View PDF - United Kingdom Parliament
View PDF - United Kingdom Parliament
View PDF - United Kingdom Parliament
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
67 Marine and Coastal Access Bill 26 OCTOBER 2009 Marine and Coastal Access Bill 68<br />
[Lords]<br />
[Lords]<br />
[Huw Irranca-Davies]<br />
considered by an appointed person under the procedures<br />
in schedule 1A, and the appointed person is minded to<br />
determine that the proposals fail to strike a fair balance,<br />
a copy of the published notice, which invites representations<br />
in relation to the objection, and any “relevant alternative<br />
modifications” included in Natural England’s comments<br />
on it, must be given to the holders of sporting rights<br />
and others.<br />
I believe that our proposed regulations are the right<br />
way to go, and that our approach meets the concerns<br />
that have been raised. I am extremely pleased that as a<br />
result of the summit, the Angling Trust and the BASC<br />
have welcomed our proposals as satisfying their concerns.<br />
I am confident that public access and public safety can<br />
co-exist with the continued ability of those with sporting<br />
rights both to enjoy their sport and to run profitable<br />
businesses. I recognise the role that sporting interests,<br />
such as shooting and angling, play in the rural economy.<br />
Significant safeguards are already built into the legislation<br />
to ensure that all interests, including sporting interests,<br />
are taken into account. The basis of the approach to<br />
coastal access is extensive consultation before Natural<br />
England’s proposals are made. The Secretary of State<br />
and Natural England must aim to strike a fair balance<br />
between the interests of the public in having a right of<br />
access and those of persons with a relevant interest in<br />
the land, as defined in the Bill. However, I stress that all<br />
interests will be taken into account when Natural England<br />
draws up proposals for the coastal route and the margin.<br />
The Bill provides for extensive preliminary work and<br />
for consultation before Natural England draws up its<br />
recommendations. Natural England has said in its draft<br />
scheme that it will work with many interests, including<br />
shoot managers, when considering the best alignment<br />
for the trail. Natural England has also made it clear that<br />
it will draw up draft proposals, and these will include<br />
information on any exclusions and restrictions on access<br />
that it considers necessary. Natural England will also<br />
advertise the proposals and will ask for comment—it<br />
will not be hidden; it will be wide open. Everyone in the<br />
House now subscribes to the principle of transparency,<br />
and this will be more transparent than anything. It will<br />
provide the opportunity for anybody to make their<br />
views known and for those views to be taken into<br />
account by Natural England.<br />
The scheme that I have described, which sets out how<br />
Natural England will approach implementation of the<br />
legislation, will be consulted on, is subject to approval<br />
by the Secretary of State and will be laid before <strong>Parliament</strong>.<br />
The proposals will include details of the route and<br />
associated coastal margin, and also any exclusions or<br />
restrictions on access to land included in it. Following<br />
the publication of proposals, anyone can make<br />
representations to the Secretary of State. The representations<br />
will go to the Secretary of State in summary form, and<br />
he must take account of them in deciding whether to<br />
approve or reject the proposals, or to approve to them<br />
with modifications.<br />
What I am proposing is that those with a sporting<br />
right, including holders of sporting tenancies, should be<br />
specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State<br />
under schedule 19, so that their representations go in<br />
full rather than in summary form to the Secretary of<br />
State. In addition, experience of open access has shown<br />
that in most cases the best way to reconcile public<br />
access and sporting activities is through positive<br />
management techniques and engagement on the ground.<br />
That is the way it works. Where that is not the case,<br />
those with a sporting right will have an ongoing right to<br />
apply for restrictions and exclusions of access, where<br />
necessary, and a right of appeal if they are not put in<br />
place.<br />
Those with a relevant interest, as defined by section 45<br />
of the CROW Act, which includes sporting rights, will<br />
have the same rights as they do now on CROW land, to<br />
apply for restrictions and exclusions of access for land<br />
management reasons. Land management can include,<br />
for instance, management of a sporting activity—including,<br />
if appropriate, the sporting activity itself or the holding<br />
of commercial events. Such sporting activities might<br />
include shooting or fishing, and those with rights that<br />
enable them to carry out these activities on access land<br />
could apply for restrictions or exclusions, if they are<br />
necessary.<br />
I believe—here I echo comments made by my hon.<br />
Friends—that that process has worked well under the<br />
CROW Act for open country and registered common<br />
land. We have issued a consultation paper on the new<br />
section 3A order required under the Bill. We made it<br />
clear in Committee and elsewhere that we have no<br />
intention to make changes to the categories of people<br />
who may make an application for restrictions and exclusions<br />
under section 24 of the CROW Act.<br />
Given that different approach for coastal land and<br />
the consultative nature of the process, and given the<br />
approach that we have set out in the Bill—along with<br />
the commitment that I am happy to reaffirm today that<br />
those with a sporting right, including those with sporting<br />
tenancies, should be specified in the regulations under<br />
schedule 19—I urge the hon. Member for Newbury<br />
(Mr. Benyon) once again to consider withdrawing the<br />
amendment.<br />
Let me deal with another issue that the hon. Gentleman<br />
raised, which we touched on in Committee, about those<br />
with interests other than shooting, including issues<br />
surrounding mineral rights. I confirm that Natural England<br />
will carry out an extensive process of consultation with<br />
local interests, as I have described—land managers,<br />
local access forums, local authorities, representatives of<br />
recreational interests, wildlife interest groups and so<br />
forth. When I met the coastal access forum a few weeks<br />
ago, I promised to consider any information that it<br />
could provide me with on who might hold mineral<br />
rights. We had a useful discussion. I have not been sent<br />
anything since the meeting, but we will consider the<br />
possibility of including those with such rights in the<br />
regulations in paragraph 2(2)(f) of new schedule 1A to<br />
the National Parks and Access to the Countryside<br />
Act 1949, which would be inserted under schedule 19.<br />
We will consult on those regulations in due course.<br />
Let me deal now with amendment 34, tabled by the<br />
hon. Member for Newbury, which would insert a new<br />
subsection into proposed new section 55E. It would<br />
oblige the Secretary of State to make regulations that<br />
would entitle a person with a relevant interest in affected<br />
land to require Natural England to undertake a review<br />
of a coastal access report on certain grounds. These<br />
may include a proposed or actual change in land use<br />
and a review of existing or proposed exclusions or<br />
restrictions of access. Applicants seeking a review would