JONATHAN SHAW MP, MS HELOISE TIERNEY AND MS ANN BENNETT

18 JUNE 2008

  Q440  Paddy Tipping: Yes.

  Jonathan Shaw: In terms of dedicated land? The thing is, in terms of using the powers is one thing. If people choose to dedicate land as part of it, that is a matter for them.

  Q441  Paddy Tipping: Let us stick with that for a minute. So, working on the ground, in discussion with Natural England, it would be possible to come to an agreement with landowners to dedicate a pathway through a park and a garden. If that is the case, why then are you excepting parks and gardens from the Bill? Presumably, the whole process is to try and get the best and most desirable route, which you told us earlier on would be flexible, pragmatic, common sense. If that is the case, why do you not put the Bill like that rather than except possible areas of land?

  Jonathan Shaw: As I said at the beginning of my comments, I foresee a great deal of conflict, I foresee a great deal of uncertainty, and I think it would take up a great deal of the time and effort of Natural England if parks and gardens were not excepted. That is my judgement. I understand that there will be others who say that we should have ploughed on and not made parks and gardens an exception. That is my judgement call, and I think there will be many opportunities whereby people will want to dedicate land. There are obviously opportunities via agri-environment schemes where people will want to join in, and not least, as I have said, and everyone acknowledges, there are economic benefits from a footpath as well as just for the individual enjoying the natural environment on foot. One can see arguments on both sides in terms of whether to except or not, and it is my judgement that it was best to except.

  Q442  Paddy Tipping: Let me ask two final questions because we can see this is a contentious area. You have made your own judgement and you have made your position fairly clear. Can I just say to you: as night follows day, it will be the case that in implementing this legislation there will be routes through parks and gardens by a different way, and if that is the case—and you have suggested, acknowledged that will be the case—why therefore except the gardens and parks when the sensible thing to do is have a rational, practical, down-to-earth discussion at a local level with stakeholders to find the best solution?

  Jonathan Shaw: As I say, my judgement is that we need to go about the implementation of this with parks and gardens excepted. As this project unfolds, as people see that there is flexibility in it, that there are benefits in it, that may well allay people's concerns and we may well have more dedication of gardens—and I hope that we do. I want to see as much access as possible, and I actually think by doing it this way we will achieve far more. As I say, I know that people would prefer the alternative, as you have set out, but I believe this in my judgement to be the correct one.

  Q443  Paddy Tipping: The final question is, you have told us in discussion with Mr Cox that it was difficult to define a park and a garden. That argument works against you, does it not, because if it is difficult to define a park and a garden and you have put it in the Bill, you are in a mess?

  Jonathan Shaw: Yes. Before I am in a mess, perhaps I can ask my official to—

  Q444  Mr Cox: Get you out of the mess?

  Jonathan Shaw: No. I am not in it yet.

  Ms Tierney: The point the Minister was trying to make earlier was that there are certain parks and gardens which I do not think anyone would expect the coastal route to go through. If it is a very small garden attached to a house, you would not expect to put a route through when the route will take up perhaps most of your garden. The difficulty is that there are then some gardens where you might think there would be much less impact. The difficulty is in defining the difference between the two.

  Jonathan Shaw: When I went to the south west, I saw a number of examples of gardens of different sizes that would make it very difficult to make a judgment call as to where you would have the definition. When it is a fine judgment call, there will be winners and losers. That is an equation for more tension, hostility and all of that weighed heavily on my mind in coming up with the decision that I have taken.

  Q445  Paddy Tipping: I am sure we will all read the record carefully. There are footpaths that run through parks and gardens already along the coast.

  Jonathan Shaw: There are. Many are permissive.

  Q446  Paddy Tipping: Many are rights of way.

  Jonathan Shaw: Obviously this has more features than public rights of way in terms of the spreading room and also the ability to be able to realign the route as well because of coastal erosion.

  Q447  Miss McIntosh: The way you have drafted the Bill at the moment, Natural England has a great deal of discretion in terms of aligning the route and spreading room. Would you consider revising the Bill so that Parliament could legislate with a clearer idea of what the outcome will be?

  Jonathan Shaw: You will have seen the draft scheme that Natural England have helpfully provided for both this Committee and the joint committee and all Members. We do not want to be so prescriptive to Natural England because this is a ten year project. They have set out the broad parameters of the scheme which we will obviously discuss and then we will have further discussions when the Bill comes to the House and is in committee but requiring all of that detail may take away the flexibility that I have referred to and some Members have referred to in trying to find solutions. There will be circumstances that arise that Natural England have not foreseen, so they will want to amend the scheme to take account of those eventualities and rather than going through Parliament it will be through the Secretary of State. A similar system has worked with the relevant authority guidance under the CROW Act.

  Q448  Miss McIntosh: That was not without difficulty. You are asking not just your parliamentary colleagues; you are asking bodies like the NFU, the CLA and other interested parties to take an awful lot on trust. Would it not be better to have more detail in the Bill rather than all these discretionary powers within Natural England and, as you say, just at the discretion of the Secretary of State?

  Jonathan Shaw: The scheme must be in line with the principles set out in Parliament. There is the duty in terms of the flexibility. Over a ten year period, all the way round the English coast, it is very difficult to foresee every eventuality. In terms of the flexibility that the arrangements with the relevant authority have had under the CROW Act, from my advice, they have been welcomed. Where there are to be restrictions etc., the scheme will be able to deal with that. We want this to be done in a flexible way and in the spirit that I have spoken about. We want Natural England to be able to respond to organisations like the CLA, the NFU and their members, where they say, "There is this set of circumstances here. Have you come across this before?" "Well, no, because this is the scheme. It does not fit. We are going to have to return." It is a very cumbersome way and when we have learned lessons from the CROW Act we have a model that works pretty well.

  Q449  Miss McIntosh: If Natural England was to experience a conflict between its strategic priorities of protecting the national environment and allowing access for the public, how do you believe that Natural England should resolve these potential problems?

  Jonathan Shaw: I think the national environment has to come first and foremost. There are other users but there are people who will want spreading room and carte blanche. There have to be proper restrictions put in place and I think the vast majority of people in this country respect that and would expect Natural England to put that first and foremost.

  Q450  Miss McIntosh: If it is a ten year scheme, are you going to keep it under review to look at, for example, not just the relationship with some of the existing authorities but also the relationship with the local authorities, particularly in terms of aligning, establishing and maintaining the route? The National Trust has said that the Bill should provide greater clarity about how the relationship will operate in practice. Are you prepared to put that clarity on the face of the Bill? Is there going to be a review mechanism over the initial ten years? What mechanism is there going to be?

  Jonathan Shaw: I said to the Chairman that this is a draft Bill and we want to get this right. In terms of the representations, we do not want to go down the planning inspectorate route. I have given the reasons why that is the case. It did not help very much within CROW. There is the Secretary of State and Members of Parliament will be able to take a delegation and see him or her. Often, Members of Parliament will complain that the Secretary of State is sitting in a quasi-judicial role and he or she will say, "Sorry, I cannot talk about it. I am waiting for the planning inspector" and the MP will say, "I cannot talk to him. I want to talk to you on behalf of my community. Will you listen to me?" Obviously you will be able to do that within this system. If the Committee have views on what it might do to review, I would welcome those.

  Q451  Miss McIntosh: Are you aware that one of the unforeseen consequences of the original CROW Act was that landlords started charging for crossing common land. If you parked your car on the highway and went across the common land, they revived this idea of charging thousands of pounds. I can give you names of villages where that happened. The point is that, if you are depriving Parliament of the opportunity to properly scrutinise the proposals for the actual route and spreading room of coastal areas, there may be other unforeseen consequences that you are presently not aware of.

  Jonathan Shaw: I do not know the detail about that case but if you provide it to me I will be able to make a judgment on it. There were siren calls in this House from people who opposed CROW tooth and nail, who voted against it and said it was going to be a disaster. Where are those siren voices now? I have been wrong in the past. I will be wrong again in the future but the government was not wrong on CROW. It has been a success. One of the reasons why it has been a success is because there is flexibility for the relevant authority in the guidance. We cannot see every eventuality. To be so prescriptive to Natural England would impair the flexibility in the relationships between Natural England and the various stakeholders and people that they need to engage with from the outset to identify where a route should go.

  Q452  Miss McIntosh: You pointed to the document, the Natural England Coastal Scheme. Why are you so wedded to your view that the generality of that scheme precludes that document being debated by Parliament? Should that not be annexed so that we can scrutinise that during the course of the Bill proceedings?

  Jonathan Shaw: We are discussing this. The parameters of the scheme will obviously be discussed and it is important that Parliament has an input into that. It cannot be the total prescription of the job of work that needs to be undertaken by Natural England because it is ten years.

  Q453  Mr Cox: The National Trust had real doubts about whether Natural England was going to be able to work together with local authorities in adjudicating the alignment of this path. Specifically, they said that the balance between the power and the responsibilities of Natural England and those of local authorities as access authorities still needs to be clarified. In my experience, Natural England has a pretty poor track record of working alongside local government. They are regarded generally, certainly in the part of the country I come from, as dictatorial, uncommunicative, unable to explain their policies. We have just had a major issue over coastal erosion in the northern boroughs and Natural England's role has not been distinguished in the way in which it has handled that. Its response to us as a Committee was to say that we should have more power, not less, and was somewhat dismissive, I thought.

  Jonathan Shaw: Is that your interpretation? I read the transcript. I did not read Paul Johnson saying, "We need more power, not less."

  Q454  Mr Cox: They spoke very vigorously about parks and gardens. They wanted to be able to tramp through people's gardens, which I agree with you is excessive.

  Jonathan Shaw: They have never said they want to tramp through people's gardens, even Mr Gray's garden.

  Q455  Mr Cox: To be honest, Minister, they did say that. They said they would like to have the opportunity simply to be able to take the power to go through gardens. You have said no; they should not, and I applaud that for all the reasons that you have given. How are we going to get Natural England to work alongside local authorities in this way? They do not have a good track record of doing it, not in the south west. That is for sure.

  Jonathan Shaw: There are many partnerships between Natural England and local authorities on trails. I have been out to a number of the Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty where they work in partnership with a number of different agencies, including local authorities and farmers. They are doing some excellent work on cash sensitive farming. It is very easy, when you have an example perhaps that we have a grievance about, to say that is the whole of the organisation, but it is not fair.

  Q456  Mr Cox: It could be a symptom of a culture.

  Jonathan Shaw: But it is not.

  Q457  Mr Cox: I am glad to hear that resounding endorsement from a position of intimate knowledge, no doubt.

  Jonathan Shaw: Absolutely.

  Q458  Miss McIntosh: On more precise mapping, the NFU and the CLA have both raised concerns that the mapping should be more precise to enable land owners to be aware of the liability situation. What do you say to ease those concerns?

  Jonathan Shaw: We need to be proportionate in every way. That includes how we spend that money. On the countryside rights of way, a large chunk of the £60 million-odd was for mapping. We think we can provide that quite adequately with a description rather than mapping. There could be a set of circumstances which I am not able to envisage at this stage. A map could be provided, but I think it would be in very exceptional circumstances. We are confident that we can provide a description particularly as we are at the beginning of the process, having that dialogue with the land owners concerned and other relevant stakeholders. We think this is a proportionate way ahead. To provide maps would be very expensive and we do not think it is necessary. There will be some publication of maps. We will have conversations with Ordnance Survey no doubt in terms of the explorer maps, but we are not proposing that in each and every circumstance there will be a map.

  Q459  Miss McIntosh: Are you saying that just on the grounds of cost? How do you respond to the fact that Natural England says that maps should be produced for difficult areas so that there should be some provision in the Bill?

  Jonathan Shaw: I agree with that.