View PDF - United Kingdom Parliament

51 Marine and Coastal Access Bill 26 OCTOBER 2009 Marine and Coastal Access Bill 52
[Lords]
[Lords]
[Mr. Benyon]
I acknowledge that the Government have made some
movement in this area, and have reinstated the right of
appeal, under the CROW Act, where restrictions or
exclusions are proposed. It has also been said that the
representations made by holders of sporting interests,
but not holders of other legal interests such as mineral
rights, will be passed on fully to the Secretary of State
rather than being summarised. There remains, however,
a feeling among certain groups that Government
concessions do not amount to equal rights. The Bill still
does not give equal treatment to all those people who
have a legal interest in the land, thereby creating a
two-tier system among those with different legal interests.
For example, the Bill includes those with grazing licences.
That right of occupation could be for a very small
amount of annual rent compared with, let us say, sporting
rights, which could be of considerably greater value and
require, as in the case of wildfowling clubs, huge amounts
of conservation investment both in terms of money and
effort over many years.
The Bill currently provides that occupiers and owners
will be taken into account both at the walking the
course phase and when considering whether a fair balance
has been struck between the interests of the owner or
occupier and the interests of the public who may wish
to walk a coastal route. However, there are some legal
interests that do not have the same rights. In particular,
holders of sporting and mineral rights will not be
treated in the same way as owners and occupiers.
Particular concern arises in respect of the setting of
the route and margin. If Natural England is not required
to take into account some legal interests, such as mineral
or sporting rights, it could set the route in a way that
seriously impinges on those rights. Furthermore, it may
result in the total loss of use of such rights without its
being called to account, as there is no obligation on
Natural England to take account of those interests in
determining whether a fair balance has been reached.
Throughout Committee stage, we agreed that the Bill
requires us to take a great leap of faith in organisations
such as Natural England. All my discussions with it
have made me conscious that it is up to the task and is
looking at this issue in entirely the right way, but we
really do need some assurance—I hope, in the Bill.
5pm
Our amendment seeks to redress this imbalance by
ensuring that the definitions of interest in the land
include all those with a legal estate or interest in the
land, as is the case under the CROW Act. We recognise
attempts by the Minister to negotiate a route through
this issue at his summit last month, and that he was not
helped by a divergence of opinion among some of the
groups present. He may have found a way forward and I
am happy to support it, but I do want reassurances on
this point.
Amendment 34 concerns the need for changes to the
route to reflect a change of use of the land in question
where it is affected by the route of the path or spreading
room. The Government have consistently promised that
the coastal access route will be flexible and responsive
to changing circumstances; however, nothing in the Bill
ensures that. How is Natural England to know that a
development has been approved, and that it must alter
its coastal access report as a result of that development
affecting the coastal access route? How does the developer
notify Natural England and ensure that the coastal
access report is up to date and takes account of the
changes that have been approved? The amendment
would ensure that those with an interest in the land have
the right to request changes to coastal access in future
where there is a change in use of the land. At the very
least, we need an assurance from the Minister that such
a mechanism will be included explicitly within Natural
England’s coastal access scheme. We also need an explicit
assurance that guidance will be provided to local planning
authorities confirming the flexible nature of the coastal
access provisions.
Amendment 37 concerns liability issues. Although it
is Natural England and the Secretary of State who will
identify the coastal route and areas of spreading room,
clause 300 removes all liability from Natural England
and the Secretary of State for any failures that may
occur in connection with its coastal access duty. It is
surely wrong for Government to try to restrict liability
in this way. The Secretary of State and Natural England
are both charged under clause 291 with exercising the
coastal access duty. That duty should be carried out
with due regard to public safety. If liability is removed,
as proposed, members of the public will be unable to
find any redress from the Government or Natural England
for failures in identifying a safe coastal access route.
Retaining liability at some level, at least, will act as a
reminder to Natural England and the Secretary of State
to determine coastal access carefully and remain mindful
of their responsibilities toward the public. It will provide
a powerful check and balance in determining the precise
location of any coastal access.
I am not in the business of creating vast new burdens
on any Government agency or on Ministers themselves,
but the question of liability does need a reasoned response.
The Minister may be able to give me some reassurances
or suggest an alternative solution to my amendment. In
fact, it is unclear in the Bill exactly where liability will
lie. It would be helpful to have some words from the
Minister in this regard.
Martin Salter: I congratulate the hon. Member for
Newbury (Mr. Benyon)—his Front-Bench colleagues
would do well to examine how he has approached this
Bill and this thorny issue in particular—because the
House has just heard an example of constructive opposition
that will lead to effective change. When we leave this
place, as I will shortly, it is nice to think that we have
been the architects of effective change rather than just a
handful of soundbites.
I shared the concern of the British Association for
Shooting and Conservation, recreational angling interests
and Members from all parts of the House that some of
the coastal access provisions, as originally drafted, could
have had unintended consequences. Surely part of what
we are about when we scrutinise legislation is guarding
against and avoiding those. Nobody in their right mind
wants to drive a coastal access path through a piece of
land if that would put the public at risk or inhibit the
legitimate enjoyment and sport of wild fowlers, who for
generations have enjoyed their sport on many of the
marshlands and estuaries around our coasts. The
recreational angling sector, although less affected, had
concerns about coastal access paths going past places of