Asked by
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what, if any, new measures they
plan to introduce regarding permissive access to footpaths across
farmland being used for agri-environment schemes.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs () (Con)
My Lords, I declare my farming interests as set out in the
register. Support for public access, including paying to create
new permissive access or rights of way, could potentially be
funded under new schemes that reward environmental benefits. The
agricultural transition plan sets out examples of the types of
land management actions that we envisage paying for under these
schemes. We are working with stakeholders and users to determine
the specific actions that will be funded, and further details of
these will be set out later this year.
(Lab) [V]
I congratulate the Minister on his appointment. Defra’s own
figures indicate that there has been a reduction of some 38,000
miles in permissive footpaths on land that was previously
eligible for grants under the CAP-funded stewardship schemes.
Given that Covid has shown how much people value access to the
countryside on their doorstep, will the Government act quickly to
bring in again schemes to reward farmers for access and,
hopefully, reverse the footpath closures that have been taking
place?
(Con)
The noble Baroness is absolutely right: there is an imperative,
which has been particularly noticed during the Covid lockdown
periods, when more people sought access to our countryside. 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.
(GP)
My Lords, will the Government guarantee specific funding for
farmers for disabled access through the environmental land
management scheme?
(Con)
Access for disabled people to the countryside will be funded
under these schemes. Funding could be available for, for example,
improving footpath surfaces, gates and access to footpaths. We
are looking at this in the tests and trials that we are carrying
out at the moment.
(Con)
My Lords, my noble friend will be aware that it is extremely
difficult to reroute an existing footpath or bridleway. Under
ELMS, might it be possible to simplify the rerouting process
where existing paths interfere with cropping regimes—perhaps by
utilising headlands as the route, instead of ingressing through
growing crops? It would be much easier for those using the paths
and would interfere less with the efficient farming operation. Is
he aware that there really needs to be a review of footpaths and
bridle paths to make them compatible with current farming methods
and to the benefit of the general public good?
(Con)
I can assure my noble friend that this is being addressed outside
environmental land management. We are bringing forward
legislation this year to streamline the process of recording and
changing rights of way. Under environmental land management
schemes, it will be possible to find permissive routes that are
more attractive to walkers and are mutually beneficial to the
landowner and farmer as well.
(LD)
My Lords, I pay tribute to my colleague , who in the
past would have spoken on this Question. Following on from the
question of the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, it is important for
the public to have access to the countryside. However, in order
to achieve the aim of ELMS to encourage the return of insect and
animal species, especially around field margins, which have
already been referred to, does the Minister believe that rights
of way may need to be constrained?
(Con)
I echo the noble Baroness’s tribute to . Alongside the
crisis of species decline, a crisis of lack of engagement with
nature by large proportions of the public is of equal concern to
me and to this Government. I do not believe they are mutually
exclusive; I think we can find an increased permissive paths
system which does not compromise the desperate desire to find
improved habitats for vertebrates, insects and wider species. So
I can only assure her that we are looking at this as part of the
tests and trials process.
(Lab)
[V]
My Lords, I remind the House of my interests as set out in the
register and am very cheered by the Minister’s response to the
noble Baroness, Lady Quin. Many rural roads were not designed for
the volume and types of traffic that they now carry and are
becoming increasingly dangerous, especially for walkers, cyclists
and riders. So what plans do the Government have to increase and
finance access for off-road recreation and to provide facilities
to increase the areas that the number of people who we now
encourage to visit the countryside need to use to access those
footpaths and bridleways?
(Con)
Under what we hope will be an increasing network of permissive
footpaths that can be used by not just walkers but cyclists and
horse riders—with greater access, as I said, for disabled
people—it is hoped that we can design them with farmers and land
managers. We will be taking people who are currently walking on
roads into a safer place for them and rewarding the farmer for
providing that facility. There is an opportunity. I am aware of
the problems that have been caused, particularly in recent
months, with increased access, where road users are not safe, and
we want to make sure that farmers and land managers are helping
us solve that problem.
(LD) [V]
My Lords, the rights-of-way network tends to reflect historic
usage and is often not very useful for new developments and
towns. To address that, we need co-operation between landowners
and local communities. Will funding be available for
partnerships, such as those created by local access forums?
(Con)
Local access fora are absolutely vital in this, and what is
decided at governmental level is often unimportant when you get
down to the ground. Local access fora have been brilliant at
bringing together farming and landowning interests with the
desires and needs of walkers. I will also say that we are also
encouraging farms to group together in clusters as part of the
environmental land management scheme, so we can get improved
access across a landscape, rather than just across an existing
farm.
(Con)
My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that 2026 is still the
cut-off date for mapping historical rights of way—footpaths? Is
he aware that the stakeholder group In All Our Footsteps refuses
to communicate with a number of people who have written to it?
Will he please ensure, if he wants proper consultation, that he
gets such groups to do their job properly?
(Con)
I will look into the latter point that my noble friend makes, but
I can confirm that, at present, 2026 is the cut-off date for
recording historical footpaths. There is provision under the
legislation to extend that by five years, but I think most people
want to get on with this and get it recorded. That will provide
clarity for the farmer and land manager, and an opportunity for
walking groups as well.
(Lab) [V]
My Lords, I welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box. In a recent
Written Answer, the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, was able to give
details of only six tests and trials for the new payment scheme
which were focused on public access, and some of them were only
incidental to other projects. Is the Minister confident that
these trials will give enough data to shape access policy for the
future? How can we be assured that the resulting funding regime
will indeed deliver the much-needed increase in public access
that everybody wants?
(Con)
In addition to the six schemes which I suspect are the ones the
noble Baroness heard about from my predecessor, my noble friend
Lord Gardiner, we are also looking at around 1,000 farms, we
hope, that will be coming into the sustainable farming initiative
pilot that will start in October. There will be an access element
to that as well. But I would draw attention to some of those six,
which are very extensive indeed. They will offer groupings across
landscapes, as I said, and will really inform how successful we
can be in getting more people into the countryside.
(Con)
[V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his very constructive answers.
As there are more and more people from cities using footpaths
across farmland for the first time, will the Ministry encourage
clear signs with codes of behaviour, especially if there is
livestock around, as protection for all?
(Con)
My Lords, we would encourage clear signage, and the Countryside
Code, the revised version of which was published last month,
gives advice to land managers, along with the Health and Safety
Executive advice. Like my noble friend, I am concerned by the
number of injuries and tragic deaths of members of the public
caused by cattle. We want signage and a clear understanding of
the risks. Under environmental land management, it will be
possible to get funding for, for example, a fence to separate
walkers from cattle.
