Examination of witnesses (Questions 340
- 363)
WEDNESDAY 15 DECEMBER 1999
HELEN PARTRIDGE
and MICHAEL FULFORD
340. And it is not all that easy to canoe past
fishermen?
(Ms Partridge) It is very easy to canoe past fishermen.
The canal network is a prime example of anglers and boaters using
the same resource, quite happily.
(Mr Fulford) This is the sort of conflict which means
that leisure opportunities in rural areas have to be managed in
some way, because everybody's particular leisure interest is a
minority interest, so it has to be managed by someone and by some
organisation.
Mr Gray
341. Can I just be clear about this; you are
saying it has to be managed, and what you are actually saying
is that the right of a person to own a river and to say that people
cannot use a canoe down it is something the Government ought to
interfere with. Is that actually what you are saying, that the
Government ought to look at that and take away that right of the
private owner?
(Ms Partridge) They will take away exactly the same
as they have considered with the right of access to land in private
ownership.
342. To which my party, certainly, are wholly
opposed. It is a very serious point, that you are actually saying
that you believe the right of river owners to prevent access by
canoes is wrong and that should be taken away by the Government;
is that right?
(Ms Partridge) Not to prevent it; all we are saying
is that it needs to be looked at in more detail, in a similar
way to how access by foot has been looked into, in a lot more
detail, on land.
Mr Brake
343. And you would say the same, presumably,
for other sports, rock-climbing, hang-gliding, etc., etc., etc?
(Ms Partridge) Yes.
(Mr Fulford) Yes. We live in a society that has more
and more diverse leisure activities and they need to be accommodated,
and in order to accommodate them we have got to manage them and
there are some opportunities here for rural areas.
344. And do you expect this to be addressed
in the Countryside and Access Bill?
(Ms Partridge) Not at this stage, no; it has not been
picked up to this extent, so there is little hope for it.
Mr Gray
345. Just very briefly on that access thing.
You seem to be making no differentiation at all between motorised
vehicles, in access, and walkers, and particularly horses; do
you see any distinction between the two?
(Ms Partridge) There are distinctions in terms of
the impact they have on the environment, but what we are saying
is there is a wide variety of leisure activities that do take
place in the countryside, and those activities have to be recognised,
they have to be managed.
346. Yes, but the phrase under the Bill is that
walkers, and indeed riders, we hope, should be able to walk anywhere
across certain categories of moorland, heathland, and so on and
so forth; are you proposing that motorised vehicles should be
given the same right of access?
(Mr Fulford) No.
(Ms Partridge) No.
347. It was worth clarifying that point. If
we can move on, in that case, to transport in general; how would
you propose to improve rural transport? It is a point you make
in your evidence, and so I just want to put in a clarification
as to what you are proposing?
(Mr Fulford) We have not got a magic wand on solving
the transport problems, but, clearly, there are issues which,
leisure facilities can benefit from good transport links, and
particularly the relationship of the links to market towns, and,
through the use of leisure time services and the attraction of
visitors, the transport infrastructure can be improved, in the
sense that there can be more commercial interests that can be
taken care of. There are examples of where commercially-run routes
are viable because of the input of visitors in proper strategies;
we even have, for example, heritage railways now, which are actually
no longer just a hobby at the weekend but they are performing
a useful function in terms of transporting people in some rural
areas and are something that people want to extend.
348. Surely, you get the people to the market
town, but they are still not in the countryside, are they? You
talk about cross-subsidy, for example, of rail and bus services
in the countryside, to try to get people to the thing they want
to get to; how would that work, how would you persuade private
bus operators to cross-subsidise in order to encourage tourism?
(Mr Fulford) Part of the way of doing that is through
the seasonal influences, if they can be encouraged to run off-peak
as well as peak services. But in this debate we are talking both
about the leisure facilities for the people themselves who live
in the rural area as well as the visitors.
349. Yes; how are you going to improve it, and
what are you going to do about getting your townies out into the
countryside? How are you going to do that; what are you proposing,
what are you asking us to put in the White Paper, not us, but
you know?
(Mr Fulford) We are not making any specific proposals,
really, in respect of the provision of transport, but what we
are trying to address is the fact that, through improvements in
transport, the opportunities for people who do not live in rural
areas to take advantage of the countryside's amenities can be
improved and safeguarded.
350. Let me try to help. You do raise the question
of Bath, where the National Trust does not provide any parking,
in Bath; and that, you suggest, encourages people to get to the
particular attraction, apparently, by foot or by public transport.
It may work in Bath, but what about Lacock, in my constituency,
also owned by the National Trust, how are people going to get
there, if they have not got cars?
(Mr Fulford) Absolutely. If the attraction can build
up sufficient interest from commercial operators, one then gets
the opportunity of shuttle buses, to avoid the honeypot situation
like you have got in the Lake District, with the Mountain Goat
system of minibuses. Also, one simple thing is to make sure that
people who have these attractions in the countryside not only
put on their leaflets where they are in relation to the road network
but also put on their leaflets the mechanisms of public transport
to get there. So often the first thing they think of is how to
get there by car and they do not make any suggestions about where
you can find the public transport, to their farm, or whatever.
Mr Randall
351. Do you think that people in the UK should
have a universal standard of quality of amenities available to
them, whether they are in an urban or a rural area?
(Mr Fulford) The short answer to that really has to
be no, particularly if you look at the difference between, say,
remote rural situations and other rural situations. You get examples;
if, for example, you were to look at Shetland, you can see what
can be done where there are sufficient resources available to
put them into local community facilities. When you go beyond that,
there are still plenty of networks in the country whereby relatively
sparsely populated areas can be served with facilities from their
local market town, the market towns, places like Alnwick and Keswick,
have a local theatre, have a local museum, they have a local swimming
pool, and in that way, by gearing what is sustainable to the local
market and the visitor market, amenities can be developed, not
necessarily always in the public sector, of course.
352. Do you see that more in terms of area or
of population? You have talked about the Shetlands, obviously
you are talking about a very large area, difficult access between
islands, and so on and so forth, but in other areas it is a sparse
population but access would be quite easy. In terms of population,
suburban areas sometimes are not well served by amenities, you
actually have to go some way away, it might not be as large in
terms of mileage but, in terms of the population, in terms of
constituencies you have to pass through, it is quite a lot?
(Mr Fulford) Absolutely; and, hopefully, if local
authorities adopt the DCMS proposals to introduce local cultural
strategies, cultural meaning sport, arts and other leisure activities
as well, they will be able, through these strategies and policy
frameworks, to promote opportunities in those rural areas.
353. Where you want promotion of amenities in
rural areas, is that primarily for the people who live there,
or is it for the benefit of the people coming out of the towns
to visit the countryside areas?
(Mr Fulford) There has to be a balance between three
things. The people who live there have to be served; the potential
for an economic driver for a new facility, or amenity, has to
be pursued, if the local people want that; and there also has
to be a means of managing the access from people in the town to
amenities. So there has to be a balance between those three things.
354. Is there another one as well, where the
rural people might want to go and access amenities in urban areas
and they have not got access to that through public transport?
(Mr Fulford) Quite so; and that is why a number of
the schemes that will perhaps centre on a village, or a community,
once established, can manage trips to the regional theatre, or
whatever, in order to take people in that direction, as well,
from the rural areas into the town.
355. Do you think funding should be shifted
from urban areas, for leisure facilities, towards rural areas?
(Mr Fulford) I do not know that it is a question of
a shift.
Mr Randall: You want it just put in one pot?
Chairman
356. You just want some more money, is that
it?
(Ms Partridge) Yes.
(Mr Fulford) No, I do not think it is necessarily
a question of more money, but it is a question of recognising
that in the rural communities there are problems about social
inclusion and social exclusion as well as in the cities. Now it
is not for me to judge which is the more important, but we would
certainly see your activities leading to something which ensures
that when policy is developed there is a check on what is happening
in rural areas and how rural needs are being catered for.
357. While we are on this question of more money,
you say more Lottery money should be available for rural areas?
(Ms Partridge) I think what we are saying, in our
evidence, about Lottery funding is that the specific guidance
should be given to the Lottery distributors in taking account
of the social, economic and environmental needs of rural communities.
358. But is there not a danger that you come
up with Lottery money for the capital projects and there are not
then the resources to maintain and use them?
(Ms Partridge) I think the Lottery has changed in
the last couple of years, it was very heavily capital funding
to start with, but the revenue funding streams are now coming
through; the Sports Lottery fund now has got a very in-depth programme
of active schools, active communities and active sports, and they
are very much funding development officers to go into schools,
to go into communities, to go into sports clubs, actually to develop
the sports development process. Rather than just provide the facility
and let it happen, they are now actually funding people, to take
young people and push them into the activities.
(Mr Fulford) Could I just say that, the Lottery sports
fund, there are certainly some good examples there of where they
have made provision in rural areas, and where they have scrutinised
the sustainability of that, in financial terms, thereafter, often
working in partnership with the voluntary sector. So that is a
good example. Where we were not quite so excited was the recent
consultation paper from the New Opportunities Fund, which did
not seem to make any reference whatsoever to rural policy.
359. Duplication and inappropriate Government
Departments. Your Table 1, I think it is, in your evidence, sort
of set out the problem; do you really think it is a nightmare
for people in rural areas to work their way through the Government
machine?
(Ms Partridge) Yes, I do think it is a nightmare.
I think it is not just the people that live in rural areas, it
is people like the local authority rural recreation officers that
have got to work their way through the bureaucracy, as well, that
is put up by the various different Government Departments, the
various different quangos, and the different organisations involved.
360. So would you like to see a Government Rural
Affairs Department?
(Ms Partridge) I do not think the Institute is advocating
whether there should be or there should not be; what we are asking
for is greater co-ordination and clarification of roles and responsibilities.
We do see the Countryside Agency itself as being a focus for these
organisations, specifically within leisure and recreation.
361. Who should do this co-ordination then?
(Ms Partridge) The Countryside Agency, at a quango
level; at a Government and departmental level, I think we are
just talking about joined-up Government.
362. So is that a big thumbs down for the Countryside
Agency?
(Ms Partridge) It is too early to say.
363. You have still got hope, have you, for
them? It is alright pulling a face but we cannot get a face onto
the record.
(Ms Partridge) I know. We are optimistic.
Chairman: Right; well, on that optimistic note,
can I thank you very much for your evidence.
|
