Public Access to Nature

Debate between Caroline Lucas and Margaret Ferrier

Thursday 18th May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered public access to nature.

It is a pleasure to open this debate on increasing public access to nature and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for supporting it. In an age where we are increasingly isolated from the natural world, and in a country that ranks lowest in Europe for nature connectedness, improving access to green space could not be more important. Yet that very framing somehow suggests that we are separate from the world around us and that nature is simply something to be visited on occasion. In reality, nothing could be further from the truth. Others have pointed out that it has been around 7 million years since our ancestors started evolving into the modern humans we are today. During that process of evolution, we have spent more than 99.9% of our time living in a natural environment. Our bodies are adapted to nature.

In debating the urgent need to improve access to nature and to reforge our connection with this precious earth, it is also important to reframe that relationship so that we no longer see nature as something other, but something of which we are a part and which is also part of us.

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)]

Wildlife and Countryside Link has made a number of recommendations for improving public access to nature, including the expansion of the right to roam and investment in widely publicising the countryside code. Does the hon. Member agree that by realising those recommendations in tandem, the Government can aid more people to enjoy the UK’s natural spaces responsibly?

[Caroline Lucas]

The hon. Member will not be surprised to know that I agree entirely with her points. Indeed, I will come to them a little later.

In my introductory remarks to the debate, I will set out the many benefits of increasing access to nature, identify where the Government could amend and update existing legislation to achieve that, and, indeed, make the case for a new comprehensive right of responsible access in England. Before I do so, I pay tribute to the many organisations and individuals who have done so much to promote that idea, and I single out Marion Shoard in particular, who I believe is watching us from the Gallery today. Marion has done more than perhaps any other individual to push land on to the agenda in Britain, and to advance cogently and fearlessly the case for a right to roam.

[Caroline Lucas]

I agree entirely with the hon. Member. It is slightly unfortunate that the phrase “right to roam” does not automatically include the right to access water, but that is exactly what is understood by it. I will in a moment pay tribute to canoeists for their work in setting up a voluntary code of conduct on how they treat the water to which they have access. They need a lot more access, however, and that is certainly part of the proposals that I will set out.

On the benefits of access to nature, we have long known that being in the outdoors is good for our soul, but the evidence increasingly demonstrates that it is vital for our health as well. First, for our physical health, beyond the obvious health benefits of walking or running, the very act of being in green space has been found to lower blood pressure, reduce the risk of diabetes and heart disease, and boost our immune systems.

[Margaret Ferrier]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way once again. It is understood that exercising in the fresh air can also ease mental health issues such as anxiety. Polling by the Mental Health Foundation highlights that 70% of adults find that being in nature improves their mood. Clearly, those benefits cannot be overlooked. Does she agree that widening public access to nature could be instrumental in responding to the country’s mental health crisis?

[Caroline Lucas]

Indeed, the hon. Member anticipates my very next point. She is exactly right: the benefits of being in nature are not limited to our physical health; they very much affect our mental health as well, easing anxiety and increasing positive emotions. Spending time in nature has been proven fundamental to good mental health. Indeed, the growth in green social prescribing shows that that is increasingly being recognised more widely.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Lucas]

I am indeed looking forward to exciting plans in Lewes, and I pay tribute to local councillors there.

However, we must go further to truly transform our relationship with nature, with access to wilder spaces where we can marvel at the wonders around us and be fully immersed in the natural world. Those who organised the mass trespass of Kinder Scout in 1932, which so many of us have taken so much inspiration from, knew the value of access to our dramatic Peak district, and their actions united the campaign for access to the countryside.

At the start of this millennium, the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 finally gave us a right to roam in certain areas, over mountain, moor, heath and down, designating them as open access land. However, that designation still covers only 8% of land in England, and much of it is remote. Too often, tracts of legally accessible open country land lack any legal means for the public to cross other land to access them, rendering them effectively off limits. Just 3% of rivers in England and Wales are accessible, and even that is only provided by voluntary agreements with landowners and can therefore be taken away.

That is why last year, I tabled a Bill that would have extended the right to roam to woods, rivers, green-belt land and more grassland. In doing so, it would have provided access to nature on people’s doorsteps, as those landscapes are found in almost every community, and it would have extended access to approximately 30% of English land. Since I drafted that Bill, the momentum behind the campaign for access to nature has only grown, and I believe now is the time to be even bolder and more ambitious. It is time for a reset of our very relationship with the natural world around us, one that re-establishes the intimacy and connection that is essential if we are to restore the state of our—quite often literally—scorched earth.

I believe it is time to expand our minds and our horizons and look north of the border to Scotland, where the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 enshrined the right of access to most land and water, providing that the right is exercised responsibly. Of course, there will be some sensible exclusions such as fields where crops are growing, seasonal restrictions for sensitive nature sites, school playing fields and even gardens. However, that is essentially a much more expansive approach. It designates a universal right to roam with exclusions carved out, rather than the opposite approach that is taken in England, which is based on a universal exclusion with access only to some very specific landscapes. The Scottish approach is far simpler, meaning that we are no longer reliant on confusing and often outdated land designations that no longer reflect the nature of our countryside, and it is more equal, meaning that everyone has shared access to this island that is our home.

[Margaret Ferrier]

The Government made a number of welcome commitments in their environmental improvement plan, but legislative change is needed to deliver on those commitments. Does the hon. Member agree that the Government now need to advance policy that successfully expands public access to nature?

[Caroline Lucas]

I hope that everything I have said so far demonstrates that I entirely agree with the point that the hon. Lady makes.

I believe it is time to consider a comprehensive right of responsible access in England. With two decades of lived experience, Scotland provides an important model for us to learn from and emulate south of the border. It is important to note that Scotland is not alone in its approach; in countries such as Norway, Sweden and Estonia, the right to roam has long existed as a common right and a defining concept of nationhood that has only recently been codified into law. In America and Australia, there is free access to all navigable rivers. Why should we in England be denied that right to enjoy, know and protect our shared world?

In recent months, the Opposition have announced that they would pass a right to roam Act in government, and I welcome that, but when the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) speaks, I would be interested to know what exactly their version of a right to roam Act would entail. Would it be a fully expanded right to roam, or a partial one based on specific designations? I am arguing for a new approach: an extension of the right to roam in the context of a wider recentring of our relationship with nature—moving to a relationship built on community, care and reciprocity, with a deep love and understanding of the world around us, rather than one defined by extraction and exploitation. Re-establishing our connection with nature is essential if we are to effectively address the terrifying biodiversity crisis that sees a million species on the brink of extinction.

The Minister will no doubt be aware that target 12 of the global biodiversity framework agreed in Montreal in December was to:

“Significantly increase the area and quality and connectivity of, access to, and benefits from green and blue spaces”.

The public can be partners in that endeavour and become guardians of the natural world, but only if they and we are given the opportunity to better know, love and protect it. That so many are not able to delight in the blackthorn bursting into blossom in the spring, the sight of fledglings making their first leaps to freedom, or the sound of grasshoppers singing in the heat of summer is a personal tragedy, but it is also profoundly concerning for the future of the species with which we are blessed to share this one planet. In the words of one scientist, Robert Michael Pyle,

“What is the extinction of the condor to a child who has never known the wren?”

While greater access to the countryside obviously cannot solve the ecological crisis, I genuinely believe that it is nevertheless a precondition to our ability to try. I know some Members will be concerned about the impact of a renewed right to roam, and in particular the irresponsible behaviour of a few. Let us be clear that those are the actions of a very small minority among a nation of nature lovers. The response to David Attenborough’s “Wild Isles” demonstrates how fiercely the public love nature and want it to be not just conserved, but restored. I welcome initiatives such as the “People’s Plan for Nature”, which sets out the public’s vision for the future of nature and the actions we all need to take to renew it.

Secondly and crucially, the right to access has to be balanced with responsibilities. No one is suggesting that a right to roam should be absolute. It has to be balanced against other rights, such as the rights of wildlife to be protected and the rights of landowners to gain a living from their land. However, arbitrarily applying rights to some classes of land but not to others is no way of securing that proper balance, and that is why it has to go hand in hand with a renewed outdoor access code that clearly sets out the responsibilities of the public and landowners.

The Scottish outdoor access code has been instrumental in successfully establishing a right to responsible access. It makes it clear that visitors must respect the interests of others, care for the environment and take responsibility for their own actions, and it enjoys widespread public awareness. That simply is not the case with the countryside code in England. The work that has gone into updating it has sadly not been matched by work to promote it. Wider education has a vital role, whether that is public information campaigns or making sure we are teaching the countryside code in every single school so that children grow up with a much clearer understanding of their responsibilities in our countryside. In that respect, I am encouraged and inspired by examples such as the new paddlers’ code, produced by British Canoeing, which sets out guidance for canoeists, kayakers and paddlers on how to enjoy our waterways responsibly.

Let me be very clear that there will be some times and some areas where a right to roam is simply not appropriate, whether that is to protect sensitive sites and rare and endangered species such as the wood calamint or the ghost orchid, or to avoid disturbing ground-nesting birds such as nightjars and woodlarks. Our remaining biodiversity is immensely precious, and we must be vigilant in protecting it. I also want to acknowledge that there are particular concerns about dogs, especially for wildlife. Even if they are on a lead, their presence can not only cause birds stress, but disrupt their behaviours and even cause them to leave their nest. We therefore do need a proper debate about whether a right to roam should be extended to dogs, and I will look at this very closely when I present a revised Bill in future.

As I draw my comments to a close, I want to challenge the idea that it is somehow the public who are a threat to nature and that that is why they have to be kept away from it. The UK did not become one of the most nature- depleted countries in the world, where 15% of species are at risk of extinction, because some people are dropping litter. To borrow some words from author and campaigner Nick Hayes:

“It’s not the wild swimmer who poisons our rivers, nor the rambler who burns the moorland. When they took away our right to access the land, they took away our ability to protect it.”

No, we know it is the greedy water companies that relentlessly pump sewage into the rivers and seas while handing billions to their shareholders, or it is the landowners who burn our precious peatlands, a vital carbon source, for blood sport and profit. Frankly, it is also this Government, who have failed to give enough support to farmers to transition to agroecological farming when nature restoration and food production can go hand in hand.

In closing, I pay tribute to the work that has been done by campaigners from right across the access movement. Fifteen years ago, Marion Shoard wrote of her concerns about new barriers to the countryside—not just the landowners’ fences, but the new shutters that she argued have closed people’s minds against the very idea of being able to roam freely in the countryside. Today, thankfully, that is changing. There is now a vibrant and growing movement, with those such as the Right to Roam campaign, spearheaded by Guy Shrubsole and Nick Hayes, asserting their rights—our rights—to the land. My hope is that we can work together for our health and wellbeing, for our happiness and fulfilment, and of course for the love of life on Earth, because nature needs us to know it, love it, restore it and defend it, and, frankly, we need nature if we are to learn to be fully human.

UNHCR: Admission Pathways for Syrian Refugees

Debate between Caroline Lucas and Margaret Ferrier

Wednesday 16th March 2016 Westminster Hall

[Caroline Lucas]

I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Gentleman. There is a discrepancy between the compassion being shown by the British public and the way in which the Government have responded so far—they are underestimating people’s willingness to make room for more refugees in their homes and communities. I salute what Sheffield has done. I am happy to say that Brighton and Hove is also a city of sanctuary, which demonstrates the willingness and commitment of ordinary people to welcome people into their homes.

The meeting on 30 March offers an opportunity for Ministers to step up a gear. Among the pathways being called for by the UNHCR is an increase in the number of refugees being resettled, and the Government reluctantly agreed to settle 20,000 Syrian refugees via the vulnerable persons relocation scheme by the end of this Parliament. The Minister with responsibility for Syrian refugees should be congratulated on managing to secure the resettlement of 1,000 refugees through the programme by the end of 2015, but the current commitment is equal to each parliamentary constituency providing a home to just six Syrians each year. We can and must do better. Twenty-thousand refugees should just be a starting point. There has to be much more urgency: the crisis is happening now; people are risking their lives now; the need for safety is now.

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)]

There are an estimated 26,000 unaccompanied child refugees in Europe. Although it is welcome that the Prime Minister has said that the UK will accept some of those children, it goes nowhere near what is needed. Will the hon. Lady join me in calling on the UK Government to be a responsible global citizen and proactively seek out refugee children in Europe with family connections in the UK so as to speed up the process of reunification?

[Caroline Lucas]

I agree with the hon. Lady that the problems of unaccompanied children are particularly urgent. If those children are offered status here, we must also make it possible for them to sponsor their parents, if they are later found, or other family members to come and join them. Right now, the UK is one of the few countries that do not let that happen.

Let me put the numbers in context. During the Hungarian revolution of 1956, Britain, to its credit, welcomed 20,000 Hungarian refugees over just one winter. We need a co-ordinated and increased resettlement programme that works in solidarity with EU member states and our global partners. Like the British Government, I agree that people should not be making dangerous journeys to get to the UK, but our agreement departs at that point. It is not enough to say that people should not be making such journeys; we must ensure that they do not need to make those journeys.

If the Government take on board and implement the UNHCR’s suggestions, we could provide legitimate and safe access to the UK across international borders. For example, the UNHCR is calling for the flexible use of refugee family reunion rules. The current rules mean that refugee families are kept apart. For example, the rules mean that a Syrian father granted asylum in the UK would be allowed to bring his wife and younger children, who may have previously been sleeping several families to a house in Lebanon, to join him, yet his eldest child, if she happens to be over 18, would not ordinarily be allowed to come. We are arbitrarily splitting up such families. Her parents would be faced with the choice of either leaving her behind or seeking to pay smugglers to bring her to the UK. She would be at huge risk in either scenario, and it simply makes no sense under any definition of compassion or humanitarianism to be deliberately splitting up families.

I saw that at our border with France just last week, when I visited the camps at Calais and Dunkirk with the wonderful Brighton-based Hummingbird Project. I would need another whole debate to discuss how deeply the British and French authorities have failed the refugees at those camps, but I note that one of the things that came over in all our discussions with the refugees is how many of them have relatives already here in the UK. I spoke to a 22-year-old man whose wife is a British citizen. He has been at the Calais camp for five months, and he cannot join her. Similarly, another young man had half his family, including his father and brother, living in Birmingham, but again he is stuck in the limbo of the camps. Under the Government’s current rules, neither can apply for family reunification. Instead, they face an indefinite period of trying to navigate the complexities of the British and French asylum systems, often without financial or legal support.

The criteria for refugee family reunion should be extended to allow refugees in the UK to be reunited with their parents, siblings, adult children, grandparents and other family members where there is a dependency relationship. The rules should also be expanded to allow British citizens, and those with indefinite leave to remain, to sponsor relatives abroad. We now have a crazy situation where someone who becomes naturalised, who becomes a British citizen, has fewer rights to access the rest of their family. That has been a concern in my constituency, where I have spoken to several Syrian refugees who no longer have the right to family reunification, as they have now become British citizens, yet who have family who remain in desperate situations.

While we are discussing family reunification, let me quickly address, as the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) did, the 3,000 unaccompanied refugee children. The UK is one of the very few EU countries that do not allow unaccompanied refugee children to sponsor their parents in order to be safely and finally reunited. The UK has opted out of EU directive 2003/86/EC, which allows unaccompanied refugee children to sponsor applications. I cannot see in whose interest that opt-out is operating. The Government need to rectify that as a matter of urgency. It is surely in the best interest of child refugees to be reunited with family members. I hope the Minister will specifically address that point.

Finally, the UK should also heed the UNHCR’s call to introduce humanitarian visas, following in the footsteps of Argentina, Brazil, France, Italy and Switzerland. The UK Government have never before implemented a humanitarian visa programme, but such a programme would allow Syrians and others with valid asylum claims to travel to the UK to claim asylum without having to take dangerous journeys to get here. On a wider point, the meeting on 30 March is one of a number of initiatives aimed at addressing the Syrian crisis, but we must not forget that it will also allow us to develop efficient and safe processes for any other large-scale movements of refugees. Oxfam has noted that 400 people have already died or gone missing trying to reach Europe this year.

Many refugees, including children, continue to be vulnerable as they embark on what can only be described as a march of misery through Europe. Unless European Governments offer refugees safe and legal routes to travel, we will continue to see the death toll rising and people left with little choice but to put their lives in the hands of smugglers and traffickers, which puts women and children at particular risk of exploitation, trafficking and abuse. We need to ensure that we are providing refugees with real solutions, rather than barriers. There is no simple, easy solution to this humanitarian crisis—there are no silver bullets—but we cannot continue to watch over a crisis of this magnitude without sharing a greater sense of responsibility.

Can the Minister assure us that the Government will take a strong leadership role at the meeting on 30 March? Will the Government ensure that we play our full part in providing safe and legal routes of access for refugees? I have outlined three particular demands. It is about giving refugee children the same right as adult refugees to be with their family; it is about widening the rules to allow adult refugees to be reunited with their parents, siblings and adult children in the UK; and it is about affording British citizens and those with indefinite leave to remain the right to bring to the UK their family members with international protection needs. The Government pride themselves on standing up for the family, but that has to be all families, not just some. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

National Health Service Bill

Debate between Caroline Lucas and Margaret Ferrier

Friday 11th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Lucas]

If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I will not, simply because I want to make a bit more progress and many Opposition Members have waited a long time to speak in this debate.

The purchaser-provider split has allowed NHS privatisation in England to increase dramatically since the 2012 Act. The most recent official figures show that the NHS paid £6.6 billion to private healthcare firms in 2013-14. Some have suggested that that figure has now increased to as much £10 billion.

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)]

The Bristol clinical commissioning group, which issues contracts for local NHS services, is in the process of striking out rules that prevent tax-avoiding private companies from securing NHS contracts, for fear of litigation. Does the hon. Lady share my worry that the only health concern for some private contractors is ensuring that they get healthy profits?

[Caroline Lucas]

I agree with the hon. Lady’s strong and compelling point.