View PDF - United Kingdom Parliament

65 Marine and Coastal Access Bill 26 OCTOBER 2009 Marine and Coastal Access Bill 66
[Lords]
[Lords]
6pm
The ethos of the Bill is to use local knowledge from
walking the routes to devise the proposal that will go to
the Secretary of State. If the hon. Gentleman wants
leadership in saying that local access forums, in all
different shapes and sizes throughout the country, should
be part and parcel of the scheme, I give him that
categorical assurance.
Mr. Jenkin: I do not know whether the Minister will
return to the question of Mistley quay, but does the
Secretary of State or Natural England have any discretion
under the Bill if access is denied and included in the
“relevant excepted land”? Is there any discretion or
power that the Secretary of State could use to resolve a
dispute such as that at Mistley quay?
Huw Irranca-Davies: I am pleased to say that I shall
come to that, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman will bear
with me. I shall try to deal in detail with the various
points that have been raised.
We have recently published a consultation paper on
the contents of the order required under section 3A of
the CROW Act, as inserted by clause 298 of the Bill.
Through that order, the rights for open-air recreation
will be created on the coastal margin and the route.
Among other things, we have proposed that the description
of land that will be specified in the order and to which
the new right of access will apply includes the foreshore
and any cliff, whether sloping or sheer, adjacent to the
foreshore. The interests of walkers and climbers, and of
the organisations that represent the interests of those
who walk or climb—for example, the Ramblers Association
and the British Mountaineering Council—will be fully
taken into account before any proposals for the route
are finalised. Owners’ interests will be taken into account
in the consultation process, and in their ability to make
objections under new schedule 1A to the National
Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 as inserted
by schedule 19 to the Bill.
We aim to achieve a route around the whole English
coast, and access to a wider margin of land wherever
possible, while fairly balancing landowners’ and users’
interests. That has been the Bill’s trajectory throughout.
We discussed it ad nauseam in Committee, and that is
where we are now. The word “balance” is vital and, as
hon. Members know, clause 292 places a duty on the
Secretary of State and Natural England to strike a
balance between the interests of the public in having a
right of access over land, and the interests of any
person with a relevant interest in the land. I urge the
hon. Gentleman to consider withdrawing the amendment.
It is worth reflecting on the words of Baroness Hamwee,
the Liberal Democrat spokesman in the other place. In
reply to a similar amendment there she said:
“At first reading, I thought that this was a moderately benign
amendment giving an exception but, now having read it three
times, it seems to me that it would give all landward owners and
others who fall into that category what amounts to a veto. As I
read it, that would wreck the coastal duty. Therefore, we could
not support that particular amendment.”—[Official Report, House
of Lords, 1 June 2005; Vol. 711, c. 13.]
On amendments 32 and 33, I welcome the support
from hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the
Member for Reading, West, for the summit on sporting
interests, which we held in the summer. It was attended
by the Country Land and Business Association, the
Countryside Alliance, the British Association for Shooting
and Conservation, the Angling Trust, and others. It was
a constructive summit, and I shall say more about it in a
moment. The proposals emanating from it are sound,
and they were welcomed by the BASC, the Angling
Trust and others.
The hon. Member for Newbury has raised an important
issue in amendments 32 and 33, which we discussed in
Committee. Their combined effect would be to delete
the existing categories of owner and leaseholder in
clauses 292(4) and proposed new section 55J(2) in
clause 297, and replace them with a definition of a
“relevant interest”, which includes those who hold a
legal estate or legal interest in the land. That was part of
our discussion at the sporting summit, which my hon.
Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy)
also attended. Natural England and the Secretary of
State would have a duty to strike a fair balance between
the interests of the public in having rights of access over
land and the interests of any person with a relevant
interest in the land, which would now include those
with any interest in the land, including the owners of
sporting rights and easements.
Those people would be a category of persons who
must be consulted before Natural England’s report is
drawn up, and be notified of Natural England’s final
proposals for a coastal route. They would be able to
make objections to Natural England’s proposals under
the procedures for objections included in schedule 1A
to the National Parks and Access to the Countryside
Act 1949, which schedule 19 inserts in the Bill. That
procedure is available to persons with a relevant interest
in affected land. In Committee, I said clearly that I want
to take further steps to assure those sporting interests
not only that their concerns are being listened to, but
that we would, if we could, take further steps to assure
those with sporting interests over land that they can
continue to enjoy their rights when coastal access has
been introduced.
We had a very productive meeting on 7 September,
which was attended by my hon. Friend the Member for
Plymouth, Sutton and representatives from the Angling
Trust, BASC, the Country Land and Business Association
and the Countryside Alliance, and I heard their views
and concerns about the issues involved. I said at the
meeting, and I now reaffirm, that our intention is that
those with a sporting right, including holders of sporting
tenancies—that was a major concern—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 regulations in question are those in
paragraph 2(2)(f) of the new schedule 1A to the National
Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, which
would be inserted by schedule 19 to the Bill. The effect
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 that they made on the report would go
in full to the Secretary of State rather than being
summarised.
The concerns of those with sporting rights will be
given full consideration by the Secretary of State, who
will make the final decision on Natural England’s proposals.
In addition, when a landowner’s objection is being