Examination of Witnesses (Questions 365-379)
JONATHAN SHAW
MP, MS HELOISE
TIERNEY AND
MS ANN
BENNETT
18 JUNE 2008
Q365 Chairman: Good afternoon, ladies
and gentlemen. Welcome to our evidence session with the Minister
as part of the Committee's inquiry into the coastal access provisions
section of the draft Marine Bill. Can I welcome Jonathan Shaw
to the Committee. He is supported by Heloise Tierney, the Head
of the Coastal Access team, and Ann Bennett, a Defra lawyer. It
is very wise, Minister, to bring a lawyer with you; it is always
as well to have good legal advice under whatever terms you are
appearing before us! We are grateful to you for coming to join
us. I know you have to make an exit in a couple of hours so we
will try and get through this in a timely fashion. I am interested,
Minister, in what made the Government decided that, against the
background that 70 per cent of the coast is already accessible
by a myriad of schemes, one morning you woke up and thought, "Let's
open up the other 30 per cent to the public." What made you
do it? What was the justification for this move?
Jonathan Shaw: It was the electorate's
endorsement of our manifesto, Chairman. It was contained within
it and obviously, through our National Policy Forum, we had identified
that we had done some good work on access, not least with the
CROW legislation, and building on a history of access for our
party. It was in the manifesto and we want to implement that.
We believe that visiting the coast is good for people's wellbeing
but there are good economic reasons as well, and we have seen
some examples of that, the South West coastal footpath, for example,
which is hugely popular and brings in many millions of pounds
to the local economy. We know that there are a number of gaps,
however, so, unlike CROW, which created a whole series of new
areas of access, we want to join it up, and we believe from research
that the Department has subsequently done, and opinion polling,
that it would see more people attending the coast, enjoying the
footpath but also within this legislation, as you will be aware,
we want to go beyond that and have spreading room as well. So
more people visiting the coast, enjoying the natural environment
there, but also putting some money into the local economy.
Q366 Chairman: Could you, to save
me probing at this stage, send us details of the polling which
underpinned the position that you have just outlined? Would that
be possible for you to do?
Jonathan Shaw: Yes, of course
I will be able to do that, Chairman. That was obviously one of
the polls. There is a whole series of evidence, not least of course
the consultation paper that we published and received some very
positive responses from.
Q367 Chairman: You mentioned the
South West Coast Path and I do note the caveat that there are
gaps and you want to find a way of filling them but when we heard
from Devon County Council last week, they recognised that that
quite notable achievement had been undertaken on a voluntary basis.
Bearing in mind over the last ten to 15 years there have been
various variations on agri-environment schemes which have attempted
to reward landowners for providing access, one might ask the question,
whilst the policy objective is completely understandable, you
have taken a view to invoke the law to achieve the objective.
Did you review the possibility of doing it by voluntary means
before you came to the conclusion that you must legislate in total?
Jonathan Shaw: To answer your
last point first, Chairman, yes, we did. That was part of the
consultation process. There were a number of options that we asked
respondents to comment on and overwhelmingly people believed that
legislation was the most appropriate way. You mentioned the South
West coastal footpath and obviously, that is the best example,
is it not? We will be referring to the South West coastal footpath
today, and I know that you have done in other evidence sessions,
and it has been and is a great success. It took 40 years of voluntary
schemes agreements. If we went along the lines of voluntary agreements,
clearly, there would be some landowners who would never want to
participate, so we believe that legislation is the right way,
not least because of the additional objectives to provide spreading
room and also to take account of coastal erosion. You will be
aware within this scheme that has been drafted by Natural England
that it shows some examples of how the footpath would be moved
back in the event of coastal erosion where there are public rights
of way. There is not that provision.
Q368 Chairman: We are going to talk
about the line of route and some of the issues that arise out
of that in more detailed questioning but the result of the approach
that you have taken is that nearly all of this coastal path is
going to have spreading room along its entire length. Did you
think that was a necessary ingredient for the success of this
project as opposed to perhaps saying there should be a narrower,
more clearly defined path or track but not to have spreading room?
Jonathan Shaw: We want to provide
a wider opportunity for people to enjoy the coast by foot. That
is not just for people walking; it is for other people as well
to enjoy the beach, climbing, et cetera. It is not just about
people walking; it is about people on foot and there might be
other opportunities, for horse riders, et cetera. We might come
to that a bit later on. In terms of the spreading room, we hope
to see as much as possible but obviously that is work to be undertaken
by Natural England, so I cannot give you a percentage.
Q369 Chairman: I am looking at this
stage at the principle involved and I think you have answered
that. Just to use the word "spread" as a sort of springboard,
I have started to receive letters from people who ask whether
the scope of the Bill can be spread to take into account access
to certain types of waters for unpowered use. I am sure you must
have seen these things as well. Is that something that has crossed
Defra's radar and, if so, what is the Department's reaction to
it?
Jonathan Shaw: Chairman, you might
have written to me on behalf of your constituents, as have Honourable
Members sitting here, because I have signed rather a lot of letters.
We want to have a voluntary arrangement for access for non-powered
craft, canoes, and the Environment Agency are attempting to increase
the amount of access available, and have, and I think they have
more schemes available. There is a comparison sometimes made with
Scotland, where there is this legislation, but clearly, our rivers
and estuaries are far more built up than those in Scotland.
Q370 Chairman: So a voluntary approach
and it is not to be included in this Bill?
Jonathan Shaw: Correct. It is
300 clauses to date.
Q371 Chairman: That is quite modest
by Finance Bill standards! This year's Finance Bill is quite a
modest number by normal standards of 450-500 clauses. You have
mentioned the work you have done in terms of opinion survey. Did
you do any work to establish what kind of extra use might be made
of the coastal pathway under the terms that would result from
this Bill? In other words, if you took as a point of comparator
the change in use of the areas that were affected by the original
CROW Act, do you think there will be a greater uptake of the facility
in terms of coastal path walking compared with the uptake of the
land that was opened up under CROW?
Jonathan Shaw: I know last year,
and I think it has been in evidence, there has not been an increase
in the number of people using the CROW land. What I would say
in response to that is that you need to measure it over a number
of years. Yes, we have done some analysis and in the way that
you have asked for the polling, we can provide that detail for
you as well. There is an equation, which I will not attempt to
articulate, but we have done that, in terms of the number of people
surveyed, if there were more access, there would be more visits.
Q372 Chairman: Again, we are going
to talk in some detail about the more contentious aspects of imposed
access in the light of what Natural England told us with reference
to their view about things like parks and gardens compared with
what the Bill actually says what Defra's position is but, as a
point of principle, are you entirely happy that the imposition,
if you like, of a legal right of access really is the right way
to go? I know you have said that the coastal path for Devon had
taken 40 years to negotiate but, like all things, if people think
there is some legislation, sometimes the voluntary approach speeds
up. If one takes, for example, the pesticides initiative, that
has had some quite dramatic effects because people know that if
the industry does not get it right, the law could be imposed on
them. Did you consider at all a voluntarist approach backed up
by, if you like, a threat that if people did not get on with it
and open up wherever possible, the law would come in?
Jonathan Shaw: There are a number
of examples where we use voluntary with the threat: plastic bags,
single-use bags, is one that the Government have recently announced.
We set out a range of possibilities within the consultation paper
and overwhelmingly the responses were that we should legislate,
and I support that for the two additional reasons, as I said,
that we want people to have spreading access and we want also
to take account of coastal erosion. It is going to be quite a
while before this project is completed anyway, Chairman—ten
or 11 years; we do not have an absolute deadline that we are giving
to Natural England to complete this work. So I think that a decade
is quite a long time. There were siren voices about CROW. The
Labour Party had waited decades for the Countryside and Rights
of Way Act. There were siren voices in opposition to that. I do
not hear siren voices now and I think the important part of the
Bill will be the duty to get the balance right between the public
and the landowner. That is the guiding principle. There will be
flexibility and a common-sense approach. I feel that the approach
we are taking is proportionate.
Q373 David Lepper: Just on the voluntary
approach, before we get into more detail, was the feeling at Defra
that all has been achieved by the voluntary approach that could
be achieved, or was it a feeling that there is more that could
be achieved by a voluntary approach but it would take a long time
to do it and we would rather get something in place over a more
reasonable timescale?
Jonathan Shaw: Yes, the cost benefit
analysis showed that the voluntary approach would provide the
lowest yield in terms of people willing to give consent to their
land being part of the coastal access. As I say, we have consulted
extensively, and overwhelmingly the respondents were in favour
of the legislation but, as I say, it is not legislation with the
attitude that we are going to drive in an arrogant way. It is
legislation where we seek solutions and seek to resolve practical
problems where landowners present them as part of the discussion
before the route is drawn up.
Q374 Mr Drew: The problem is, Minister,
that your own specialist advisers, Asken Ltd, who did the analysis
of the different options, only scored the one that the Government
came up with as the third in the list of the four priorities,
and a higher scoring was using the highways to create rights of
way and, of course, as the Chairman has rightly said, using the
CROW Act. Why did you ignore the other two and come down in favour
of a new specialist coastal access route?
Jonathan Shaw: What that analysis
did not take account of was the spreading room and also the erosion
aspects.
Q375 Mr Drew: Why did you not put
that into the analysis in the first place?
Jonathan Shaw: I do not know.
Perhaps my officials can advise me.
Ms Tierney: The other option is
if you are using a right of way option you will not get the spreading
room and you will not get the erosion-proofing, for instance.
The other options were looked at as to what they would deliver.
You could not make a right of way option deliver those other things
in addition to a right of way.
Q376 Mr Drew: But the spreading room
is, to me, a practical consideration to allow greater manoeuvrability,
to avoid one track completely degrading the surface and so on.
Clearly, in a sense, what you had was four principles but you
chose the third most popular, notwithstanding what I accept you
say, that you did not have the full package presented.
Jonathan Shaw: That is right.
Q377 Mr Drew: Once you had plumped
for your preferred option, did you look again at the cost benefit
analysis?
Jonathan Shaw: Yes, we have looked
at the cost benefit analysis and the polling, as I referred to
the Chairman, and we do have the figures of the cost benefit analysis
as to why we arrived at that, and we could certainly share that
with you.
Q378 Mr Drew: If we can look at the
costs, going on to look at one aspect of this, it is fair to say
that Natural England are not overjoyed with the figure of £50
million, which is not an awful lot to try and deliver what is
a major new route of potential tourist empowerment. How much discussion
have you had with Natural England about what they can do for that
money and what they cannot do?
Jonathan Shaw: They have not said
to me that they have a concern about the amount of money. They
have said that they are satisfied with the amount of money that
has been arrived at.
Q379 Mr Drew: You told them that.
Jonathan Shaw: No, Chairman. We
have worked with them jointly. One of the criticisms of CROW was
the costs, which were estimated in the upper twenties, and it
went over £60 million. Obviously, that was subject to the
Public Accounts Committee's scrutiny and criticism, so we are
mindful of that when embarking upon this new piece of legislation.
With that in mind, that has certainly been uppermost when looking
at the job of work that has to be done and getting the figure
right.
|
