespasser and, therefore, liable to be removed from the land.

It is right that landowners should be able to ask those in breach of the criminal law to leave their land, whether or not it is access land. If a landowner suspects that a criminal offence may have been committed, he may well wish to report the matter to the police. I hope that the amendments will reassure landowners that the new right of access in no way obliges them to tolerate criminal activity on their land. We have always emphasised that those who exercise the new right should be responsible, and the amendments are intended to promote that message.

Government amendments Nos. 201 and 206 were tabled in direct response to amendments tabled in Committee, under which the Opposition wanted to add metal detecting to the list of restricted activities in schedule 2. Those found using or carrying metal detectors without permission will become trespassers and might be asked to leave the land. I hope that hon. Members will think those amendments sensible and welcome them.

Government amendment No. 208 will ensure that directions made under paragraph 6 of schedule 2 that end the application of any schedule 1 restriction to an area may be made in anticipation of its becoming access land. Government amendment No. 209 will allow the relevant authority to vary a direction under that paragraph with the owner's consent. I agreed to consider similar amendments that the Opposition tabled in Committee, and Government amendment No. 209 is consistent with that undertaking and with the power in clause 25(1) to vary a direction given under chapter II. Therefore, I hope that hon. Members will appreciate the sense of those amendments, which, again, show the Government's sincerity in saying that we would sympathetically and carefully consider proposals made in Committee.

I shall now deal with non-Government amendments. Under amendment No. 7, anyone who breached restrictions on access under schedule 2 would be excluded from all access land for 72 hours. The Bill specifies that those in breach of restrictions should be excluded from the relevant land, or from other access land in the same ownership, for the remainder of that day. It is not realistic to assume that landowners will know whether a walker has breached restrictions in the previous 72 hours on someone else's land; nor would it always be appropriate to impose such a sanction on a walker whose breach of restriction might be extremely minor. Therefore, there is no reason why the ban on returning to access land should extend beyond the rest of the day or to access land in different ownership. Of course, criminal sanctions will continue to be available where offences are committed.

As with the other proposals to criminalise trespass on access land, we do not agree that those who, possibly inadvertently, breach restrictions under clause 24 and who may not cause any harm or damage as a result, should be subject to a potentially substantial fine, as proposed under amendment No. 27. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) referred to the fact that trespass itself has never been a criminal offence in this country, except in very limited circumstances. Parliament has declined to turn trespass into an offence unless some harm or potential for harm can be shown.

Criminalising trespass on land that is closed for conservation reasons would create a wholly unjustifiable inconsistency with important conservation areas that are not access land. To make that a criminal offence would, in our view, be disproportionate. I am not convinced that stepping off a path to take a photo or to admire a view should be made a criminal offence. Where identifiable harm or damage occurs, it will be subject to a criminal penalty. If a certain activity causes a problem, the local authority can make it subject to a byelaw.

Under amendment No. 103, it is proposed that those in breach of a restriction—trespassers—should be subject to a fine of £200. The Government remain pretty unconvinced that those who breach the restrictions on access land should be subject to a penalty that is greater than if they had trespassed in someone's front garden. Those amendments would make walkers who, perhaps inadvertently, break one of the more minor restrictions, such as bivouacking on a remote fell or swimming in a stream, into criminals. That would be ludicrous, as the hon. Member for Beaconsfield rightly said, and I can see that he can barely contain himself about it.

We do not consider that it is necessary to impose a broad, wide-ranging penalty over all access land to penalise what may often be minor breaches of the restrictions. If an activity is not a criminal offence already, there is no reason why it should be simply because it occurs on access land.

I turn now to amendment No. 104 on access at night, which has been the main subject of discussion. As on so many matters, we had a useful and extensive debate in Committee about the merits of allowing the new right of access to apply at night. As the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), said, the argument is finely balanced, and I accept that. We have considered carefully the case for restricting access at night. In doing so, we have kept in mind the need to address the genuine concerns of those who own and manage land affected. We have also borne in mind the principle that restrictions should be applied only when strictly necessary.

Although most people who will benefit from the new right will wish to exercise access during the day, we should not automatically ban access at night. There are various reasons why some people may wish to have access to open countryside at night, and my hon. Friends referred to them extensively. People may simply want enjoy a sunset or sunrise, or to get up to enjoy the nocturnal or early-morning wildlife. More serious walkers may need to be on land very early in the morning, or after dark, if they are undertaking a long hike and wish to reach relatively remote areas. People may also need to shelter overnight, especially if they are caught out by the weather. In addition, some people will wish to challenge their navigational skills through night hikes. That is not unknown and, indeed, night navigation exercises are an important part of mountain leadership training.

I recognise that there are genuinely held concerns, which have been well expressed in the debate, about the impact of night-time access on security and people's safety, but they should not be exaggerated. We are talking about uncultivated land, usually well away from where people live, and we have specifically excluded buildings and their curtilage. The small minority of people who are intent on crime are unlikely to be deterred by the fact they do not have a right to be on the land at night. I understand the point made by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), but I shall perhaps deal with it in a moment.

Poaching is already a criminal offence, and we have made it clear in the extensive list of restrictions in schedule 2 that those engaged in such activities, or who carry equipment used for such purposes, will lose their right of access automatically. Moreover, as the National Trust recognises, legitimate and responsible access at night may well help to deter poachers, as there could be more eyes and ears about. That is an important point.

Perhaps most compelling of the arguments against a blanket ban on night-time access is the experience of those who already allow it. The Forestry Commission and the National Trust are prominent examples. They own and manage extensive landholdings in the countryside and have a policy of promoting public access, but night-time access has given rise to few problems and has not required blanket restrictions. Where problems arise, they are more likely to occur at so-called honeypot sites and car parks than in more remote areas.

rose—

I shall give way just once because I can feel that the House wants to conclude.

If all that is true, why are public parks nearly always closed from sunset to sun-up?

Public parks are usually in urban areas, which is a different matter. We are discussing uncultivated and remote areas that may be miles from people's houses.

If, in a particular area—

rose—

No, I shall not give way again.

If there is a legitimate reason to restrict night-time access, that can be dealt with through, for example, local restrictions on access or even byelaws. The Bill provides the flexibility to deal with genuine problems that may arise locally without the need for a blanket ban. Such an approach is easier to police than a blanket ban on all access land. I am not aware of calls to introduce night-time curfews in our towns and cities, where the risk of crime is significantly greater. For all those reasons, I am not inclined to accept restrictions on night access.

I shall quickly deal with amendments Nos. 83 and 105, on the question of dogs. Amendment No. 105 would extend the period during which dogs should be required to be kept on leads on access land to cover the period from 1 March to 31 July each year. As the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) said—he was courteous as always—we had an animated but significant discussion of that in Committee. That restricted period is intended to protect livestock and wildlife from disturbance by dogs during, principally, the lambing season and the breeding season for ground-nesting birds. As the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South, explained in Committee, if, in the light of experience, the restricted period needs reviewing, the Bill allows that by giving the Secretary of State—and, in Wales, the National Assembly—the power to amend through regulation.

In addition, the Bill contains provisions for restrictions for conservation and land management to allow tougher controls on dogs where particular circumstances require that, including outright bans. However, we appreciate that there is very real concern about disturbance by dogs, both to wildlife and livestock. We are keen to ensure that the restricted period specified in the Bill is the right one. We are further considering that issue and remain open to the prospect of amending the length of the period at a later stage in our consideration.

Although I am sympathetic to reasonable amendments that would improve the Bill, for all those reasons I do not think that the Opposition have made their case in respect of a 72-hour exclusion or excessive fines, which are disproportionate, or night-time access, though I accept that we need to look further at the restriction on dogs. I hope that, on that basis, they will withdraw their amendments.

I thank the Minister for the Government amendments on metal detecting and the other matters that arose out of amendments that we tabled in Committee. We are always grateful to see small improvements being made to the Bill.

We have discussed three major issues. I must tell the Minister that the stark fact is that the penalties are still unfair. He spent his time constructing absurdities, referring to people being criminalised for relatively trivial behaviour, but the Bill will criminalise people who put up the wrong type of notice. There should be fairness on both sides. On night-time access, he shot himself in the foot over public parks. If it is right to close public parks in urban areas, which may be near houses, for reasons of personal safety and crime prevention, it seems bizarre that it is not right to have restrictions on night access to parts of rural areas that happen to be near houses. There is an exact parallel between the two, but he fails to recognise that.

I am grateful for what the Minister said on dogs, although it was what he said in Committee: he is aware that there is a big problem, but he will return to it at some later stage. He has had a long time to think since the Bill was in Committee and I can assume only that the strength of our arguments is troubling him. I hope that, eventually, he will come round to our point of view and extend the restricted period. In that regard, I am grateful for the support from the hon. Members for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) and for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) for the amendment.

The Minister's explanation of why the Government propose to take such action in those important areas is inadequate and I commend our amendments to the House.