Land Use in England Committee Report
Lord Rosser Excerpts(9 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, my comments will be largely addressed to the issue of access to land—land being a commodity which is in short supply because, as someone once said, they are not making it any more.
In its well-argued report, the committee draws attention to the reality that access to green and open spaces is important for health and well-being, as well as providing an important economic function through tourism. However, it also says that while the Government have made commitments to access in their 25-year environment plan and as part of environmental land management schemes, these do not have the same status as other land commitments.
As far as I can see, the Government did not directly refute this statement in their response document. They did, however, refer to the opening of the England coast path. A commitment was made by the Government in 2014 that the path would be completed and opened in 2020. In a Written Answer in 2019, the Government said that
“the path in its entirety is unlikely to be open in 2020”.
I have a feeling that that may be the understatement of the decade and rather supports the committee’s point that access does not have the same status as other land commitments. Will the Government say in their response when all 66 stretches of the England coastal path will be open, and then say: how many miles of the England coastal path and associated access rights are already open; how many miles have been approved in whole but are not yet open; how many miles have been approved in part but are not yet open; how many miles are there for which proposals have been published but not yet approved; and how many miles are there for which proposals are still in development?
Just as with other long-distance paths, the England coastal path will be a great asset, giving the right of access to many areas, the coastal margin, between the path and the sea, thus allowing people to explore dunes, cliff slopes and beaches right up to the water’s edge. That is why it is so infuriating that it has been so heavily delayed, and adds to the suspicion that public access issues do not have the same importance within Defra as other land commitments.
There is also another area of concern over the priority the Government give to public access issues compared with other land use issues. Referring to the increase in the number of people who sought access to our countryside during the Covid lockdown periods, the Minister said:
“We want to see that continue and be encouraged. That is why, in the schemes that we are bringing forward under environmental land management, there will be a very clear access commitment, backed by funding”.—[Official Report, 27/5/21; col. 1097.]
There is of course much to gain from an approach to ELM with public access at its heart, but there have been reports of a review of the plans which have caused concern. The Government have stated that they are looking at the frameworks for regulation, innovation and investment that impact farmers and land managers to make sure that their policies are best placed to both boost food production and protect the environment. Could the Minister in his response say whether this or any other review will include looking at public access, and if so with what purpose in mind?
In England and Wales, excluding inner London, the right of way is a legally protected right of the public to pass and repass on specific paths. The rights of way exist only where they are so designated, or are able to be designated if not already so. Definitive maps of public rights of way have been compiled for all of England and Wales, except inner London, as a result of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. There are currently some 140,000 miles of footpaths, bridleways and byways which are public rights of way.
The Ramblers organisation says that, thanks to support from members of the public, it is aware of some 49,000 miles of potentially lost paths across England, these being paths that are not legally recorded but which have been historically used as a right of way and which could be lost unless successful evidence-based applications are made to add them to official records.
In February 2022, the Government announced that they were committed to abolishing the 2026 deadline to get the lost paths legally recognised. The Government now appear to have broken that commitment to abolishing the deadline for saving lost paths and have reinstated a deadline which I believe will come into effect in 2031. A right for many to access and enjoy the outdoors has been placed in jeopardy in respect of these lost paths—another reason to query the strength of the Government’s commitment to enhancing public access to our countryside.
Can the Government say why they changed their stance on abolishing the deadline date, and whether, as appears to be the case, they would be quite happy to see potentially thousands of miles of paths lost? Is that an unsaid part of this Government’s land use strategy. Following representations from which organisations did the Government reinstate a deadline, this time of 2031? We should surely be improving opportunities for communities to get outdoors and connect with nature, not reducing them. While members of the public who are volunteers are putting in the time to do the research required to save the potentially 49,000 miles of paths that are missing from the definitive map in England, and submitting the necessary applications to do just this, local highways authorities appear underresourced to deal with the workload.
I have been given a figure of more than 4,000 applications waiting to be processed. Can the Government say in their reply to this debate whether they agree with that figure and, if not, what their figure is for the backlog of such applications? The Government must have sought that figure before deciding to reinstate a deadline; otherwise, how could they have been satisfied that the necessary funding would be in place to make it possible for paths to be researched, applied for and processed within the time limit they have now imposed?
On top of that, there is the issue of whether local authorities should not be taking the lead in doing the research into these paths, which are missing from the map within their area. But, as we all know, local authorities have been ravaged by this Government over the last 13 years and in many cases no longer, it seems, have the staffing levels even to ensure that proper access to existing paths is maintained—another reason to question the strength of the Government’s stated commitment to enhance public access to our countryside.
In 2000, through the Countryside and Rights of Way Act, the then Government introduced the freedom to roam across 3 million acres of open access mountain, moor, heath and downland in England and Wales, with a very substantial percentage of these acres being in national parks such as the Lake District, Peak District and Yorkshire Dales.
The freedom to roam gives the right to walk without fear of trespassing, but at present it covers only 8% of England and is not evenly distributed. The freedom to roam is not just about remote mountains or a relative wilderness. It is also about places right on our doorsteps, closer to our homes. The freedom to explore places off-path is an important part of many people’s enjoyment of the outdoors. But millions of people do not have the opportunity close to home. Freedom to roam needs to be extended to woodland, watersides and more grassland so that it is more equally accessible and better connected to our footpath network and to our towns and cities. Opening access to woodland, for example, would more than double the coverage of freedom to roam in England.
In some areas of England there is very little open access land. For example, only 0.6% of land in Kent is open access, compared with 72% of the Peak District. There is also little open access land in the areas surrounding our towns and cities, meaning that much of the English population, in particular, has limited opportunity to explore freely near to where they live.
Legal rights to walk in the countryside must be preferable to relying on landowners giving permission to walk, because where rights are legally secure the public can be sure about where they can go and can have the confidence to explore freely. However, exploring freely also must be done responsibly and not in a way that damages landowner property, harms livestock or jeopardises livelihoods. We can have no time for the small minority of people who do that—not only for the obvious reason, but because by their actions they increase opposition to the strong case for greater access rights to our countryside.
I have expressed my concerns about the weight that the views of the many, who want greater access to our countryside and the proper maintenance and protection of existing rights of way, have within government in general and Defra in particular, compared with other interest groups, when it comes to land use issues. I noticed that in his letter of 19 July, which we have just received, with its list of actions since the Environmental Improvement Plan was launched, the Minister appears not to have included a great deal about improving access and freedom to roam. Even the reference to the England coastal path completely glossed over the apparent continuing delay in the full opening of that path. Is there a government commitment to extending freedom to roam, or is the Government’s silence on the potential implications for access rights of the recent court case involving land on Dartmoor another reason to doubt the strength of the Government’s commitment to enhancing public access to our countryside?
I await the Minister’s response with interest—including his answers to the questions I have asked.
Agriculture Bill
Lord Rosser ExcerptsTuesday 7th July 2020
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Agriculture Act 2020 View all Agriculture Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 112-II(Rev) Revised second marshalled list for Committee - (7 Jul 2020)
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I will speak in support of Amendments 6, 9, 98 and 111 in this group. For many people, Covid-19 has provided an opportunity —or perhaps a necessity—to go on and discover local walks in their own immediate neighbourhood, to get exercise and fresh air and not spend the whole day in their own home. A crucial feature of the Bill, as we know, is the introduction of a new system of financial assistance for farmers to replace subsidies paid as part of the EU’s common agricultural policy. In future funding will be in exchange for the delivery of public goods, which includes better public access.
Clause 1(1) states:
“The Secretary of State may give financial assistance for or in connection with any one or more of the following purposes”,
with paragraph (a) reading
“managing land or water in a way that protects or improves the environment”.
Although this is helpful, it does not acknowledge the value added of enabling people to experience some benefit from improvements in environmental quality. Amendment 6 adds
“and people’s access to it”
and seeks to ensure that where financial assistance is provided for the protection or improvement of the environment, public access enhancements are incorporated, where appropriate, so that people can experience some benefit from the actions taken. This is particularly important near centres of population, where the recreational value of new woodlands or better access to paths across open land is far higher than in more remote locations.
Clause 1(1)(b) refers to
“supporting public access to and enjoyment of the countryside, farmland or woodland and better understanding of the environment”.
However, as landowners or occupants, farmers are already required by law to keep clear public access to their land, so “supporting public access” could appear to be providing funding for doing something for which there is already a legal requirement. There is thus no certainty that funding will be provided for new public access or for making existing paths more accessible, yet this is important in enabling more people to get outdoors. Natural England estimates that 20% of people cannot use rights of way because they cannot use stiles or gates or they are with someone who cannot.
Amendment 9 replaces “supporting” with “enhancing” to express more clearly that financial assistance will be provided to enhance public access to the countryside by improving accessibility beyond the legal minimum of existing rights of way. It also helps ensure that funding can be provided for the creation of new access opportunities through, for example, the provision of paths along field margins as alternatives to unsafe country roads and at the rural-urban fringe to increase the connection of communities to nature and the rural world.
Clause 1(1)(b), which enables the Secretary of State to provide financial assistance for
“supporting public access to and enjoyment of the countryside”
is welcome, but more clarity is needed on the outcomes in terms of public access to and enjoyment of the countryside that will be supported through further financial assistance to farmers. Amendment 98 seeks to do this by adding to Clause 1(5)
“‘supporting public access to and enjoyment of the countryside’ includes the provision of new public access or improving the accessibility of existing public rights of way”.
Thus the amendment provides certainty that financial assistance may be provided for new public access or steps to make existing rights of way more accessible, and also that the new financial assistance scheme will provide direct benefits for the public through better access to the countryside.
Clause 2(2) states:
“Financial assistance may be given subject to such conditions as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”
Landowners and land managers are required under the Highways Act 1980 to keep rights of way on their land clear and accessible to the public. The duty was reinforced by the system of cross-compliance governing payments to farmers under the EU’s common agricultural policy, which required, among other things, the fulfilment of legal duties for rights of way as a condition of receiving funding from the public purse. The Government are committed to ending cross-compliance and have suggested they will establish a new, simplified regulatory regime.
The principle of financial assistance being subject to conditions, as introduced in subsection (2), is welcome. What it does not do is specify what those conditions will be. Amendment 111 provides that:
“The conditions may (among other things) require the recipient to fulfil their duties for public rights of way under the Highways Act 1980.”
It will thus help ensure that landowners’ and occupiers’ duties for public rights of way are among the conditions that the Secretary of State may attach to the provision of financial assistance. This is important because existing rights of way are the primary means by which people can get outdoors. It is, therefore, vital to have in place a regulatory framework that encourages farmers to keep paths clear as a condition of receiving payments from the public purse.
The set of conditions, including those relating to public access, provide clarity for farmers over the baseline standards expected, and it also—as the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, said earlier—helps create a level playing field within the sector. Most farmers fulfil their legal obligations, so those who do not should not be treated equally and without any sanction for not keeping access open.
I hope the Government will give careful consideration to this group of amendments and the objectives they seek to achieve. It would be helpful if the Minister could say, in his response, whether they are also government objectives, either in whole or in part. If they are but the Government do not feel overexcited by these amendments, I hope, like my noble friend Lady Kennedy of Cradley, that the Minister will spell out very clearly in his response why the Government believe that the wording in the Bill—and which wording that is—already provides, without any doubt, the safeguards and assurances that these amendments to which I have referred are intended to provide.
Our farmers must have, and deserve, a fair deal as we leave the EU, and we need to make sure this Bill delivers precisely that. However, our countryside should be accessible to all and, in return, those who visit the countryside must exercise that right responsibly and in a manner that does not adversely affect those who earn their livelihood from the land and who provide us with a basic necessity of life—namely, food.
Viscount Trenchard
My Lords, whilst I can support reasonable extension to public access, as I said earlier it is indeed a double-edged sword. In those parts of the country where agricultural land is close to towns or cities, significant opening up of more footpaths, or increasing the numbers of people entering land used for agriculture, forestry or horticulture, may cause disturbance to birds and animals and exacerbate a littering problem that has got worse during the lockdown anyway.
It is likely that farmers, whose financial rewards are going to depend more on the quality and condition in which they maintain their land, are going to be reluctant to encourage more public access unless they are paid to provide it. They need to be paid because they will need to make good, or mitigate the damage to, the land, crops, fences, gates and wildlife habitats that will result from increased public access in those parts of the country near significant population centres.
Perhaps the amounts that farmers should be paid for public access would have to be more than is justified in terms of the numbers of people who would benefit. We should also remember that you do not need to have access to the improved environment in order to benefit from it in terms of better air quality, higher standards of food products and cleaner water in our rivers.
I sympathise with the intention of my noble friend Lord Lucas in Amendment 34, but I believe this is already covered by subsection (1)(b), whether the drafting of that is changed or not.
Amendment 59, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, seeks to enhance public access not only to land but also to water. Would my noble friend the Minister not agree that farmers and riparian owners would have to be compensated for the significant additional costs of this? Would he also concede that compensation should be paid to owners of fisheries whose catch numbers would be damaged by an increase in kayaking and boating on rivers and inland waterways?
Lastly, I slightly fear that too much path surfacing, signage and waymarking may make the countryside more like a cross between a golf course and a public park, which, in extremis, will urbanise the appearance of the countryside and remove its wildness, which is so valuable.
Agriculture Bill
Lord Rosser ExcerptsWednesday 10th June 2020
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Agriculture Act 2020 View all Agriculture Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 13 May 2020 - large font accessible version - (13 May 2020)
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
We have been in lockdown now for over 11 weeks, and most people have remained in their immediate locality. For those able to do so, exercise and getting some fresh air has been an important ingredient of each day. Walking has staged something of a comeback, whether along local streets, in local parks or—for those fortunate enough to be close to more open countryside—along local footpaths, as people simply enjoy the pleasure of being out and about in such an environment. On top of the constraints of the lockdown, the good weather has clearly been a key factor.
From what I have seen in my locality, it looks as though numbers of people have discovered at least some public and permissive footpaths in their neighbourhood that they were not previously aware existed and have greatly enjoyed the pleasure and opportunity of more extensive walking in their own area than they had previously fully appreciated were there and available. This is something we should seek to build on as one of the few pluses from the constraints of the lockdown and is surely in line with government objectives of promoting walking.
I raise this in the context of this Bill because, as my noble friend Lord Kennedy of Southwark said, one of its objectives is to protect and improve access to the countryside. Agriculture accounts for 70% of land use in the UK—land that contains a significant proportion of the nation’s paths. It is important that access to our countryside for all should be safeguarded, promoted and, where possible, extended. We do not want to see our network of public footpaths and permissive paths diminish. Indeed, we should be looking to grow the network.
In saying that, I appreciate that there can be tensions between those who want to visit and enjoy our countryside and those who earn their livelihood from the land. On the one hand, some owners of land or their tenants do rather less than they might to maintain ready and easy access to footpaths. On the other hand, there are people who cause problems for those who earn their livelihood from the land by not keeping to public footpaths and permissive paths, even where they are clearly marked and signposted—an issue made even more of a problem if they have a pet animal with them, usually a dog, which they fail to keep under control.
Can the Minister say how the Government intend to use the provisions of the Bill, not least with its focus on public money for public goods, to promote and further extend responsible, realistic access to our countryside for all? That objective must surely also be in keeping with the cross-government goals of improving the overall health and well-being of the nation. Is it the Government’s intention that farmers will be provided with proper financial support where they are making improvements to the accessibility of existing routes or paths on their land or where they provide new paths of value to the public: for example, to avoid the need to walk on adjacent country roads with fast-moving traffic or to link up existing paths? Is it also the Government’s intention that those who receive public payment should be expected to fulfil legal duties to keep paths on their land clear? There is also the important issue of providing financial support for improving access to our countryside for those less physically able, including wheelchair users.
I would really appreciate a response from the Minister on the issues and questions I have just raised, either when he replies to the debate or subsequently.
Public Bodies Bill [HL]
Lord Rosser Excerpts(13 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bichard
My Lords, I have a slightly broader question for the Minister. What discussions have taken place between the Cabinet Office, the Treasury and the Office for National Statistics on what actions current NDPBs need to take in order to shed that status? I declare an interest as chairman of the Design Council, an organisation that is enthusiastically seeking to shed NDPB status and become a charity. A degree of frustration is already arising that this is not as easy as it appears on the face of it. If this frustration is being experienced by a number of similar organisations, it would be helpful if this could be clarified as soon as possible.
Lord Rosser
My Lords, I will be relatively brief, having seen a copy of the statement on the Government’s intentions for the Railway Heritage Committee. As my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester has explained, the committee exercises statutory powers in designating railway artefacts and records so that they do not get damaged, destroyed or lost to ensure that what is important to our nation’s railway history is preserved. The committee also has the function of agreeing which institution shall hold the records and artefacts so designated when they are no longer required by the railway business that owns them. It also deals with the terms under which they are to be offered to such institutions. To quote its mission statement:
“The Railway Heritage Committee is established by statute to secure the preservation of evidence which is significant to the railway’s history”.
As the Government’s own briefing note recognises, most of the people involved with the committee act on a voluntary, unpaid basis and the cost of the Railway Heritage Committee is currently around £100,000 per year. Good value for money, one would have thought, and perhaps that is how the Government might have seen it from day one if their decisions last year on the future of public bodies had been taken with a little more thought and a little less speed. My noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester has worked tirelessly to try to ensure that the important statutory work of the committee continues, albeit not through a continuation of the Railway Heritage Committee as the Government have already announced their hasty decision in principle to abolish it. It would be interesting to know whether the Minister knew as much about the invaluable and cost-effective work of the committee at the time the decision was taken to abolish it as he does now. I suspect not. Decisions are usually better when they are based on facts following discussion rather than assumptions without discussion.
However, we recognise that the Government, subject to confirmation from the Minister, have apparently shifted their position in the light of the powerful case made by my noble friend. My noble friend’s proposal is that the Railway Heritage Committee’s power of designation should transfer to the board of trustees of the Science Museum, which also encompasses the National Railway Museum and thus has a very direct interest in railway history and the statutory work that is currently undertaken by the Railway Heritage Committee. I understand that the Minister is likely to be giving a positive response to my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester’s proposal, which, from the Government’s point of view, provides a face-saving formula. The Railway Heritage Committee would still cease to exist, as the Government have already announced, but the important and invaluable statutory functions of the committee would be retained. This would enable the Government to avoid what would have been fully justified criticism that, for the sake of £100,000 a year, they were prepared to see a vital part of our nation’s history lost, damaged or destroyed and the enthusiasm and dedication of so many volunteers discarded and rejected.
The Government’s briefing document says that their decision in principle in October to abolish the Railway Heritage Committee did not include plans for a successor organisation. That statement is less than frank. At that stage, the Government had no intention of there being a successor organisation. It will be thanks only to the efforts of my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester, and others who recognise the importance of preserving our railway heritage, if, as we hope he will, the Minister indicates when he responds that the Government are now involved in serious discussions to ensure that the statutory functions of the Railway Heritage Committee will continue, albeit through a different channel, and will not be abolished by this rushed, ill-thought out and high-handed Bill on which the Government are back-tracking with ever increasing rapidity.
Public Bodies Bill [HL]
Lord Rosser Excerpts(13 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Rosser
Lord Rosser
My Lords, the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Arbitration Tribunal organises compensation in connection with the nationalisation of the aerospace and shipbuilding industries. It hears appeals on valuations with a right of appeal ultimately to the Supreme Court. There is also provision for judicial review of the original compensation offer. The tribunal continues in existence but was described by the Council on Tribunals in 2006 as “rarely convened/moribund”. On 1 November 2007, the tribunal came under the supervision of the Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council, whose future also now appears somewhat less than secure. When he responds, will the Minister indicate the annual cost of the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Arbitration Tribunal, how many members there are of the tribunal and how many times, if any, it has met in each of the past three years? Will the Minister also indicate the list of duties and responsibilities of the arbitration tribunal and state which duties and responsibilities the Government consider no longer need to be undertaken at all and why, and which duties and responsibilities, if any, will continue to be undertaken, and to whom or to which body they will be transferred? Presumably, the Government must have come to some conclusions on these issues. Having taken into account which duties and responsibilities will be transferred elsewhere, and the cost of continuing to carry out any remaining duties and responsibilities, could the Minister say what the net saving will be from abolishing the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Arbitration Tribunal? I beg to move.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, I am pleased to move on to this series of amendments, and I will first turn to the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Arbitration Tribunal. This was set up under the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act 1977 and related to the nationalised industries in aircraft manufacture and shipbuilding. These nationalised industries no longer exist and the tribunal is redundant. Similarly, the purpose of abolishing British Shipbuilders as a corporation is to simplify the administration of the funding and handling of British Shipbuilders’ residual liabilities. These liabilities will be transferred directly to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, which will provide a long-term solution to managing these liabilities.
The Government are committed to making compensation payments to former employees of British Shipbuilders, and I can give an indicative figure of the level of those compensation payments. They come to about £7 million a year. I hope that helps. The tribunal itself does not cost anything, as there are no standing costs and it does not have any employees. The compensation payments for former employees cover such injuries as mesothelioma, which were the result of their employment with British Shipbuilders. The payments are in line with the obligations that British Shipbuilding had to its employees.
British Shipbuilders Corporation was set up under the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act 1977. The corporation has no active trading operations and exists solely to meet its residual liabilities—litigation, insurance claims and other contractual matters— relating to its former employees. British Shipbuilders is effectively a shell company. In light of my assurances, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Rosser
I am not entirely sure whether the Minister was also replying to Amendment 24 as well as Amendment 22. Amendment 22 is about the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Arbitration Tribunal, which is the one that hears appeals over valuation in relation to the nationalisation of the aerospace and shipbuilding industries. As far as I understood it, we were dealing with Amendment 22 separately. It seemed to me—though I am obviously prepared to stand corrected—as though some of the comments that the Minister made related to Amendment 24, which is about British Shipbuilders and any subsidiary of that company. I did raise a number of points—
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I did speak to Amendment 24 because my speaking notes represented a grouping which is not current, and I apologise to the noble Lord. Perhaps he will confine himself to my response in respect of the tribunal, because that is what he was speaking to. I apologise.
Lord Rosser
I was not entirely clear about what the Minister said. He did say that it was moribund, so do I take it that the answer to my question as to how many times it met in each of the past three years is that it has not met at all? Is it the case that, despite the comments made by the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, no costs are being incurred by this body, because it is moribund and it has not met?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I confirm that is the case. It does not cost anything, there is no standing cost and it does not have any employees.
Lord Rosser
I thank the Minister for that clear response and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.