![](_themes/tabs/atabrule.gif)
Land Reform Bill (Draft)
Access Legislation and draft Scottish Outdoor Access Code
Summary Briefing Paper
prepared by the Ramblers Association (Scotland)
May 2000
The following summary briefing on the draft access legislation has been prepared by
the Ramblers Association and is published here for information (For full text click HERE)
![](_themes/tabs/atabrule.gif)
Contents
![](_themes/tabs/atabrule.gif)
The principle of establishing a right of responsible access to land and inland water
for recreation and passage, subject to appropriate safeguards for health and safety,
privacy, land management and conservation, is to be welcomed.
Whilst the draft Bill has many welcome features various elements are of very serious
concern. In its current form the Bill will significantly undermine the existing basis on
which public take access to land and water and could easily reduce opportunities for
enjoying the outdoors.
The behaviour of the public throughout the Foot and Mouth crisis has demonstrated that
a voluntary approach to restraining access does work. It has also demonstrated that there
is no justification for introducing draconian new powers to restrict access as proposed in
Sections 8, 9, 10, 15 and 16.
![](_themes/tabs/atabrule.gif)
The legislation should more closely reflect the consensus recommendations of the
Access Forum:
![bullet](_themes/tabs/atabbul1.gif) | giving a more balanced package of responsibilities between users, owners and public
bodies; |
![bullet](_themes/tabs/atabbul1.gif) | giving a clear right of responsible access that is easily understood without expensive
mapping and recording exercises to establish where it may or may not be exercised and |
![bullet](_themes/tabs/atabbul1.gif) | the detail of implementation should be in the Code, not the Bill, relying on
co-operation, education and understanding rather than compliance and compulsion. |
![](_themes/tabs/atabrule.gif)
The following sections need to be removed from the draft Bill:
Section 8 - Emergency Suspension of Access Rights.
Fire risk etc exists today and has not led to demands for this type of legislation. If
incorporated into the legislation this section will expose Councils to endless land
manager lobbying for help in dealing with so called "emergencies".
Section 9 - The Suspension of the Right of Access by Landowners.
This power is unnecessary and open to widespread abuse from those landowners who are
unsympathetic to access. Reliance on the Code and a more co-operative approach is all that
is needed.
Section 10 - Local Authority power to exempt particular land and particular conduct.
Again, this is unnecessary and will expose Councils to tremendous lobbying by land
managers keen to restrict access. It will be a huge drain on Council resources.
Section 15 - Creating a New Criminal Offence.
It is unnecessary, against the tradition of access in Scotland and against the spirit
of the legislation. Landowners can already call out the police to deal with any
"incidents" on their land and the police have to respond. More police officers
are needed to deal with rural crime not to chase around the countryside dealing with
endless calls from land managers claiming the Code has been breached.
Section 16 - Giving Local Authority's Exclusion Order Powers.
Same problem as section 10. Such a proposal must surely be a fundamental breach of
Human Rights legislation.
![](_themes/tabs/atabrule.gif)
Section 4 (Land over, which access rights are not exercisable) needs significant
modification:
Parts of this section are confusing and include reference to, for example, land being
used for recreational purposes and cropped land. Constraints for such situations need to
be in the Code, not the Bill.
![](_themes/tabs/atabrule.gif)
Sections 17 to 28 (local authority powers) need to be strengthened. Recommendations
include:
![bullet](_themes/tabs/atabbul1.gif) | a 'duty' to identify, protect, and manage Core Path Networks |
![bullet](_themes/tabs/atabbul1.gif) | a 'duty' to remove obstructions from all paths whether or not they form part of the CPN |
![bullet](_themes/tabs/atabbul1.gif) | an ability to establish CPNs by other means than formal path agreements and orders |
![bullet](_themes/tabs/atabbul1.gif) | incorporate CPNs into the formal planning process |
![](_themes/tabs/atabrule.gif)
The existing positive features of the draft Bill must be retained.
![bullet](_themes/tabs/atabbul1.gif) | intention to give a right of access to all land and water for recreation and passage |
![bullet](_themes/tabs/atabbul1.gif) | no distinction between individual and group access |
![bullet](_themes/tabs/atabbul1.gif) | new powers to local authorities to remove obstructions |
![](_themes/tabs/atabrule.gif)
Inconsistencies between the Bill and Code must be resolved.
![bullet](_themes/tabs/atabbul1.gif) | Section 5 should be redrafted so that conduct excluded from the right is defined in the
Code. Details of such conduct should be moved to the code and needs much rewording. |
![bullet](_themes/tabs/atabbul1.gif) | Conservation concerns need to be addressed more fully within the Bill and the Code.
Section 7 should be amended and a new section on appropriate action for conservation
reasons should be added. This should include a duty laid on SNH to erect advisory signs
where land managers are reluctant to take the necessary action. |
![bullet](_themes/tabs/atabbul1.gif) | The important role of local authority rangers in facilitating access (Section 25) should
focus on mediation and education rather than policing and 'ensuring compliance'. |
![bullet](_themes/tabs/atabbul1.gif) | The role of the Local Access Fora (Section 26) should be strengthened. |
![bullet](_themes/tabs/atabbul1.gif) | The register of excluded land (Section 27) is an unnecessary and probably unachievable
burden to give local authorities and therefore should be removed from the legislation. |
![bullet](_themes/tabs/atabbul1.gif) | The legal situation should be clarified so that the right does extend to wild camping.
The 1865 Act should be amended so that recreational camping is clearly excluded. |
![bullet](_themes/tabs/atabbul1.gif) | A statement on liability should be included in the Bill. As proposed by the Access Forum
and as suggested by the draft Code, access should be taken at the individual's risk. |
![](_themes/tabs/atabrule.gif)
Although a right of access would be enshrined in statute, the overall intentions of the
draft Bill have been undermined by additional powers, exclusions and exemptions which go
far beyond the proposals of the Access Forum, SNH and Sportscotland. The effect of this
would be to reduce the rights of access traditionally enjoyed by the public in Scotland.
The Foot and Mouth crisis has made it very clear that public bodies already have or can
obtain extra powers to restrict access when this is necessary. It has also shown that the
public will behave responsibly where there is a real need to restrain access. The degree
to which Scotland's economy is dependent on our unique traditions of access to the
countryside has been made plain. Further restrictive powers or exclusions are neither
necessary nor desirable.
![](_themes/tabs/atabrule.gif)
|