Examination of Witnesses(Question 32-39)
MONDAY 3 FEBRUARY 2003
RT HON
ALUN MICHAEL
MP, MS SUSAN
CARTER, MS
PAM WARHURST
AND MR
ROGER WARD
Chairman
32. Thank you for joining us. I know you are
busy at the moment, as always, but we are very pleased that you
have been able to give us 40 minutes of your time. It is interesting
that you are sandwiched between the Ramblers' Association and
the Country Land and Business Association. That is a reflection
of the pressures upon you.
(Alun Michael) Pam Warhurst is also Chair
of the National Access Forum.
33. The reason we have asked you to come today
is that the Select Committee has been quite good at exploring
legislation and its ideas but we have not been very good at looking
at legislation post its passage and asking how we are getting
on. How are we getting on?
(Alun Michael) I think the legislation is quite challenging.
That has come out from some of the discussion you have already
had, because that was legislation that sought to be fair and,
during its passage through the two Houses, indeed there were amendments
made in order to balance concerns on both sides. Given that historically
there has been a degree of conflict between land owners and those
who want access, it is never going to be absolutely straightforward.
I think there are two points to be made. One is that, given it
seeks that balance, it is complex legislation and obviously ideally
legislation should be very simple so that everyone really knows
exactly what it is doing, and balance and fairness are difficult
to legislate for and quite difficult to implement. However, I
do think there is a much better understanding on both sides of
the interests of the other than probably was the case a few years
ago, not only from the comments of the Duke of Devonshire but
in a variety of other ways. During foot-and-mouth disease, for
instance, the impact on the rural economy of the closure of the
rights of way brought home to many people just how problematic
it was if people could not gain access to the countryside and
how devastating it was to the economy. When we set about the programme
"Your countryside, you're welcome" and of reopening
the countryside and attracting people back to the countryside,
the degree of co-operation between the Ramblers' Association,
the Country Land and Business Association, the NFU and a whole
plethora of organisations that have interests in the countryside
was quite encouraging. Obviously, on both sides people will have
their primary concerns but the very fact of having an acknowledgement
that both sides have concerns that need to be dealt with I think
is encouraging. We are on course to meet the public service agreement
target, which, as you know, is absolutely crucial for the peace
of mind of permanent secretaries and Whitehall generally in completing
all the work by the end of 2005 and of opening access earlier
wherever it is possible, which I think is the sensible way of
dealing with it. Yes, I think we are on course. I think it would
be only sensible to acknowledge that there have been problems
in the early maps. In a sense, that is one of the reasons for
having a programme and to learn from the earliest ones, to have
some leeway within the programme for the earliest ones. The reports
I am getting from a variety of sources, including, for instance,
talking to walkers and an NFU representative in the Lake District
a fortnight ago, are that the problems that occurred in the early
stages are not being replicated as, for instance, we move on in
the Upper North-West and so on.
34. Do you want to comment on the delays that
have occurred and the corrective action that you have been able
to take?
(Ms Warhurst) As the Minister has said, this is a
complex piece of legislation that we at the Agency had to make
as effective as possible on the ground. Initially, we chose the
two regions because they were challenging. We did not choose the
easiest regions in the country to map initially. We knew this
was an exercise on a scale that had never been attempted before
and therefore it would have been arrogant beyond comprehension
for us to have launched into something without having the checks
in there to understand when we needed to do things differently
in the future. It would be true to say that the vast majority
of the work that has gone on in the first two regions was absolutely
spot on. It would also be true to say that some real lessons have
been learnt about how to do things differently in the future.
That has an impact on how we are doing things in Areas 3 and 4
and beyond. It has been identified in some of the consultations
that are going on in those areas in the draft maps, and people
are a lot happier because of the experience we are able to bring
to bear in those regions.
MR
BORROW
35. On the consultation exercise, at the time
of the poll tax, I was involved in local government finance and
I remember being involved in discussions on the estimate of the
number of appeals against the poll tax that were going to be lodged
at the time. Obviously, in asking your department and the Countryside
Agency to make a judgment on the number of consultations on the
back of an exercise was not necessarily very easy. I read an article
in the TGWU newsletter estimating that there were 8,000 representations
as part of the consultation process. I wondered what the estimate
was at the outset of the number of representations that was likely
to be made.
(Alun Michael) I think the number was over 2,500 comments
on the draft map for the South-East and over 6,000 on the draft
map for the Lower North-West. The numbers for the Lower North-West
are perhaps not surprising, given, as Pam Warhurst said, the first
area was one where traditionally there have been conflicts. It
includes the Kinder Scout area, which is the sort of area where
there is a long history on both sides. It does demonstrate a lot
of conflict. What has happened is that, in moving on to the second
stage, as those lessons have been learnt, there were some areas
of interpretation on the steps, which Pam might like to say a
little bit about, and that, if you like, has clarified things
as far as later stages are concerned. To an extent with things
like this, people make the best estimate they can of how many
representations there will be but it is pretty difficult to make
a realistic estimate.
(Ms Warhurst) In those early days, and
Roger Ward might be able to give a more detailed answer, we were
not in a position to estimate. What we are in a position to do
now is based on those two areas of which we have some experience.
We have a methodology now whereby we might be able to anticipate
what to expect. It is a spectrum; it is a high and a low and somewhere
in between those two are the numbers that one could estimate in
terms of comments coming back from the general public. In the
early days it was little more than an educated guess.
36. What is the situation in terms of the resources
required to cope with that?
(Ms Warhurst) It would be true to say that we underestimated
in the early days and now we have, in the light of the experience
in the two areas, redressed that imbalance, as it were. We now
understand more fully than we did in the early days the extent
of the operation. We always knew it was going to be huge. On the
best evidence that we have from the experts and consultations
and discussions through the National Access Forum and so on that
we undertook, we took a view on the scale of the operation. We
now have a view that that is a larger operation than we had thought
initially.
(Alun Michael) It is also fair to say that since I
took over the responsibility when Defra was formed, I have had
regular meetings with the Agency and also with other interested
parties, including the Ramblers' Association, the NFU and CLA.
The Agency has been quite open where there have been problems
and open to discussions with us and with the interested parties.
I think that is the right way to approach it and that has helped
to build up confidence.
37. In terms of consultation on the draft maps,
obviously some of the consultations to the representations will
be on the basis of wanting things included in the access area,
some of the representations will be the other way and some will
be about changes to various boundaries. Does the Department have
the statistics of those categories in each of the areas where
the work is being done?
(Alun Michael) The figures we have are these: in Area
1, 2,500 comments were received on 2,315 parcels of land; 262
parcels were added and 381 were removed. There is a rather different
statistic on Area 2: there were 6,000 comments relating to 13,519
parcels of land; 553 parcels were added, 5,822 parcels were removed.
The reason for that was the identification of a problem in interpreting
data sets. Perhaps it might be helpful if Pam and Roger were to
comment on this. I always find, in talking about data sets, theory
and looking at the map and asking what has been taken off and
what has been put on is not terribly illuminating as to what is
really happening there. I am afraid that some photographs which
would have illustrated this were winging their way to us in the
course of this afternoon after I had asked some questions but
they were edited out by the security system on our internet access.
We may supplement this later. I think it would be useful to go
on from the purely factual and analytic to actually look at what
the differences are.
(Ms Warhurst) Predominantly the big
shift in Area 2 was what has been called the Macclesfield factor.
It was about the incorrect information that was taken from a habitat
Phase 1 data set. That was about a legend being incorrectly interpreted.
It was a very specific problem to that area, which was identified
and resolved, and that is why you have such a big change. Those
areas have now been taken out. That is very particular to Area
2 and the lesson that we learnt. (Mr Ward) All I want
to add is that, as well as learning lessons for that data set,
we have also learnt in parallel some lessons about checking more
thoroughly any given data set with the other data sets and aerial
photography, so that we build up a composite picture for the area.
38. On that point, is that subject to public
consultation? Is this taking areas out of the draft map before
they reach the provisional map and therefore under the procedures
for looking at draft maps surely there has to be some public consultation?
I understand that land has been removed without the opportunity
for public consultation, is that correct?
(Ms Warhurst) I do not believe so. The process is
fairly straightforward, the draft maps are produced, there is
a consultation period of 3 months, when all parties have a chance
to make comments, those comments are then looked at in detail
and a decision is taken by the Agency as to the appropriate action
in respect of those. A provisional map is then produced, which
is then consulted on for a further three months. The people who
have the right to interject at that point are those who have a
legal interest in the land, after that it moves on to the appeals
process,whereby they have the right to appeal against the provisional
map. Whether land is included or excluded is not always on the
basis of consultation. If people have made a comment we contact
them with the decision in respect of that particular piece of
land. It is as transparent and open a process as can be.
(Alun Michael) The hope is that before you get to
the appeal stage the interpretation of data sets and that sort
of thing, which otherwise would lead to a large number of data
appeals, have been dealt with in a common sense way so you get
down to the issues that are to be dealt with during the appeal
stage.
Patrick Hall: We have had evidence from the
Ramblers' Association and the Landowners' Association that there
has been some retrospective change in the discretion available
to the Countryside Agency in terms of what is allowed in and what
is not, and that some of that has been exercised after the event
without the opportunity for consultation, is that correct?
Chairman
39. I think this is the five hectares point.
(Ms Warhurst) It is the five hectares point and this
is an administrative tweak, as it were, not a change in decision.
|
