Examination of Witnesses(Questions 80-96)
MONDAY 3 FEBRUARY 2003
MR MARK
HUDSON, MRS
CAROLINE BEDELL
AND DR
KAREN JONES
80. Are they imminent?
(Dr Jones) I do not know where they are in the process.
(Mr Hudson) We do not think they are imminent but
they certainly need to be brought forward, along with a number
of other things.
(Dr Jones) I was going to say, that it is not the
end of the story dealing with the preventive measures you have
from day one of fencing and capping mines to try and get rid of
that but you still have a practical problem both under the Occupiers
Liability Act and morally that access land with these mines is
going to be very dangerous. Our members are phoning me up and
are very worried, they say they do not walk on certain land and
they do not go off the path because they are worried about these
mines, because nobody really knows where they are. Our point is,
look, please, can priority be given by the Agency to applications
that ask for closures for this type of land on the basis it is
dangerous, because it can be in nobody's interest for this to
be open. Where that is established we would ask that closure is
given priority there.
Patrick Hall
81. The point I wanted to clarify was not just
obvious dangers of disused mine shafts, etc but what about people
tripping over bushes, trees and mucking about and falling over,
are there liability issues there for the landowner that concern
you?
(Dr Jones) What has happened is that during the lobbying
process we made the point about difficulties with occupiers liability,
particularly where you are talking not about a path but people
being anywhere, it was almost an impossible burden to leave the
occupier with all liability for people. The Government then brought
in a kind of modified liability system where the landowners are
not liable for accidents caused by natural features and in deciding
liability for other than natural features factors are looked at
such as the cost of trying to deal with the problem and the character
of the countryside, etc. The liability regime has been ameliorated
quite a lot but it has not been touched as regards activities
on the land so, for example, the keeping of animals, which is
one of the things we raised, is a particular worry because under
the Animals Act if somebody gets hurt by an animal that you know
is dangerous you bear strict liability, it may not be your fault
but you have to pay. This cannot be the correct regime to have
on access land where you cannot control the access. We would therefore
ask that when people ask the Agency for a closure because they
have a cow with calves or a particularly nasty stallion and they
say, "Please will you allow us to close off this land",
that the Agency should not say, "How about an informal management
technique?", because it will not do. They need to say, this
is closed, otherwise the landowner has strict liability, but if
it is closed and the person is a trespasser they do not have strict
liability, they are only liable if they have been negligent. It
is technical points like which the Agency have to be fully briefed
on, specific points. Animals, mines and quarries are ones that
are shining out as being problematic where we need closures. On
mines and quarries you may need closures in areas that are intrinsically
dangerous in themselves and with animals you need closures in
much smaller areas where people have got dangerous stock.
82. Closures meaning that they never open up
in the first place?
(Dr Jones) No, as they graze from area to area the
owner gets in contact.
Patrick Hall: With regard to mine shafts you
know where they are. If we do know where mine shafts are, if we
do know where they are in advance, presumably the landowner might
know, are you saying the land should never be available for access
or that nothing should happen until the potential danger is sealed?
Chairman: You have five minutes to think about
the answer to that. We have to go and earn our money, this is
how we get paid. We have to vote. Some of us will come back but
then we only have a very short period up to 6 o'clock. We will
back as quick as we can.
The Committee suspended from 5.35 pm to 5.43
pm for a division in the House
Chairman
83. You were mulling over Mr Hall's question,
what is the answer?
(Dr Jones) I have mulled over it so much I have forgotten
what he asked.
(Mr Hudson) If I can remind my colleague, Patrick
Hall was slightly confused as to whether closure meant closure
all of the time or only part of the time?
(Dr Jones) I think basically we are talking about
if the land is intrinsically dangerous, such as where it has mines
on it and you do not know where they are we say there should be
permanent closure effectively because it is intrinsically dangerous
land. With animals we are not asking for that at all. What we
are saying is that when the Agency are deciding on an application
for a closure or a restriction, particularly when dangerous animals
are involved, they should be fully aware of the liability issue
for the occupier and an informal technique will not work, the
only way legally to protect that person from strict liability
is for there to be a closure.
84. I think the key topics that we need to come
back to are, yes, there have been delays with the mapping process
and there have been difficulties, you have heard what other people
have said about this, would you give your perception about what
has happened?
(Mr Hudson) Thank you, Chairman. I did hear the Minister
saying he felt the mapping was getting better, I think it would
not be fair of me to say that is not correct, there have certainly
been some improvements, but we are still finding that there are
mapping problems. I would like to ask my colleague Caroline Bedell
to go into that a bit more.
(Mrs Bedell) There are two areas here, one is the
old and out-of-date data sets that they are using, and we have
heard about those from everybody, this is tending to map in the
inby-pasture land, the land between the main valley floor going
up to the mountain and moorland line and this causes everyone
concern, especially in the livestock areas. We just talked about
liability and that is what we are really being hit by, the liability
issue, but it also causes them upset that they are having to deal
with the wrong areas being mapped, it is causing confusion from
the outset. One other concern is once they have put an application
in and they say they are not happy with your draft map they are
not getting a site visit so some people are forced to go to an
appeal where it is definitely improved pasture. I can send you
an example of one of our members who has been through this whole
process. They are forced to go to appeal and the Countryside Agency
do not tell them why they still continue to include that piece
of land.
85. There is no explanation.
(Mrs Bedell) It comes at the appeals process, but
in a way you would reduce the number of appeals if people could
understand why the Countryside Agency has reached a decision before
they appeal.
86. Perhaps I got this wrong, I understood Pam
Warhurst to say there was going to be a visit wherever there is
an appeal, that is clearly not the case.
(Mrs Bedell) That is not happening at the moment.
My understanding of what she was saying is where they think it
is value-for-money there would be a visit but that still puts
our member to cost if they have to go to appeal.
(Mr Hudson) Can I clarify that, the appeal procedure
is only just beginning in the first areas, it is a bit early for
us to know whether there are going to be visits on every appeal
or not, but we have our doubts. The ability of the Countryside
Agency to visit enough sites in the past from a draft map point
of view, and even before the draft maps were produced, does give
us some concern. Again, we understand that it is a huge undertaking
and no one is pretending it is not.
87. You are telling us that the data that was
worked on to begin with was quite inadequate?
(Mr Hudson) Especially in the lower north west, which
was acknowledged.
Chairman: That is fine. I know that David Drew
wanted to ask about regional road maps.
Mr Drew
88. Clearly your members are going to balance
loss of privacy on the one hand against potential earning capacity,
if they offer bed and breakfast, and other things that they might
be able to sell people. Take me through those arguments, the two
extremes? I will come in and ask you another question on the back
of that?
(Mr Hudson) Clearly people who own private property
do own it for many reasons, and one is for an element of privacy,
so you are quite right in stating that is one consideration. Landowners
for generations, hundreds of years have lived with the rights
of way network which has worked very well and it has been, on
the whole, well looked after—there are examples where that
has not happened so well—and it has worked for the public.
The privacy argument only goes as far as privacy from near where
there they live more than anything else. In terms of the potential
benefit to owners and occupiers and other rural business people
from increased access, ie tourism in particular, you mentioned
bed and breakfast, and there are all sorts of other areas, yes,
that could be a very major spin off and that is why I think we
must all work very hard to make sure access is going to work successfully,
I would like to emphasise that, we want it to work as much as
anybody else. If we can have the spin-offs of benefits to the
rural economy, to our members, and people that are not our members
for that matter, then that is a plus point.
89. My second question is a very difficult one,
I will have a go anyway, I accept there are going to be more tensions
within regions rather than between regions, in terms of a continual
of this region and will get it sorted fairly quickly as against,
Oh Lord, in the end they will still be at this in the next millennium,
give us some feel for how you are approaching this and how you
are trying to pull the different sides together? Is it possible
to talk about that or is it really every region will have its
own ways of sorting it and it is very difficult?
(Mr Hudson) There are two points there. The first
point on the actual roll-out, which the Chairman mentioned, the
early roll-out the Minister decided that he was going to do, we
have been against that really and purely on the subject of costing.
Although you did question him on that and he gave you an answer
it seems to us bringing forward the regulations on closure and
restrictions earlier than was anticipated is a cost and getting
all of the infrastructure in earlier—which will have to
be in even if only one region opens out—is a cost. If that
is the case so be it. If at the end of the day in about three
or four years' time we hear that there is not enough money for
managing access because of the additional cost of rolling it out
early I think there will be a lot of unhappy members in our Association
and I suspect unhappy people in the countryside where the way
marking is not sufficient and the closures are not being clearly
identified. That is our view on the roll-out. We think there is
going to be additional cost and it may impinge on all of us at
a later date. Having said that, there are arguments for rolling-out
early, and the Minister said this himself or maybe Pam Warhurst
did, they can learn from rolling it out from one region and benefit
in later regions, but that is not your question, your question
is, do we have a feeling whether it is going to be worse in certain
areas than in others? All I can say is it is going to be obviously
more difficult in those areas that will have more access land,
and that is areas like the lower north west, where we heard there
are something like 8,000 representations, compared to the south
east, where there were only 2,000 or 2,500. In areas where there
is going to be a lot of open access those are the areas where
if the management is not in place there could be problems, but
we must all work very hard to avoid this.
Chairman
90. Let us move on, you said that it is good
in economic terms to do this, it is good in legislative terms,
there is a set of issues about infrastructure and implementation
and resources and you heard the Ramblers' Association say, we
would like the Countryside Agency to have a bag of money and people
could bid for it. What is your perception? Good land management
is something your members are experts on, getting access to the
access fund is a key issue for you, how are we going to take this
forward?
(Mr Hudson) We have some ideas, and I will ask Caroline
to touch on those in a minute. Can I make a point on resource
in general, the bag of money, which I think was your phrase rather
than the chief executive of the Ramblers' Association, but I am
sure that is what he was after. I have spoken to him about this
and there is no question that the Ramblers and ourselves being
two of the key organisations involved have common cause here.
We all want to make sure that there are the right resources in
the right place and in the right hands so that access can be rolled
out in such a way that the public are clear as to where they can
go and where they cannot go and when they cannot go there why
they cannot go there. While we need a national database, which
was mentioned earlier, not everyone is rushing on to websites
yet, they may be in fifteen years' time, but getting on to on
websites is not great fun and takes up time. A lot of people may
decide to get up from their chair and go for a walk and go up
to that area. If they get there they want to know whether it is
closed or open and if it is closed they want to know why it is
closed and the signs, et cetera, et cetera and the information
needs to be there. That is a huge task, I have not worked out
how many access points there might be in England and Wales, or
in England as this is what you are looking at, but there would
be thousands and thousands of access points. As far as the money
is concerned I will ask Caroline to comment on to that, listening
to the Minister and the Chairman of the Countryside Access Forum
it seems to me there is a lot of pass the parcel going on with
this money, it was not clear to me, the Minister said there is
£12 to £19 million in grant aid but we all know that
is not ring-fenced, and he admitted that himself. He can exhort
local authorities, as he has tried to do. Similarly using existing
monies that Pam Warhurst is talking about, there may be money
but if they are used they are already earmarked for something
else, so if they are pulled away and brought on to access somebody
else is going to shout about it. Resources are a problem, I accept
that, but we have a particular idea to put to you, and I would
like to ask Caroline to do that.
(Mrs Bedell) The local authorities have
statutory duties they have to enforce and therefore they need
to be funded, so you want that to be adequately resourced. There
is very much emphasis going on on voluntary management, this is
going to be up to the landowner per se not up to the local
authorities and they need a grant scheme of some form in place,
and that is for visitor attractions such as a small car park,
they are going to need to put signs up, they are also going to
need to put signs up for closures and restrictions. They will
need signs to signpost people round the routes they would prefer
them to take, even though they cannot guarantee them to take.
We would be asking for the Countryside Agency to administer a
grant scheme that stands alone for that kind of access management,
it might need the approval of the local access forum or the local
rights of way authority and they need to be able to clear and
understand how you get to those funds because, I must admit, have
listened to the discussion I am confused as to how this is going
to be funded as a scheme anyway. It needs to be clear and definite
for them to go for.
91. Do you have any idea what scale of this
fund would be?
(Mrs Bedell) I think it is very difficult
because in some areas you are going to want large car parks because
you are going to get a lot of people to a honey pot where everyone
wants to get to and in other areas you might want to put a layby
at the top of a track so that people can get out, park their cars
and walk. It is difficult to establish how much they are going
to need.
Mr Wiggin
92. To what extent is that the responsibility
of the landowner to put in a car park?
(Mrs Bedell) I think they are going to have to, when
you are driving up a south Shropshire lane up to the top and there
is no where to park, these people can drive up to the top, park
blocking the gateway and how do you get your tractors through
on to the land? I think they are going to want to put these in
to manage it.
93. Is there not a significant difference putting
in a car park and putting up a "beware of the bull"
sign?
(Mrs Bedell) I think there is. This is where your
grant scheme is going to have to be wide enough to take that into
account, it is not just the liability, it is a question of how
you manage the whole countryside, and when you are on narrow lanes
it is very difficult.
94. There is a real danger that the car park
thing could be funded but actually where I leave my car is my
responsibility, it is not the landowner's responsibility, whereas
if you have a dangerous animal, and we touched on these rather
ad hoc arrangements for advertising it, that is going to
be really down to the landowner and should be because nobody else
is going to know whether the bull is dangerous or not. The point
is that it is going to be very difficult to pop down to the council
and get £50 for three or four signs.
(Mrs Bedell) If I can pick up on signs, we think the
Countryside Agency must produce a statutory type of sign that
is clear to be understood because we are concerned that a painted
daub that says "this is closed for 24 hours" is going
to have no relevance to most people. We think they should be provided
free of charge by the Countryside Agency when a restriction or
closure is granted. When it comes down to car parks and restrictions
the reason I am concerned about that is having managed estates
quite often people do park their car wherever they want to and
they block your road and your access, so you might want to get
on and manage your land and reduce the impact of this legislation
to be able to put in facilities for visitors.
Chairman
95. This leads to a set of wider issues the
CLA talked about, which is rural tourism and how you link the
car park with attractions and how you develop an infrastructure
that works together. Your grant scheme would be for landowners
themselves?
(Mrs Bedell) Landowners or occupiers, it does not
have to be for landowners per se.
Mr Wiggin
96. If you are the tenant farmer or if you put
the car park in who gets the money?
(Mrs Bedell) If are you tenant farmer and you have
agreed it for diversification it would be the tenant who gets
it. I do not think the landowner will ask for that, to be honest,
having managed estates.
Chairman: It has been a bit disruptive, but
we have run out of time. I am grateful for your help and for those
final ideas. If there are things we have not asked you about and
you wanted to say just drop us a note very quickly, if you would,
because we have to move on quickly and make sense of all that
we have heard today because we are in a position to help make
and shape policy and we hope to produce a short report within
a matter of a few weeks. Thank you all very much for coming.
|
