The following supplementary document was submitted to the Justice 2 Committee of the Scottish Parliament on 22nd January 2002 as they continue to gather evidence on the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill [as introduced]. Details of the Inverness meeting can be found via the diary page. Our initial evidence can be read here.

Introduction
After attending the Justice 2 committee meeting in Inverness on Monday the Mountaineering Council of Scotland (MCofS) wishes to add to the evidence submitted by the recreational interests.

Commercial and Business Rights
It is worth considering that our common law position was built on the foundation of the population moving freely about the country on business or pleasure, among them drovers. In regard to the rights of access in the Bill our view is that the concern should be about the impact of the activity rather than on the nature of the relationship among the individuals within any group, and whether there is any commercial element. Like many others we believe the undoubted extra responsibilities on leaders and organisers of groups should be spelt out in the Code, but do not wish to see commercial operators discriminated against. The need to consult or seek permission depends on many variable factors such as group size, nature of activity, time of year and need for facilities. It should be a leader's responsibility to make a judgement as to the impact his/her activity would have on the land and the land manager's business.

A further effect of placing commercial operators outwith the right would be that some landowners would seize the opportunity to stop and question individuals or groups to enquire about the nature of their visit. We have a fear that this clause offers tremendous potential for harassment, as well as causing damage to the rural economy.

Hours of Darkness
The debate over access during the hours of darkness is another demonstration of the implications of attempting to address the real or perceived fears of rural dwellers by restricting the rights of the law-abiding. We saw during the foot and mouth crisis that an empty countryside leads to a rise in wildlife crime. The question of appropriate behaviour should be covered in the Code.

Resolving Conflict
During the course of Monday's meeting, the convener asked what would happen if a person is exercising the right of access on land that is not exempt and in a way that they believe to be responsible, but a landowner or land manager takes a different view.

Our view is that much of the confrontation is caused by ignorance and misunderstanding of the rights of the respective parties. This is hardly surprising when the evidence submitted to the Committee demonstrated that our political and legal leaders have given conflicting advice on the current position, and that it remains unresolved. A clear and unequivocal statement on the validity of responsible access in the Bill would clarify the rights and responsibilities of all parties.

Education is likely to be a major priority for many public and voluntary bodies after the legislation is passed. This in itself should ensure that those taking recreation would be more knowledgeable and confident about their rights, as well as their responsibilities. It is also worth considering the fact that if good legislation is achieved the current function of NGO's in campaigning should transfer to a more educational role.

In similar vein landmanagers will be motivated to ensure that their employees and agents are clear on what the Bill means.

Furthermore, the role of local authorities should also change from their current concentration on rights of way to an involvement in all aspects of access issues. People encountering access problems under the current system tend to let incidents go unreported, or they report them to voluntary organisations such as the MCofS. In future they should be able to report such problems to the local authority, which should be empowered, as a statutory body, to take the issue up with the owner or manager, thereby acting to prevent an incident being repeated.

The greater emphasis on education and local authority empowerment to uphold access rights should eventually lead to a situation whereby public awareness increases and owner and manager confidence to abuse the law should decrease. It is surely the long-term effectiveness of this legislation to resolve such problems that we need to consider. A further aspect to this question is the need for a National Access Forum to provide a cross-sector input into updating the Code, and also for influential Local Access Fora that can work with local authorities in managing access and addressing problems such as intimidation towards recreationalists.

Local Authority Powers
This leads on to our view that Monday's debate did not fully address the crucial issue of local authority powers. We believe that local authorities have a vital part to play in delivering access on the ground, but section 11 as currently written, is aimed at giving local authorities powers to restrict access. We would like to see a more positive section that aims to enable local authorities to promote and protect access.

Strength of the Bill
From our role in dealing with access problems on the ground we know that problems are widespread and affect significant numbers of people taking recreation. Recent research by SNH backs up this view.

In terms of improving the current system that has led to these problems there was much debate about whether the new legislation would make a difference, and lead to more rights than currently exist. Our view is that, as currently written, it does not give more rights and would probably not lead to more opportunities for access on foot, though the situation for cyclists and horseriders is quite different. The new legislation needs to act as a lever that confirms the public right, and encourages landowners to work with local authorities to manage access on their ground rather than denying access.

Walking and Stalking
The discussion on Monday considered the issue of access to high ground and the relationship between walking and stalking. Within the given answers there was an emphasis on the use of the Hillphones system, which is jointly organised by the MCofS, SNH and the participating estates. We wish to see the scheme continue to expand, but it is only one form of communication amongst several others. The Code should encourage communication that is as accurate as possible and used responsibly. Many signs are intended to intimidate and mislead, rather than to inform and advise. We hope the Code will address this issue by describing what represents responsible signage.

In view of the accuracy of this type of shooting, there have not been any accidents involving walkers, and whilst there is no place for complacency, we know that the two activities are compatible and have co-existed for more than a century. In helping walkers to avoid disturbing stalking, we believe the key is conveying simple messages that enable each side to understand the other activity and take responsible decisions. We are already involved in this kind of cooperative working.

MCofS Evidence
Please add this to our previously submitted evidence. We remain prepared to give further evidence to the committee if called upon.

Land Reform Bill news