Martin
Salter: I rise in support of the amendments.
Mr. Gale, I draw your attention to the fact that we may be
discussing water in the Bill, but the roof just outside this room is
leaking tremendously at the
moment.
Mr.
Benyon: Someone has nicked the
lead.
I agree with
the hon. Member for Newbury, but I must tease him gently. He referred
to local authorities having an in-depth knowledge of who owns what and
what sporting rights exist. I am sure that he will not mind if I reveal
that when he was preparing for a speech the other day for the
“save our rivers” campaign, which he and I both support,
he required a list of all the angling clubs from my constituency to
his. I was happy to provide it, as I am a member of most of them, but
the irony was not lost on me that some of those angling clubs rent
water off him, so there are cases where even the landowner is not
entirely sure which parcel of land is leased to which particular
sporting interest. I mean that in a most affectionate and friendly
way.
I would also
like to put on record my slight surprise that although this is a hot
issue, particularly among wildfowling and fishing interests, the
Countryside Alliance, which is normally quick to lobby me on such
matters, has been strangely quiet. However, I understand that it has
opened up its usual channels of communication with the Conservative
party. I would like to point out
that the election has not yet occurred. It is always useful when
lobbying organisations are equal across the House in making their
representations. Mr.
Walker: Will the hon. Gentleman give
way?
Martin
Salter: As long as the hon. Gentleman is rude to the
Countryside
Alliance.
Mr.
Walker: Is it not nice that wildfowling, like fishing,
crosses all social and economic
boundaries?
Martin
Salter: Yes. I am conscious that Members from this party
might not speak to me ever again if I continue this love-in with the
hon. Member for Broxbourne.
I was lobbied
heavily by an organisation for which I have immense respect, and which
I cited in my contribution to the Second Reading debate. I am grateful
to the hon. Member for Newbury for reminding the Committee of the
deliberations of the Joint Committee, which raised the issue as
well.
6
pm There
is correspondence on record from the Minister to the British
Association for Shooting and Conservation that is clearly drafted by
civil servants and is, frankly, nonsense. It needs to be deconstructed.
I know that the Minister, as a reasonable man, will have a way forward
for us, but I will read into the record the response to the initial
concerns about why the arguments hold very little water, like the roof
of the House of
Commons. The
Department’s response to BASC can be summarised as follows:
shooting is not pertinent to coastal access issues. The letter mentions
only wildfowling, and ignores game shooting, pest control—an
issue raised by the hon. Member for Newbury—fishing and stalking
interests. The Department claims that coastal land is more complicated
and has more interests, and that it believes that shooting tenants and
holders of sporting rights should be excluded from those able to appeal
against the route. That is on the record as a response from the
Department to shooting interests, so there is clearly a conflict which
needs to be resolved. DEFRA goes on to sweeten the pill by saying it
will give Natural England the power to exclude tidal land from
spreading room. However, Natural England had already planned to do
that. It is not going to help a lot of the shoots, pest control,
fishing or stalking interests on the coast.
Here is the
irony. A Labour Government have given more rights to the tenants of
grouse moors than to wildfowling clubs. My hon. Friend the
Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
understands country pursuits. Wildfowling is a pretty ordinary
down-to-earth pursuit—a down-in-the-mud pursuit. People spend a
lot of time up to their waist or neck in water. How ironic it is that
those who can afford expensive grouse moor shooting appear to be given
rights in the appeal process, rather than Joe Soap participating in the
centuries-old activity of
wildfowling.
Mr.
Walker: The hon. Gentleman makes the point I was trying to
made in my intervention. Wildfowling is not the sole pursuit of the
landed gentry. I have nothing against the landed
gentry.
Mr.
Walker: But wildfowling crosses all social and economic
backgrounds and that is something we need to focus on in the
amendment.
Martin
Salter: This is obviously the Marxist-Leninist amendment.
The problem revolves around the definition of “relevant interest
in land” in the Bill. It clearly differs, as the hon. Member for
Newbury said, from the Countryside and Rights of Way Act, by excluding
tenants and holders of sporting rights. They are not able to make the
same formal representations to Natural England against the proposed
route, so we end up with the ridiculous situation that a golf club may
appeal because it owns the land but a wildfowling or fishing club
cannot. I fail to see how that can be justified in any sense.
There are
about 200 wildfowling clubs around the coast. An awful lot more people
are involved in those clubs than are ever going to be involved in
grouse moors or the specific proposals that would be picked up under
the appeals process allowed in the CROW Act. The last point I want to
make is that the current position conflicts with Natural
England’s draft scheme for the implementation of pathways. Clear
guidance has been drafted, in consultation with DEFRA advisers, to
avoid ports, industry, crops, livestock and military use but no
consideration is given to the tenants of sporting rights. I have a huge
amount of respect for officials in DEFRA, but this particular measure
seems to have been drafted by people with a poor understanding of
sporting interests on the coast. That is something in the Bill that
needs to be
resolved.
Huw
Irranca-Davies: I welcome the opportunity to follow two
good contributions to the debate. I concede that there is genuine
concern among sporting interests of all sorts—shooting,
wildfowling or fishing—and that this is important to our coastal
areas, not only as an activity or pastime but by providing economic and
social benefit. To put it in context, I understand that sporting
interest cases under the CROW Act provisions amount to 43 per cent. of
the current live restrictions on applications from landowners. That
effectively covers 3.5 per cent. of the total restrictable area of open
access land, excluding Forestry Commission, under the CROW Act. Those
interests therefore have a sizeable impact. Those figures include
lowland shooting—and thus moorland shooting—live-quarry
shooting, including rough shoots; deer shooting; and, of course,
fishing. Putting that into context, it is worth noting that the right
of access to the coastal margin will be the CROW Act right of access,
and that is why I am prefacing some of my comments by saying that the
CROW restrictions and exclusion systems will apply to such land. It is
important to say that at the outset, because there is more than one way
to skin a cat, and I hope to explain how the provisions in the Bill and
in the CROW Act will work to maintain the valid interests and pastimes
of people and organisations who are not landowners but who have a long
and often historic interest in an area of land.
Let me deal
with some of the issues that have been raised. I want to correct a
misunderstanding by making it clear that section 22 of the CROW Act,
concerning
discretionary closures, does not apply to those with sporting interests,
and that it applies only to the owners of land. In respect of section
22, we propose to remove the landowner’s right to make
discretionary restrictions. We are doing that for several reasons,
including for the availability of a coastal route that allows people
access along the coast. That is central to the Government’s
vision, but it has to be done sensitively and in line with the duties
in clause 291(3) to “aim 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.” I
shall expand on that in a
moment. We
want landowners and others to talk to Natural England from the outset.
The whole basis of the consultation and what has been introduced in
Natural England’s draft scheme on coastal access is predicated
on the idea of real engagement and consultation, and it builds on what
has been done under the voluntary provisions. We recognise that
although 70 per cent. of the coast is open to access at the moment,
that leaves 30 per cent. to which there is no access, not
even through alternative paths.
Another issue
that has been raised, in respect of the Bill and the CROW Act, is land
management. I want to be emphatic about this point: land management can
include shooting and fishing—sporting interests—as well
as actions that are preparatory to those activities. The whole gamut of
sporting interests, including preparation and the activities
themselves, therefore come within land management. Finally, a point was
made about bureaucracy and delay in appeals against the refusal of
applications for sporting interests. Restrictions can be applied well
in advance of the shooting activity for a period of time, so there is
time for an appeal to be heard. There are genuine concerns with which
we need to deal, but there is more than one way of dealing with
them.
Amendments 34
and 43 seek specifically to extend the definition of those with a
relevant interest in land that is affected by proposals to include
those with sporting rights. Amendment 46 would amend the description in
clause 296 of what is a relevant interest to add those with a legal
interest; that would include those with a sporting right, as well as
those with an easement or a right of common. That is relevant, because
Natural England and the Secretary of State must aim to strike a fair
balance between the interests of the public in having a right of access
and the interests of persons with a relevant interest in the land.
Persons with a relevant interest in the affected land may also make
that objection to Natural England about a coastal access report under
the procedure for hearing objections that we introduced in the Bill in
the other place.
The CROW Act
definition of interest in land includes rights of common, as well as
grazing and sporting rights. I reiterate the comments that Lord Hunt
made on Report in the other place about those interests being
particularly relevant to the land types involved in the CROW Act. CROW
land—open country, including mountain, moor, heath and
down—includes a number of grouse moors, as has been mentioned,
which makes shooting interests particularly pertinent. Rights of common
were also particularly important, as the mapping process involved
mapping areas of registered common
land.
Martin
Salter: The Countryside Alliance, the Country Land and
Business Association and the British Association for Shooting and
Conservation are not ill-informed bodies. Will the Minister explain
why, despite the assurances given by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath in the
other place, the fears and concerns do not appear to have been allayed?
How much progress does he hope to make in allaying those fears and
concerns if he is merely repeating what was said in the other
place?
Huw
Irranca-Davies: I think that those bodies have genuine
concerns. Certain interests have taken place for many years, if not
generations, in some places, and those bodies want not only assurance,
but to know that there is a way through this and that they can make
their representations and be heard. I will flesh this out a little bit,
and I will not only repeat what was said in the other place. I have a
proposal, because although I am not a fisherman and do not engage in
shooting, I recognise that somebody who takes part in such activities
and has genuine concerns whether the Bill will end such activities will
not only want to hear assurances, but will want proper access to engage
in the process. Those people will say, “Show me, Minister. How
can I have an impact on this?” I will come to that in a moment.
To deal with my hon. Friend’s point, those concerns are still
out
there. Let
me state that, as I said at the beginning, I recognise the role that
sporting interests such as shooting and angling play in the rural
economy, but all interests—I stress all interests—will be
taken into account when Natural England draws up proposals for the
coastal route and margin. It is important that I mention that that will
not be an arbitrary line or a coastal margin drawn on a map by a man in
Whitehall. The Bill provides for extensive preliminary work and
consultation before Natural England draws up its recommendations. The
work that is done on the ground, with the local interests and with
regard to the duties contained in the Bill, means that the people doing
the work will have to go out and listen to all the various concerns and
try to reconcile some of the competing interests out
there. Natural
England said, in its draft guidance that I mentioned earlier, that it
will work with shoot managers when considering the best alignment for
the trail. So it has said on the record that it intends to do that and,
as a Minister, I will hold it to that. I have no doubt—I have
seen it working on the ground—that it intends to do that. This
will be a coastal route built upwards from the ground with local
interests. Natural
England has also said that it will draft proposals that will include
information on any exclusions and restrictions on access that it
considers necessary. Again, those will be based on what it has heard on
the ground, working not only with local landowners, and so on, but
those with interests, including sporting interests. Natural England
will have to advertise the proposals and invite comment, providing the
opportunity for absolutely anyone, whether an individual or a sporting
interest organisation, to make their views known, so that those can be
taken into account by Natural
England. There
are the safeguards, if those with other interests feel that Natural
England has not taken their views into account adequately in the final
proposals. Paragraph 7 of schedule 19
states: “Representations
about a coastal access report may be made by any person to Natural
England”,
whether a legal entity,
person, individual or organisation, including those with historical
sporting interests along a part of the coast. Those representations
will go, in summary, to the Secretary of State, along with Natural
England’s comments on them. My right hon. Friend the Secretary
of State will read the comments to see whether they have been taken
into account properly, in line with clause 291(3), which refers
to “a
fair balance between the interests of the public in having rights of
access...and the interests of any person with a relevant interest
in the
land.” That
includes representations by certain organisations specified in
regulations.
The Secretary
of State must take representations into account when making a
determination on the route. As Lord Hunt said in the other place, we
expect to include in the list the Country Land and Business Association
and the National Farmers Union, and we are open to including other
organisations, such as the British Association for Shooting and
Conservation, which I met recently, and representatives of fishing
interests. We shall consult on the regulations in due course, which
will provide the opportunity to decide which organisations we should
include. I am sure that Committee members have strong views about which
organisations should be included in the
regulations. 6.15
pm The
Secretary of State must consider such information when reaching his
determination on any proposal in Natural England’s coastal
access report. Obviously, the Secretary of State will take particular
note of representations made by anyone with important and valuable
interests, such as sporting rights. I am convinced that the extensive
consultation process that Natural England will undertake before drawing
up its report, along with the right to make representations on the
report, which must be considered by Natural England and the Secretary
of State in reaching a determination, will ensure that all interested
parties have opportunities to express their views. That bottom-up,
consultative approach and preliminary engagement with people—the
advertising and invitation for comments—is quite different from
what has come before.
Given this
very different approach to coastal land, and the consultative nature of
the process, we do not believe that the definition of those with a
relevant interest has to be the same as under CROW. We have therefore
identified in the Bill the people whom it is appropriate to include in
the definition of those with a relevant interest in affected land. They
are set out in clause 291 and proposed new section 55J in clause 296,
and they comprise landowners, leaseholders and those in lawful
occupation of the land. That is the most appropriate approach for
coastal
land. I
shall give one final safeguard. Those with relevant interests, as
defined by section 45 of the CROW Act, which includes sporting rights,
will have the same rights as they do on CROW land. In other words, they
can apply for restrictions and exclusions of access for land management
reasons. That takes me back to my original comment that sporting rights
fall within land management. That can include the management of a
sporting activity, the activity itself and the holding of commercial
events associated with the activity. Such sporting activities might
well include shooting and fishing. Those with
rights enabling them to carry out such activities on access land can
apply for restrictions or exclusions if necessary. That process, with
its propensity towards exclusions for sporting rights under CROW, has
worked very well. We have made it clear that the Government do not
intend to make changes to the categories of people who can make an
application for restrictions and exclusions under section 24 of the
CROW Act, and that ability remains in place. I said at the
outset that the concerns expressed are genuine, but my hon. Friend the
Member for Reading, West has asked why those fears have not been
allayed. Genuine concerns remain, but it is not appropriate to accept
the amendments, because—I am sorry to repeat this—there
is more than one way to skin a cat. Those representations can be heard
and those exclusions and exemptions can be applied for—in fact,
it has worked very well under
CROW. Perhaps
the Committee will support me in another matter. I am interested in
convening a summit or conference of those with an interest in sporting
rights—anglers, shooters and others—so my very good team
of officials and I can sit down with them and seek not only to clarify,
expand and reassure, but, where necessary, to introduce additional
guidance to explain how representations can be heard under both CROW
and this Bill and how their interests can be protected. That should
provide the proper reassurance that perhaps they have not yet
received.
| 
