Examination of Witnesses (Questions 240-259)
MR TOM
FRANKLIN AND
MS KATE
ASHBROOK
11 JUNE 2008
Q240 Mr Gray: But how would you know
that?
Mr Franklin: Ultimately, we think
that there will be a need in some cases for Natural England to
be able to—
Q241 Mr Gray: So you are saying that
the State should have a right to overrule the private citizen?
Where the private citizen, for perfectly good reasons, does not
want it to go through, the State in this case should have the
right to overrule land ownership or property ownership in that
way?
Mr Franklin: Well, we believe
that in some cases it will be necessary to have that statutory
back-up of the coastal route.
Q242 Mr Gray: Okay, so let me take
you back then to your first answer a moment ago when you said
that you did not want this for long-distance walkers and that
was not what it was about, but what it was about was the fact
that at the moment people did not realise they could go for walks
along the coast and, by having a coast path of the kind that we
are describing here, that would help people to realise their ability
to be certain. Now, what you are now saying is that the State
will overrule private landowners and private householders and
will put this thing across their gardens against their wishes
with no appeal simply in order to help ordinary people understand
that they can go for a walk along the coast? Is that what you
are saying?
Mr Franklin: No, I did not say
that in response to the first question. What I said was that,
as well as ensuring that people knew that they had the right,
it would also mean that they did have that right to visit the
coast wherever they wanted to go and, therefore, they would be
more likely to go because they had that right, so that is why
we think it is important—
Mr Gray: But do you not think that is
a disproportionate State power? You are giving the State great
power—
Chairman: Just before we get there, might
I just suggest that you look at the back of the briefing as to
what the actual Bill contains because, otherwise, we are going
to get into a sterile area. As I understand it, the Bill defines
excepted land, from the Defra standpoint, as ruling out parks
and gardens, and Natural England have dropped something of a spanner
in the works by giving us their particular views, and I think
we have explored that very thoroughly.
Q243 Sir Peter Soulsby: I just want
to take up really the point that James is making about people
walking, as it were, from one end of a path to another. I would
just ask you about the experience of the South West Coast Path,
where, I would guess, very few people walk from one end to the
other, but nonetheless, I would guess, and perhaps you would confirm
this, quite a lot of people go for long walks along the coast,
perhaps for a whole day's walk along the coast, on parts of that
path, and is it not the case that experience there would suggest
that people have the certainty of knowing that they can walk along
the coast and they take long walks, but do not necessarily walk
the full length of it? Is that indeed the experience?
Ms Ashbrook: Certainly, or they
will do it in chunks, they will take three days at a time and
do a chunk of it, but it is that certainty which is really important
to people actually, knowing where they can go and what they can
do.
Q244 David Lepper: Have you any examples
you could give us of places near the coast or on the coast already
where there are established rights of way that go through parkland
or through people's gardens or do they not exist?
Ms Ashbrook: I cannot give you
examples offhand, but I am quite sure they do exist. There are
rights of way and the highway network existed long before a lot
of gardens, so throughout the country there are paths that go
through people's gardens certainly and through parks.
Q245 David Lepper: Are you aware,
from the Ramblers' Association point of view, of disputes that
arise because of that between the landowner, or obviously there
is an established right of way, so the legal case might be on
one side rather than the other, but is this an issue that landowners
tend to complain about where a right of way goes already through
their land?
Ms Ashbrook: I think there would
be individual cases that we would hear of, but it is not something
that we have identified as an issue that the Ramblers need to
target, rights of way through gardens. It is not something that
we have identified as a particular campaign.
Q246 David Taylor: Like my colleagues
either side of me, can I declare an interest as the first officer
of the Ramblers' Association in Leicestershire, although, when
I left on Monday, it was still an inland county and will not be
directly affected perhaps. We have looked at parks and gardens
and private beaches, but there is a category of land which probably
provides more concerns, and that is land used for livestock and
grazing. The Natural England scheme envisages that land with livestock
that is designated as coastal margin will usually be included
as spreading room on the seaward side and optionally on the landward
side, if Natural England choose to use their discretion in that
regard, but we have heard from the National Farmers' Union that
they are very worried about conflicts that might occur with biosecurity
and animal husbandry if activities, such as picnicking, for instance,
were to take place on grazing land which has been incorporated
as spreading room. Do you think there is any substance to those
worries that they have?
Ms Ashbrook: Not really, no. I
think that people generally are very careful where livestock are
concerned. I think most walkers are very anxious not to do the
wrong thing and will just be careful and respectful, and obviously
the more we can do to educate the public about how they should
behave around animals, the better. I know that local authorities,
Natural England, ourselves and certainly the National Farmers'
Union do issue advice on these things and that is important, but
we have not identified that as being something we feel should
be a major concern.
Mr Franklin: Again looking to
Scotland, the Scottish Outdoor Access Code, which was introduced
after the Land Reform Act, we would highlight as a model of encouraging
really good behaviour when it comes to exercising access rights,
and we would like to see a similar approach taken with coastal
access too.
Q247 David Taylor: So are both or
either of you saying that land designated for livestock or grazing
should be included as spreading room or that you are agnostic
about it?
Ms Ashbrook: No, I think it should
be included as spreading room, but there will be a whole system
of restrictions which Natural England can introduce and which
will be discussed at the time that they prepare the report and,
if there are particular circumstances for seasonal restrictions
or restrictions on dogs or whatever, they can be implemented at
that time, again to take account of local circumstances.
Q248 David Taylor: To pick up on
that very point you have just made there, one of the most enjoyable
couple of days that I have spent in my life was with my own then
dog, walking the Pembrokeshire Coastal Path years ago, and the
evidence that we have on this occasion is the lack of clarity
that exists in relation to dog management, of course referring
to livestock and grazing areas in particular. The reference to
close control seems a little ambiguous and I wondered, although
we, as backbenchers, are used to close control from the Whips
and being kept on short leads on days like today, but what is
your view, and is it a serious point? You made the point earlier
on that walkers are responsible and careful people, the sort of
people where, we know, members of the Ramblers' Association overwhelmingly
fit that particular description, but there are others that are
less well-controlled. How satisfied are you with the definition
of what being kept under close control is?
Mr Franklin: Again, I think it
is the same approach as Kate was saying, that it is about ensuring
that, if you treat people as adults and give them the responsibility,
then they tend to behave in that sort of way, and that has certainly
been the evidence from the access land opened up with CROW. There
have been very, very few incidents of any problems, so we think
the same will happen with coastal access, that generally people
will behave extremely responsibly, and there are very few cases
where that is not the case, whether Ramblers' Association members
or not.
Q249 David Taylor: You will remember
that the CROW Act of 2000 required dogs to be kept on short leads
between 1 March and 31 July, I think they were the dates. Have
there been problems in that regard with that particular Act, as
far as you are aware, in terms of people not complying with that
requirement?
Ms Ashbrook: We are not aware
of it. We are not aware of whether they do actually comply, but
we have not heard of any problems. One of the issues here is obviously
that on rights of way the law would continue the same, dogs under
close control, and it would be quite confusing going round the
coast where sometimes you would be on a right of way, sometimes
you would not, and the regime would change very quickly, so at
least what is proposed in this Bill would provide consistency
with rights of way legislation which we think is useful. Again,
there would be the opportunity for particular arrangements and
also by-laws as well for beaches which will continue, so the Bill
itself will be sufficiently sensitive to be able to deal with
local issues.
Q250 David Taylor: So owners of livestock
grazing near coastal margins can rest assured that the definitions
in the legislation which are envisaged about being under close
control will be adequate to protect the livestock that they have?
You are optimistic, are you, in that regard?
Ms Ashbrook: I think we feel that,
if they felt they needed something stronger than that, then that
should be written in at the time that Natural England prepares
its report, that that should be discussed at the time, and it
might be that there is a particular arrangement made in a particular
place.
Q251 David Taylor: There is an NFU
suggestion, and I wonder how you react to this, that the standard
definition of trail width in the legislation is a four-metre width,
two metres either side of the line itself, but they would like
to see that potentially restricted in the case of cropped arable
land. That seems a reasonable suggestion to me. How do you react
to that?
Ms Ashbrook: I think again we
would want to see the same width throughout, wherever possible,
and in many cases, in fact generally, I would imagine that Natural
England would not be putting the trail actually through the crop.
They have said that they would aim to put it on the edge of the
field where there is a field margin, so I think probably there
will not be that many instances of the trail actually going through
a field of crop. At the moment, I think we would say that we would
like to see the consistency of the four metres throughout.
Mr Franklin: Wherever possible,
we would also like Natural England to have opportunities to roll
back in terms of arable farming to create more opportunities for
environmental improvements, et cetera, and working with farmers
to help farmers to do that as well. I think the potential for
creating a linear nature reserve is huge from this, so again it
is about local solutions and working with local landowners and
farmers to say, "Well, what can we do here? If it's got to
go through a field, what can we do here which will help to protect
the environment and protect the interests of the farmers as well?"
Q252 David Taylor: Because there
is the inconsistency with the CROW Act again, is there not, that
land used for sowing crops and trees is in the category of excepted
land under the CROW Act, but under the Marine Bill it is one step
forward to wider access, and even regular walkers might be confused
about the difference? There will be an interface, will there not,
fairly often between the CROW Act and the coastal margin in some
parts of the country?
Ms Ashbrook: I think the agricultural
land, the land that is used for sowing crops, will just be for
the trail, not for the spreading room, so it would be different.
I think that, when this comes about, it needs to be explained
to the public that this is something new and something rather
different. It is not just CROW amended, but it is actually an
exciting new project.
Q253 David Taylor: But what the NFU
say seems perfectly reasonable, that arable farmers are effectively
being asked to surrender crop land to a width of four metres on
very extensive lengths of coast from time to time, so a substantial
loss of income, but no potential for compensation. Are you sympathetic
to that concern?
Mr Franklin: I think again what
we would prefer in situations like that is for Natural England
to use the powers it will have to work with farmers to look at
opportunities perhaps through grants to pay farmers to provide
opportunities which will help the coastal route and help the environment
of the coast as well.
Q254 Chairman: Hang on a minute,
where is this sudden outburst of largesse coming from from Natural
England because they keep telling us that their budget is under
great pressure? Just explain to me in specific terms which schemes
you think such monies might come from.
Mr Franklin: I think again it
is not the huge amounts of the coastal route that we are talking
about.
Q255 Chairman: I do not disagree,
but I am just genuinely interested from the technical standpoint
because on Monday we had a discussion about the use of higher-level
stewardship, for example, as a way of helping to pay and defray
some of the costs that were involved in this, bearing in mind
some of the original agri-environment schemes used to pay farmers
for making access through their lands to coastal areas a possibility,
so, in other words, payment for this has been around for a long
time, but I was just interested in your view as to which scheme
might be the source of the money for what you have just enunciated.
Mr Franklin: I do not know which
scheme and I think that is something which we would like Natural
England to be looking at as it is implementing this, the opportunities
not just to implement the coastal route, but also to be thinking
about the environmental enhancements at the same time.
Q256 Chairman: So, to sum up, in
principle you accept that there may be a need, under certain specified
circumstances, to compensate farmers and you hope that Natural
England might find some form of money, either from within their
own budget or another scheme, which might achieve that objective?
Mr Franklin: We do not think that
there is a need for widespread compensation as a result of these
proposals, but there may be specific circumstances where it can
be shown that there is a loss of value in specific cases of land,
for instance, where there will be the opportunity to pay compensation,
if that is the case, in those specific cases.
Ms Ashbrook: We do not see payments
through grant schemes as compensation, we see that as money spent
in an opportunistic way to provide landscape benefits along the
coast to go hand in hand with the access.
Mr Franklin: Which we think would
be a better way.
Q257 David Taylor: Do you think it
would be a good idea for there to be a legislative requirement,
whether on the face of the Bill or supplementary to it, or for
Natural England to have to strike a balance between the interests
of agriculture and landowners and the interests of walkers?
Ms Ashbrook: I think it is already
there, the fair balance.
Q258 David Taylor: Does it need to
be more specific about it, do you think?
Mr Franklin: We do not think it
needs to be more specific than what is there. We think that the
balance is right and it is setting out very clearly the need for
Natural England to weigh the different interests.
Q259 Mr Drew: You may have covered
this when I was out of the room, but I am interested because obviously
we are talking to landowners about liability. Is there a liability
in terms of somebody who goes for a walk and maybe does something
which causes damage, for example, and the usual one is letting
cows out that wander off? Also there is this issue about will
you be going as far as to be issuing information to your members
on what are preferred walks partly because there may be a difficult
walk because it is going through a lot of wildlife and wildlife
reserves or indeed in terms of going through an area where there
is a lot of livestock? Is that something you already do in terms
of CROW?
Ms Ashbrook: Yes, or we encourage
others. For example, under CROW, somebody called Andrew Bibby
wrote a whole series of little books about where you can go on
CROW land and we have promoted those, so we either do it ourselves
or promote other people, but, increasingly, the Ramblers is putting
out information through all sorts of means because we are trying
to reach everybody, not just our members, and we want to be the
organisation doing that.
Mr Franklin: One of the schemes
that we have just started is called `Get Walking Keep Walking'
which is encouraging people who have not walked before to take
it up, a bit like Weightwatchers, where people are encouraged
to come along and try it out and to keep going, and we think that
schemes like this will really help that sort of work because it
is obviously such a priority in terms of the health agenda at
the moment.
Ms Ashbrook: To answer your question
about liability, there is already access where there is livestock
and unfortunately incidents do occur, whether it is because of
the public or not, and already the landowner obviously can take
action against somebody, if they know who it is, but we do not
see any need for anything additional here; there is already what
there is in CROW and rights of way legislation and animal legislation,
so we do not see any need for anything else.
| 
