THERE has recently been a campaign in certain sections of the national press to snipe at the Government's intention to introduce 'Right to Roam' legislation.

The administration is clearly under pressure from the agriculture industry, which requires help in trying to cope with the present situation, where livestock farmers have seen their incomes fall by 60 per cent in the last five years, and many are being driven out of business. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that it is sensitive to criticism about its general policy towards the industry.

As its legislation on right to roam has yet to be formulated, it seems that certain elements in the Country Landowners Association, and the National Farmers Union, are taking the opportunity to spread the sort of misinformation which was common in the days before the Government finally announced its intention to honour its election manifesto, and legislate for access to the fells.

A NOP poll taken at the time showed that 91 per cent were in favour of open access, so it is perhaps pertinent to re-state what is intended, and what is not.

Cultivated farmland is not affected, and there are no plans to increase access to it, nor to increase the number of rights of way which already exist across it. There is no question of walking through someone's back garden, as was suggested by some at that time. It is intended to give the public the 'Right to Roam' over our uncultivated uplands, which, in effect, means mountains, moorland, heath and common land.

Access to mountains already exists in areas like the Lake District, although this is not of right, and could, in theory, be withdrawn. The main area of contention is moorland, where the powerful shooting interests are involved.

Huge tracts of fell, such as the Westminster estates in Bowland, are currently out of bounds to the public, apart from certain areas where access has been granted, and which is paid for by the county council. It is this type of land which will be affected by the right to roam legislation.

Enlightened landowners, like the Duke of Devonshire, have allowed access to their moors for some time, with certain restrictions. The moors are closed to the public on shooting days, and dogs are not allowed at any time. The system works well.

It seems odd in the Year 2000 thatthe situation should be allowed to continue unchallenged. Let us hope that the Government is not influenced by the tactics of those with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, and that the legislation will not be watered down by their sniping.

FRANK PARROTT, Green Drive, Clitheroe.

Converted for the new archive on 14 July 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.