New Petitions

I represent the Scottish Countryside Access Network. With me are Dave Morris, who represents Scottish Environment LINK Access Network, and Ann Fraser, who represents the Scottish Sports Association. Together, we represent more than 40 organisations and a broad spectrum of people who are involved in every aspect of access: users, providers, land managers, conservationists and access officers. In under two months, the petition acquired almost 15,000 signatures, which demonstrates that many people in Scotland and throughout the world—it is worth noting that we used the e-petitioner system as well as a paper system, so we have attracted signatures from throughout the world—believe that responsible access to the land and water of Scotland should be enshrined in law. As members may know, our petition has been supported by a motion that was lodged by Bristow Muldoon MSP. The petition shows that the public do not believe that the draft access legislation will bring the benefits that it claims to bring. We may end up worse off tomorrow than we are today. The process of providing access to the outdoors will be more bureaucratic and confrontational and certainly will not provide best value for money. There will be less social inclusion and social justice.We want to make three main points about our petition. First, it is essential that, before the Parliament considers new access legislation, it understands the existing situation and does not diminish traditional lawful access. At present, many people—including users and land managers—are confused, and we must ensure that the new legislation is easily understood.Secondly, in an excellent example of pre-legislative practice, the access forum responded to the Government's request for advice. Consensus was reached and a set of simple, balanced and flexible recommendations was agreed. There is a deep sense of disappointment that the Government has not taken proper account of the access forum's views. We believe that the Parliament must return to the recommendations of the access forum.Finally, access must be defined in the legislation in simple, easily understood terms. The detail of how access can be enjoyed should be contained in the Scottish outdoor access code. The Executive has made the primary legislation in the draft bill detailed and complex and a similar approach was taken with the new access legislation south of the border. That approach is not appropriate for Scotland. In summary, we ask that the bill return to the proposals of the access forum. We ask the Parliament not to introduce laws that criminalise the public while they enjoy the outdoors. We also ask that the bill should not give land managers, local authorities and the police new powers to keep people off the land, but give local authorities the duty and the necessary resources to improve countryside access opportunities for all. We would like the Public Petitions Committee to forward our petition to the Justice 2 Committee, which will be leading the land reform bill through the parliamentary process, perhaps with a covering note to ensure that our petition's calls, which are supported by all those people, are taken into account as the legislation goes through Parliament.

One of the most worrying aspects of the draft bill is its proposal to increase powers for the police in relation to the regulation of access, powers for landowners to suspend access, and powers for local authorities. It is worth bearing in mind that the Scottish Law Commission, which has commented on some aspects of the bill, has called the proposals a regulation of access and has highlighted the confusion that it will create among the police, local authorities and the public.

In our journey with the petition from Dunfermline, which was the home of the first Scottish Parliament, to Edinburgh, we had to approach the local authorities for assorted permissions. They took it upon themselves to check weather forecasts and advised us to take extra care because it was going to be misty. However, the draft bill proposes that local authorities should have, for example, the power to close land in adverse weather conditions. Local authorities are currently not capable of taking a sensible view on such matters and it is not fair to ask them to do so.

Yes. I think that there were more than 3,000 responses to the draft bill, which emphasises the strength of people's concerns about it. We have submitted the petition because we are not fully confident that the Scottish Executive will take on board our concerns. Furthermore, the access forum's original advice to Scottish Natural Heritage on the draft land reform bill appears to have been ignored, which is also a matter of concern. We want the Scottish Executive to return to that advice to ensure that we end up with a simple bill that everyone can understand.

No. It was the national access forum that did so.

The initial advice suggested that the term "responsible access" should be defined in a Scottish outdoor access code that would be introduced by secondary legislation. That would leave us with a simple bill giving people a right of access across land and water with responsibility.

There are some difficulties. It is true that the access forum worked for a number of years and achieved consensus. The forum involved 19 different organisations, including a wide range of land management interests such as farmers, foresters, crofters and deer managers. The committee should be aware that, on the day the draft legislation was published, the National Farmers Union of Scotland announced that it was withdrawing from the access forum. Today the access forum does not exist in any operational sense. On the day the draft bill was published, the Minister for Justice indicated on the BBC that the NFU's representations had been significant in making some of the changes that have appeared. The representations from that sector have had the greatest influence.

There is a lot of uncertainty among recreational bodies about what their rights are. Many walkers, cyclists, horse riders and canoeists are not certain what their rights in the countryside are. A lot of land managers also are not certain, or choose to be uncertain, about what people's rights are in the countryside.

We are before the committee to ensure that access does not become more restricted. Our concern is that when the bill is produced, it will restrict access. That is why we ask that the bill be a simple one, which gives us a right of access with responsibility. We are aware that if the bill that is passed is anything like the draft bill, access will be far more restricted.

It is true that there is a lot of confusion about whether there is a law of trespass and so on. As far as the Scottish Environment LINK Access Network is concerned, there is no confusion about the legal position. Over the past few years we have done a great deal of research into that. There was no confusion for many years last century. The law has been misinterpreted since the 1960s. That has led to confusion in public statements by officials and people within local authorities. That is one reason why we have recommended that the Executive should clarify the current legal position. In effect, we are asking the Scottish Law Commission to confirm the current legal position. The Parliament will have great difficulty in producing new legislation if it does not understand the starting position.

Yes. It is a member of the network and has contributed a great deal to discussions.

That is one of the great worries. When the access forum discussed what sort of model to use for legislation in Scotland, it was agreed that the benchmark should be legislation in other northern European countries, such as Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Germany and Austria, which provide far better models than the legislation south of the border. The position has become more difficult since the introduction of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. There is a drift towards some of those ideas in the Executive's proposals. Although we are aware that ministers have indicated that they intend to make changes before introducing the bill, our discussion with Executive officials pointed to real difficulties. They tell us that they cannot write a simple bill along the lines recommended; they have to follow the Westminster model that is being used for other legislation. Apparently, they must write a complex definition of "right"—the i's must be dotted and the t's must be crossed. That is why there is so much support for the arguments in our petition. If officials follow the Westminster route, we will end up with a complex bill supported by a complex code. The Parliament must find a way of returning to the access forum's basic recommendation that the right of access to land and water should be defined in simple terms. There are plenty of examples from other European countries that could be used as a model.

No. We do not agree with that approach. There is a need for legislation on three important principles. First, we need confirmation of people's right—or freedom or liberty—to have access to land and water. Secondly, we need new arrangements to help secure access routes, such as footpaths and routes for cyclists and horse riders, in the countryside. Thirdly, we need an arrangement that leads to a much better relationship between those who manage land and those who use it for recreation. We should look to the much more harmonious relationship that exists in other countries in the rest of Europe. There is no doubt that in the past 20 or 30 years, many landowners—particularly those who have come to Scotland and bought land and who do not understand the traditions—have seriously eroded the traditions of access. In effect, they are creating private kingdoms in Scotland. The current law does not deal with that. That pattern was followed in other places in Europe, such as Denmark, where private rights eroded public rights. The Danish Government had to correct the situation.We are strongly in favour of access legislation being introduced this session. In particular, we need legislation to confirm people's traditional freedom of access to land and water and to introduce completely new modern arrangements for safeguarding access routes.

I want to clarify my reference to social inclusion. There are many people in Scotland who do not have the confidence to go out into the countryside because of the lack of clarity. We want to push one of the recommendations of the access forum, which was to introduce core paths—networks of easily used paths—for the majority of people.