Official Report 133KB pdf
Scottish Outdoor Access Code: Proposed Code (SE/2004/101)
I welcome committee members, witnesses, the press and members of the public. We have received an apology from Karen Gillon. I remind everyone to switch off their mobile phones; I know that people are always trying to get in touch with us during our committee meetings, but we do not want phones going off.
What is our contribution at this stage likely to achieve? Is there scope for adjusting the proposed Scottish outdoor access code before it is agreed to? Can changes be achieved?
As I understand it, we are looking at a draft code that Scottish Natural Heritage has produced after much consultation, dialogue and networking. The Justice 1 Committee must formally consider the code next week and decide whether it wants to recommend any changes. Is that correct?
My understanding is that, although the Justice 1 Committee can approve or not approve the proposed code in its entirety, it is up to the Executive to decide what it wants to do with any detailed comments that that committee makes on the code. Obviously, if the Justice 1 Committee made substantive comments, the Executive could consider them and submit a further draft code.
So, in essence, we are at a take-it-or-leave-it point with the proposed code. Is that the case?
There is a further opportunity. The draft access code provides for SNH to keep the code under review. Although comments might not be taken into account for the current draft, they could be fed into further drafts under the code's review procedure.
Are we confident that the review procedure will be on-going?
That is set out in the process. I suppose that our role at this point, as a secondary committee, is to ensure that the Justice 1 Committee does not miss anything that we might think is important and which should be dealt with in the code. We are not the lead committee, so the key point is whether we want the lead committee to consider specific issues when it considers the proposed code.
Paragraph 4.7 of the proposed code—it is entitled "Respect access rights in managing your land or water"—is aimed at land managers. It states that they should not erect signs or notices to prevent people from having access. Paragraph 4.7 tells people what they should not do, but the code does not make it clear at any other point when signs should be erected.
That is a detailed suggestion. The proposed code has different sections and we must read the whole document to get an overview. We can ask the Justice 1 Committee to consider Rob Gibson's suggestion on signage that gives clear guidance and is appropriate in the context of the responsible access rights that are set out in the 2003 act.
The submission from the Scottish Countryside Rangers Association seeks clarification in the access code of one or two issues, notably the relationship between the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 and the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004. Issues around recklessness and so on have been raised previously in that context. The relationship between the two acts needs to be considered. We were clear that we had assurances that the 2004 act would not compromise the 2003 act, but perhaps the Justice 1 Committee would like to ensure that that is the case.
That is an important point. We must have considered the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Bill around the time when the proposed access code was being finalised. It is important that the access code takes proper account of the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004.
That is the point that I was about to make; it was also raised in the RSPB Scotland submission, which said that the access code refers to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. The Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 has updated that act, therefore we want to know the Executive's plans for ensuring that the access code takes account of and reflects the new act.
There was a debate during the progress of the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill about commercial activity. Paragraph 2.9 of the proposed access code says that access rights will extend to activities such as a mountain guide taking a customer out hillwalking. The code is clear in that respect, but I wonder about companies that organise walking holidays and take out a group of people rather than a single customer. There is a list of exclusions from paragraph 2.12 onwards, but it is silent on what might be regarded as larger commercial operations, specifically the companies that organise walking holidays, which are a vital part of the rural economy. I am concerned that such companies should not drop through a loophole.
That is quite an important issue, because it is not mentioned in paragraph 2.14, which outlines conduct that was specifically excluded from the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003.
That is because the language used is singular.
That is a good point on which to seek clarification.
The point is covered implicitly in the next example, which is about a canoe instructor with a party of canoeists. The collective angle has been covered.
We are presuming that that is all right, but SNH needs to check that.
The draft code says that its examples are not to be taken as exhaustive. We have to apply a degree of common sense to such matters.
I think so, but Roseanna Cunningham's point is that a lot of people would—
The code talks about a guide with a hillwalker, or someone with a party of canoeists. It is implicit that a party of hillwalkers or a single canoeist are also included.
It would not be unreasonable of us to ask for that to be clarified, though.
Because such a debate took place during the process of the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill, it would be useful to clarify whether the commercial walking companies, which take out groups of walkers, will be okay in respect of the code. A number of those companies have concerns about what may happen. Nora Radcliffe is no doubt right—and no one wants any decision to be taken that would have an adverse impact on the rural economy—but it is worth the code being a bit clearer on that issue.
All that the code would need to say is "customers" rather than "a customer". The phrasing is just slightly odd. Let us get it clarified without putting too much heat into it.
Do we need to make specific recommendations about the width of coverage that the code should have? In my opinion, every tourist information point should have a copy of the full document. People are referred to a website, but not everyone has web access.
Not when they are on holiday.
That is what I meant when I said that the code has to be widely disseminated.
We do not want over-reliance on the internet, and for people to be told that all the information is there for them. As Roseanna Cunningham said, not everyone can get the information in that way at the appropriate time.
That is why I mentioned leaflets. The code has to be disseminated practically for everyone who is likely to be in the countryside.
Paragraph 11 of the NFU Scotland submission contains a sentiment with which I am inclined to agree strongly. It says that, regardless of whether we think that this is an appropriate Scottish outdoor access code, the time has probably come to get the code passed into law. I therefore agree with NFU Scotland's sentiment that it does not want anything to stand in the way of approval of the code at this stage. However, NFU Scotland has grave concerns, as I do, about certain aspects of the code. As a result, I am keen to ensure that we have the opportunity to continue to assess the code against the experience of its implementation.
I echo that. Alex Johnstone has made a fair point; it is one that has to be made. Everyone needs to be clear on that aspect.
Have we come up with enough issues to raise with the Justice 1 Committee under our remit? That should keep its members busy.
Agenda item 2 is sustainable development. Colleagues have in front of them a copy of "Taking it on: developing UK sustainable development strategy together", which is the United Kingdom Government's consultation document. As part of the process of developing a revised sustainable development strategy, the UK Government seeks submissions on the consultation by the end of July. Given that we are working on sustainable development and that we have commissioned research that is being worked up, we have an opportunity to feed into that discussion.
Some of the papers that examine our experience in Scotland indicate that the ability to permeate the economic development of the country with environmental and community interests is quite central if sustainable development is to be carried out in practice. Recently, we have heard about Scottish Enterprise leaders trying desperately not to have any responsibility for environmental issues or communities. To some extent, Highlands and Islands Enterprise has embraced those things; it has a social remit.
That would fit in well with the consultation question about how we should bring together environmental and social concerns at national, regional or local level. We should ensure that economic considerations are on that agenda as well, even though that changes the question that we have been asked. A series of issues that the Government needs to take on board, such as those to do with procurement, flows from Rob Gibson's comment.
If those issues had been addressed in Scotland some decades ago, we would not be in the position that we are in now. The example that I am thinking of relates to the building of houses, especially in the social sector. It is clear that a huge amount of the housing stock in Scotland was built in a highly unsustainable fashion. Anyone who knows anything about the history of council housing—in particular, the amount of energy that was needed to heat such housing and keep it in any way fit for people—will know that much council housing turned out not to be at all fit for people and so had an adverse effect on their health. That is a good example to focus on when we are talking about the need for sustainability to be at the heart of everything that we do. If we do not fit in sustainability across the board, we will have a problem.
Communities Scotland has probably set out in its sustainable development strategy ways of avoiding that problem in the future.
That is a good example for other areas.
It would be nice if we could draw on work that the committee has already done, as we cannot start to do anything new in the next 10 days. In relation to question 15 of the consultation paper, which the convener mentioned, our inquiry into the waste strategy might be relevant. That looked at community waste groups and the social benefits that they provide, which are not measurable in the tonnage of waste that is dealt with or the price per tonne. That issue is dear to my heart, as we have had a few problems in the Highland area.
It is a good idea for us to feed in work that we have done in the past year. That could include the work that we have done in our waste strategy inquiry and the common agricultural policy reform work, which was about linking agricultural support into rural development to provide sustainable rural development and how the economic and social flavour is linked with the environment. There is also the work that we have done on the budget in identifying opportunities for sustainable development. Climate change, which is mentioned in one of the questions, is an issue on which we need to work at a UK as well as a Scottish level to produce a more coherent strategy.
I wonder whether we can look at procurement policies and how to help people to adopt sustainable procurement policies. For example, in the Highlands we cannot access recycled aggregates because there is nowhere in the Highlands that processes them. Costs are, therefore, higher and we have to use original aggregates that are being quarried. There are lots of issues around procurement that ought to be addressed.
We might also want to respond to the question about how the different Governments in the UK work with each other on sustainable development. We will meet the UK Parliament's Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee next week. I hope that that will be a useful opportunity for us to exchange ideas with the UK Parliament and with local government. There are issues around debating what the different Governments and Parliaments are doing and ensuring that best practice is shared. I am not sure that that comes through in the consultation paper, but it is quite a big issue for us.
We should also consider the Scottish Parliament's procurement policies.
It is essential that, after five years, we liaise with the Welsh—sadly, not the Northern Irish—and the UK committees. The more such liaison we can do, the better. That should be part and parcel of our annual calendar, and there should be a formalised system to enable us to liaise at that level. [Interruption.]
I support that.
That is encouraging.
Do not look a gift horse in the mouth. Please carry on.
Eleanor Scott has plotted the way forward as far as this exercise is concerned. We cannot initiate any new work or engage in anything meaningful, but we should, over the next 10 days or so, draw on what members, the convener, and Tracey Hawe—with input from others—deem to be the most relevant parts of the work that we have done and present that as our response to the UK committee.
Okay. We have had quite a good run round the topics and I do not want to prolong the discussion on the issue. I will circulate a draft note for submission to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. There will be time for us to respond to the UK Parliament on the consultation, as we do not have to do so until the end of July; however, we will not have time to debate the issue in the chamber. We will try to pick up the threads of this morning's discussion and one or two issues about leadership, to which we have broadly alluded, and circulate a draft note to the committee. If members have further comments, they should let us know so that they can be included.