View PDF - United Kingdom Parliament

57 Marine and Coastal Access Bill 26 OCTOBER 2009 Marine and Coastal Access Bill 58
[Lords]
[Lords]
The issue of ferries, and, in particular, whether islands
that are reached by seasonal ferries should be included
in the Bill, has not been satisfactorily resolved. The
question is, when seasonal ferries do not operate, in
winter usually, what do walkers who wish to use coastal
footpaths do? Are they to face long detours, or will
Natural England be encouraged to make alternative
provisions to get around the fact that those ferries do
not operate at certain times of the year?
Having said all that, I wish the Bill well and hope that
the Minister will respond positively to the comments on
the proposed changes to it.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin (North Essex) (Con): I have
spoken to the Bill only once before, on Second Reading,
when I discussed its fisheries conservation aspects. I
shall use this opportunity, however, to address its coastal
access provisions. I have no registrable interests to declare,
but my family, like the Secretary of State’s family, have a
tiny patch of coastline that is affected by the Bill. I do
not wish to address that today, however.
I am intrigued by the amendment, which replaces
“is” with “may be”. Perhaps in tabling it, my hon.
Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Benyon) was
demonstrating his lack of faith that the Bill would
deliver what the Government promise. If the amendment
is proffered in that spirit, I very much want to support
it, not because I oppose the principle of coastal access
but because I think a lot of people will be disappointed
by what the Bill delivers.
I am most concerned by what is excluded from the
coastal access provisions under the Countryside and
Rights of Way Act 2000 definition of relevant “excepted
land”. I must relate to the House a bizarre situation, of
which my constituent, Charles Clover, gave a very good
account in yesterday’s Sunday Times, concerning the
Mistley quay in my constituency. Mistley is a little town
on the Stour estuary that has a quay on which it is
recorded that boats unloaded fish as long ago as the
14th century. By some anachronism, perhaps, the quay
has historically been privately owned. However, the
public have always enjoyed access to it, so that barges
and, in more recent decades, yachts and pleasure craft
have been able to use the quay for their enjoyment. That
was fine until the Health and Safety Executive threatened
to prosecute the quay’s operators under health and
safety laws for providing insufficient safety equipment
on the quay. The HSE gave the owner a choice between
either putting up signs and providing suitable equipment
such as lifebuoys and ladders or other devices by which
people who fall in the water can get out or be rescued,
or putting up a fence. It chose the cheaper of the two
options and erected an 8-foot wire fence across that
historic part of Mistley—across the quay. It is now
impossible for ordinary people to access and use the
quay.
What will the Bill do for those parts of the coastline
that have historically had public access but that are
excluded by the Bill? For those areas, the phrase “may
be” is very much the operable sentiment, because the
Bill seems to do nothing to strengthen proposals for
public open spaces on the coastline in areas that are
excluded by the Bill.
Let me emphasise how extraordinary the situation is.
There has been a huge amount of public protest about
this matter in my constituency. I feel sorry for Trent
Wharfage, the owner of the quay to which I referred, for
being caught up in all this, although I think that it has
gone the wrong way about handling the situation and
that it could have avoided a confrontation. It has blocked
off historic rights that have existed for a long time, and
it looks as though this matter can now be settled only
through the courts and a complicated legal process that
may not be successful. The Bill would do absolutely
nothing to assist the ordinary population of Mistley in
resolving this situation.
A few weeks ago, a dinghy capsized in the Stour
estuary and a lifeboat was called out from Harwich. A
rescue was undertaken and the lifeboat took the people
and their dinghy to Mistley quay, but they could not
access the quay and no helicopter could land there
because of the fence. The fence had to be cut down,
with the help of local residents, so that the rescue could
be properly effected. What a great victory for health and
safety and the HSE! I hope that the Minister will forgive
me for placing this very unhappy situation on the
record, but I want to know how the Bill will help to
resolve it.
The Bill purports to solve all the problems of coastal
access, but it demonstrates a thoughtless, rather broad-brush
approach that a lot of people have complained about
because it will hurt rural parts of the coastline, conservation,
privacy and other vital things. Little has been said about
how the exclusion of ports could lead to more situations
such as that at Mistley quay. The Bill does absolutely
nothing to help to resolve that issue, and I would be
grateful if the Minister could address that fact.
5.30 pm
Dr. Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab): I
would like particularly to address my remarks to
amendment 40, which stands in my name and those of
my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield, Hillsborough
(Ms Smith) and for High Peak (Tom Levitt).
The Bill is progressing through Report with remarkably
few major amendments having been tabled. That is a
tribute to the fact that it came into this House as a very
good Bill and, that during its passage, my hon. Friend
the Minister has taken full cognisance of sensible efforts
to ensure that it leaves us not just as a very good Bill but
as an excellent Bill. The spirit of co-operation and sweet
reason that has characterised many parts of the debates
demonstrates the general feeling around the House that
the Bill is essential for the marine and coastal environment
of England and that it should be, and is, as good as it
can be.
The modest proposal in the amendment underlines
not only the spirit of negotiation and voluntary discussion
that is a substantial part particularly of the coastal
access elements of the Bill, but the notion that those
provisions set out genuine principles and a real
understanding of what it is to have coastal access around
England. They belong honourably within a marine Bill.
One cannot, in a discussion of shipping and ports,
separate what is on the land side from what is on the
seaward side of a ports’ operations and activities, and
the coast is an essential part of our marine environment
not only in terms of public access but of how it relates
to the marine environment beyond the shores and out
to sea.