View PDF - United Kingdom Parliament

53 Marine and Coastal Access Bill 26 OCTOBER 2009 Marine and Coastal Access Bill 54
[Lords]
[Lords]
particular popularity with people who beach-cast. I am
talking about guys who throw 4 or 5 ounces of lead
some 200-odd yards from a beach, so it is not a good
idea for a footpath to be immediately behind them—unless
a member of the public wants to have a quick swim or
possibly be seriously injured in some other way.
It was important that those sporting interests could
be represented in the consultation mechanism in respect
of the establishment of the path. Following some vigorous
exchanges in Committee, which were based on amendments
tabled by the hon. Member for Newbury and me—there
was support from other hon. Members—the Minister
kindly agreed to convene a summit on 7 September. I
thank him for apprising us of the outcome, and I wish
to read into the record what he has said in writing:
“I have therefore proposed that those with a sporting right
(including holders of sporting tenancies), should be specified in
regulations made by the Secretary of State under Schedule 19 to
the Bill, to ensure that their representations are given particular
consideration by the Secretary of State…The effect of this would
be that Natural England would have to take reasonable steps to
give notice of a relevant coastal access report to those with
sporting rights, and any representations which they made on the
report would go in full to the Secretary of State”.
That is important.
People have criticised this as not so much a victory
and not so much a significant policy change, but they
are the same bunch who misrepresented the CROW Act
and one would not be surprised to learn that they are
usually a little late on these issues. The fact that sporting
interests will have the ability to make representations
right to the very top of the tree—they will have access
to the top of the pile—is one of the reasons why the
British Association for Shooting and Conservation and
the Angling Trust have welcomed the improvement
made, the assurances given by the Minister and the
conclusions of the summit held on 7 September. As far
as I am concerned, and as far as recreational shooters
and anglers are concerned, this is a job well done. We do
not see the need for this to be a point of contention, so
notwithstanding the strong and pertinent remarks that
he made, I urge the hon. Member for Newbury to
recognise that there is little need for the House to divide
on this issue.
can be easily created and farmers can have sensible
diversions for footpaths on their land—that is what the
majority of people in this country want. When the
right-to-roam section of the CROW Act came in, it
diverted an enormous amount of money from and
effort by Natural England, or whatever it was called in
those days, to create the open access areas.
I can talk with first-hand knowledge only about my
own area, Northumberland. We have masses of open
moorland near where I live. The fell outside the village
has been walked on by local people and visitors for
years, but it was not included in open access. Pieces of
ground that no one really wants to walk on have now
been included for open access, so all we get is a lot of
money spent on new gateposts with new signs on them,
and the walking experience and walking environment in
the area are not improved. In a sense, I regret the
diversion that the opening of coastal access will cause
Natural England with its core responsibilities of opening
access to the public and creating better rights of way
and bridleway networks throughout the country.
I would like my hon. Friend’s amendment to be
accepted because I am aware that wildfowling clubs and
those with other sporting interests are extremely worried
that their interests could be overlooked. I appreciate
what a lot of progress was made in Committee; nevertheless,
the amendment would be better for those groups. We
are talking about organisations, particularly wildfowling
clubs, that invested tens of thousands—even hundreds
of thousands—of pounds over the years in conservation
efforts to develop safe and responsible wildfowling around
the coast. If that could be prejudiced in any way by the
creation of the coastal path, they would clearly be
extremely worried. I hope that the Minister will once
again reassure them.
Let me mention another case that was brought to my
attention. In one area, small inshore fishing boats,
which are hauled up off the foreshore, are launched
some distance from the coast. There is no legal right to
do that, only centuries of customs and practice. I was
interested to note those concerns, and I hope that the
Minister can explain that those people have nothing to
worry about.
Mr. Peter Atkinson (Hexham) (Con): I wish to say a
few brief words in support of the comments made by
my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Benyon)
from our Front Bench. I did not serve on the Committee,
so this is the first time that I have been able to comment
on this part of the Bill. Like him, I think it is regrettable
that this whole matter of coastal access was put into a
very important Bill dealing with marine conservation.
Many other complicated issues have thus been raised
and the subject deserved a piece of legislation on its
own; I am totally in favour of providing coastal access,
but such an undertaking should have been dealt with in
separate legislation. I am sure that both sides of the
House would have welcomed that and would have facilitated
the passage of such legislation.
Coastal access is desirable, but, harking back to the
right-to-roam section of the CROW Act, once again—I
do not want to excite the hon. Member for Sherwood
(Paddy Tipping) on this matter—most people want
recreation in the countryside, on moorland and on the
coast, but they want an improvement in our existing
rights of way network. Footpaths and circular walks
Huw Irranca-Davies: The hon. Gentleman might be
around later in the debate when, if we are fortunate
enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we
might discuss the White Herring Fisheries Act 1771.
Mr. Atkinson: I was intrigued to see that an amendment
to the White Herring Fisheries Act was coming up for
debate. If one was in the habit of filibustering in the
House, which we used to do, that would have been a
marvellous subject to keep us engaged for several hours.
I am quite sure that many hon. Members would wish to
talk about that Act.
I hope that the Minister, if he will not accept the
amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member
for Newbury, will give further reassurance to those who
have wildfowling, sporting and other rights and interests
that their interests will be looked after as the Bill
becomes law.
Ms Angela C. Smith (Sheffield, Hillsborough) (Lab):
This is my first chance, too, to speak on this Bill as
amended in Committee, because of my required attendance