Martin
Salter: I do not think that any Committee member believes
that it is the Government’s intention to restrict or disrupt the
legitimate activities of wildfowling clubs or sea fishing in such
locations. Most of us who picked up that baton and ran with it would be
satisfied if the wildfowling clubs and the British Association for
Shooting and Conservation were reassured that their appeal rights will
be as robust as the Minister has indicated. What is the time scale for
bringing the Bill back on Report? That will tell us how long we have to
engage in that consultation and clarification
process.
Huw
Irranca-Davies: I cannot anticipate the permutations that
go through the usual channels, but we hope to be back in October,
subject to any subsequent delays, which I hope will not occur. That
will give us time over the summer. I am more than willing—if I
say this on the record, it might actually get out there—to come
back here in the recess and bring together, with the assistance of my
hon. Friend and others, the right group of people to talk about how to
explain and clarify how best they can protect their interests. I am
also willing, where necessary, to bring forward supplementary guidance
to clarify that, because those organisations and people have genuine
and valid concerns, and I think that there are valid and genuine ways
to ensure that those concerns are
heard.
Martin
Salter: That will certainly be sufficient for now,
provided that the hon. Members who have raised the issue, particularly
the hon. Members for Broxbourne and for Newbury and my hon. Friend the
Member for Southampton, Test, have an opportunity to attend that summit
on shooting and sporting interests, because we all need to be assured
before we come back on Report that the issue has been sorted
out.
Huw
Irranca-Davies: I welcome that, because I know that hon.
Members on both sides of the Committee have a good feeling for the type
of organisations and stakeholders—to use that horrible
term—that would be relevant for such a meeting, including those
who would want to be involved during the summer.
On that
basis, I urge the hon. Member for Newbury to withdraw the amendment and
to engage fruitfully and constructively with us over the summer, so
that we can work with those people who have sporting interests not only
to give them clarity and reassurance, but to show them what they can
use in the Bill and the CROW Act, because they have actually already
made use of the CROW Act successfully to
date.
Mr.
Benyon: The problem with that element of the Bill is that
it relates to a theme that runs through the whole of part 9, which is
quite a woolly piece of legislation. It might have been deliberately
designed in that way because the Minister wants it to be flexible, but
my worry about keeping it woolly is that it allows for interpretation.
That might be from Natural England, in consultation with the local
authority, but although that might work supremely well for 95 per cent.
of the 30 per cent. yet to be accessed, the remaining 5 per cent. could
militate against legitimate sporting
bodies. Whatever
the Minister says, access to the objections provisions secured in
another place will be weaker under that arrangement. It is perfectly
simple to add that one category under clause 291(4). I am sure that his
officials are saying to him, “If you concede this, you will open
the flood gates to every conceivable organisation.” I counsel
him that that will not happen. I have sat up in the watches of the
night trying to contemplate the interested bodies that will beat down
his door saying, “We deserve exactly the same access to
consultation as the sporting bodies, so what is so special about
us?” But for the life of me, I cannot think of
any.
Huw
Irranca-Davies: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is right. I
do not want my door being beaten down—at least no more than
currently happens. I think that we have a way forward, but one
reservation, which I have not referred to, is that the amendments would
bolt certainty into the Bill, which is not needed, but they do not
identify the costs of the representations or objections that might be
made. There are serious concerns over the effect of passing the
amendments in this shape, when we do not know the cost implications.
The economic assessment of our current proposals is that they will cost
about £1.5 million, but I have no idea what the
amendments will cost, and I suspect, as well intentioned as they are,
the hon. Gentleman does not know either. Therefore, if there is an
alternative route forward, we should work with those with sporting
interests to make it work.
Mr.
Benyon: There are colleagues who are always the voices in
my head on costs. I suspect that the Minister is applying the 43 per
cent. of objections under CROW that came from sporting interests to his
thoughts about costs. I submit that there would be a much smaller
number of objections for this than there are under CROW—a very
small number indeed. CROW encompassed elements of moorland, where there
are substantial high-income areas, so I do not agree that the issue
would apply.
Huw
Irranca-Davies: To clarify, the 43 per cent. that I
referred to earlier is a measure of the success of the existing CROW
provisions. Of the live applications in place, 43 per cent. concern
sporting interests. A propensity not to object, but to apply for
exemptions and exclusions based on sporting interests is a singular
measure of the success of the CROW provisions—they have
worked.
Mr.
Benyon: I take the Minister’s point, but I am not
sure whether I agree with him on cost.
My other
point relates to liability. We should consider the interests of the
sporting groups that we have been talking about, such as wildfowling.
Wildfowling rights have developed over a great many years, and those
involved tend to be esoteric individuals who understand and know the
foreshore, the marshes and the adjacent land. If they have to be
concerned with liability, it will be a huge cost to them and may
require different liability insurance. The cost should reflect their
status as consultees.
Natural
England’s draft scheme, page 33, section 7.6.7,
specifically mentions shooting and makes some helpful indications of
its approach:
“Shooters
should assume at all times that members of the public may be present
and take all necessary precautions to ensure their safety, in line with
voluntary codes of
Practice” “At
all times” could include hours of the day when there is
half-light or little light, and this measure will impose new concerns
for shooters close to a path. While the guidance mentions specifically
that marshes may not be included as part of the spreading room, a
person could still be on a marsh close to the 4 m path and worry about
public safety.
Martin
Salter: I do not disagree with a word that the hon.
Gentleman has said—his amendment is similar to
my starred amendment—but we now have four amendments seeking the
same thing, so there is a drafting issue about what each would achieve.
The Minister has agreed to hold a summit with relevant interests and to
write in and amend the guidance. Bottoming out this issue with the
people who have been lobbying me and him, before we determine it in
Committee, makes immense sense. Will the hon. Gentleman take my
guarantee that I will join him, if the issue is not resolved
satisfactorily when we come back on Report? I will have no hesitation
in joining him and other hon. Members who are concerned about the
matter in the Division Lobby at some future point. On that basis, is he
more
reassured?
Mr.
Benyon: Having drawn lines in the sand, I am about to
cross them by saying that I sense that the hon. Member for Reading,
West feels that the Minister is moving in his direction. I am happy to
take part in a summit with the Minister—he is good
company—but he is a very busy man, and I would like to resolve
the matter now and save him the bother. Given his assurance to the hon.
Member for Reading, West that we can deal with the matter, and given
the understanding that I have gained from meetings with the Minister
and his officials, I believe that it is a front-loaded
consultation—I think that was the expression—and that
interested parties, such as those with supporting interests, can be
given a triple-lock assurance that their interests will be understood
at an early stage. With that provision, I beg to ask leave to withdraw
the amendment.
Amendment,
by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 291
ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered,
That further consideration be now adjourned.—(David
Wright.) 6.31
pm Adjourned
till Thursday 9 July at Nine
o’clock.
| 
