View PDF - United Kingdom Parliament

55 Marine and Coastal Access Bill 26 OCTOBER 2009 Marine and Coastal Access Bill 56
[Lords]
[Lords]
[Ms Angela C. Smith]
at the Crown court in Sheffield for jury service when the
Committee was sitting. This is my first opportunity to
comment on the individual provisions.
The comments that have been made about the
inclusion of coastal access in the Bill are unfortunate,
because Natural England has been at the forefront of
the campaign to ensure that these provisions are in the
Bill. Secondly, one of the points of the Bill in its entirety
is to ensure that everybody in this country understands
that we have a collective responsibility for the marine
environment. Surely one of the best ways of ensuring
that people understand that is to make sure that there is
reasonable access to the coast, and that people can start
to enjoy, understand and appreciate the coastline. By
doing that, we may also help to develop a sense of
collective responsibility for the coastline and the marine
environment.
5.15 pm
Mr. Benyon: Does the hon. Lady agree that the vast
majority of walkers who will want to visit a coastal path
will not be the hardened types who want to do long
treks round large areas of coastal Britain, but will want
to go to a particular point, possibly by public transport,
and walk part of the coast, possibly via a circular route,
or possibly returning by the same route? We need to
cater for the vast majority of walkers who will want to
access coastal Britain like that, rather than being hidebound
by the idea of a circular route as the ultimate aim of all
that we are talking about.
Ms Angela C. Smith: I thank the hon. Gentleman for
his intervention, but point out that it has been calculated
that since the opening up of the long-distance path the
entire length of Hadrian’s wall, there has been a 99 per
cent. increase in the number of long-distance walkers
using the path. The south-west coastal path has been
estimated to generate at least £307 million annually for
the regional economy, so I do not accept the hon.
Gentleman’s argument. There is a wide range of walkers
using any path, whether inland or on the coast, but
there will be a significant increase in long-distance
walkers once the provisions have been enacted.
On amendment 35, I should like to focus attention on
the importance of the provisions for establishing spreading
room for certain sporting interests. We have today heard
comments about sporting interests, which were entirely
legitimate, but there are other sporting interests with an
interest in coastal access. The British Mountaineering
Council, for instance, is keen to establish that the natural
physical boundaries that are recommended as the boundary
of the landward side of the margins recommended are
included in the margin, not seen as the outer boundary
of that margin. That is extremely important for rock
climbers and mountaineers because there are rock faces
and cliff faces that face inwards—landwards—on our
coastline, and if they are to become the natural boundaries
for the margin, it is very important that they are included
in the margins, and that we establish these margins
wherever possible and, if possible, along the entire
coastal access path.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West
(Martin Salter) said—he is no longer in his place—
amendment 32 makes a fair point. I am not convinced
that it should be pressed to a Division, but many other
sporting interests would be sympathetic to the sentiment
expressed in the amendment. The British Mountaineering
Council has made it clear that when there are temporary
closures of coastal footpaths for various reasons, such
as for nesting at certain times of year, or in order for
conservation measures to be undertaken, those temporary
closures should take place on the basis of voluntary
partnerships at local level wherever possible. I should
like an assurance from the Minister today that the least
restrictive option will be recommended for the temporary
closure of coastal footpaths for the reasons that I
outlined.
Amendment 34 is about the inclusion of particular
voices in the consultation process and potential objections
to Natural England’s refusal to undertake a review, and
I reiterate the importance of ensuring that consultation
on the establishment of any coastal path in any local
area includes, at the earliest possible stage, those with a
legitimate interest in the matter. The Ramblers Association,
in particular, feels strongly about it, and the association
has a fair point, so I should appreciate the Minister’s
comments on the matter.
The points that amendment 40 raises were debated at
some length in Committee, but the issue of parks and
gardens is ongoing, and I reiterate the point that was
made in Committee, whereby there must be a distinction
between parks on the one hand and gardens on the
other. Surely no one in this House would try to argue
that an individual whose private garden happened to be
near the coast deserved to have ramblers, walkers and
rock climbers on his or her land. That would be absolutely
unreasonable. However, with large estates attached to
large parks that, in many cases, go down to the coastline,
there is a case for establishing coastal access that does
not impact intrusively on park owners.
Paddy Tipping: My hon. Friend makes a very strong
point, and perhaps she will remind the House that
Natural England, the statutory adviser, recommended
that parks and gardens be not excluded—exempted—from
the Bill.
Ms Angela C. Smith: My hon. Friend is absolutely
right, and I remain disappointed that the provision for
excluding parks and gardens from the Bill has not been
removed. At this late stage, however, it remains for
those of us who would have favoured such a change to
the Bill simply to ask the Minister to reassure us that
the matter will come back before the House within two
years, with a report on whether the voluntary arrangements
that the Government recommended have worked. I
stress that if we find they have not, we will need to think
again about putting regulations—amendments—in place
to deal with the issue effectively.
The Isle of Wight is a popular holiday destination
whose value to walkers and tourists alike is well known,
but it is excluded from the Bill. My hon. Friend the
Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) will
have something to say about that, but I should argue
that the Isle of Wight, being the biggest island belonging
to the UK and reasonably accessible by ferry all-year
round, should be included in the Bill’s coastal access
provisions. We look to the Minister to reassure us that
an order will be made to include the Isle of Wight in
those provisions.