 House of Commons |
Session 2008 - 09 Publications on the internet General Committee Debates Marine and Coastal Access Bill [Lords] |
Marine and Coastal Access Bill [Lords] |
The Committee consisted of the following Members:†
Irranca-Davies,
Huw (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food
and Rural Affairs) Chris
Shaw, Committee Clerk †
attended the Committee Public Bill CommitteeThursday 9 July 2009(Morning)[Mr. Greg Pope in the Chair]Marine and Coastal Access Bill [Lords]Written evidence to be reported to the HouseMC
06 Shellfish Association of Great
Britain
Clause 292The
coastal access
scheme 9
am Mr.
Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con): I beg to move amendment
42, in
clause 292, page 188, line 5, at
end insert ‘and shall put the proposed scheme
or any revised scheme out to public
consultation.’.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss
amendment 55, in
clause 296, page 193, line 4, at
end insert— ‘(h) consult
appropriate representative bodies for recreational
users and land management
organisations, (i) consider any
other representations received by
them.’. This
amendment is designed to add the organisations which have already been
indicated by Ministers in the Lords who be notified of reports and have
their representations passed on to the Secretary of State on reports to
a list of organisations which will be consulted on the content of
reports.
Mr.
Benyon: It is a great pleasure to have you back in the
Chair, Mr. Pope. You will see that we have made startling
progress since you were last here, but there are still important issues
to resolve before we complete the Committee stage, one of which is
raised by my
amendment. The
amendment seeks to ensure that before the Secretary of State approves
Natural England’s final proposals for the coastal access scheme
and lays them before Parliament, those proposals are subject to public
consultation. Consultation has arisen on numerous occasions in various
areas of the Bill. I anticipate that the Minister will argue that there
has been consultation, and that there will be extensive further
consultation. I note that on page 9 of the draft scheme guidance on
coastal access prepared by Natural England, there is a helpful flow
chart of the various processes of the designation of the path, which
includes a number of different consultations. I appreciate that, but
the consultation that I propose is for a particular
area. There
will be extensive further consultation with local authorities and key
individuals during the drawing up of coastal access reports, and we
support that. However, I wish to make a specific point on an area from
which public consultation seems to be conspicuously
absent, and I hope that, in the spirit of the conversations that we have
had on these sorts of concerns, the Minister will be able to reassure
me. The
amendment deals with public consultation on the coastal access outline
scheme, rather than on the coastal access reports, which will be
consulted on after the outline scheme is approved. The scheme will
outline how Natural England will approach the discharge of its coastal
access duty and will constitute the guiding principles for coastal
access reports. It is therefore extremely important that Natural
England gets it right, and that the concerns of all parties are taken
into account before the scheme is sent for approval by the Secretary of
State and then laid before Parliament, at which point there will be no
recourse to amend it. As the Bill stands, there will be consultation on
the outline scheme with “such persons” as Natural England
“considers appropriate”. That leaves the choice of who
gets consulted completely at the discretion of Natural England. How
will Natural England determine who is appropriate? Surely public
consultation would be preferable, so that all interested parties are
given an opportunity to contribute, rather than an elite few chosen by
Natural
England. Although
Natural England has released the draft outline scheme, and the
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has produced a draft
section 3A order indicating both how access will be implemented and the
changes that the Department proposes to the Countryside and Rights of
Way Act 2000, both those documents are subject to change, especially
the latter. So much is being left to the discretion of Natural England,
and we are putting huge faith in an unelected body. It is hard to know
what the final scheme will consist of, and the public must have a right
to be consulted, in addition to the consultation that was held prior to
the drafting of the Bill. The amendment seeks to ensure that all
members of the public are given equal access to the consultation on the
outline scheme before the scheme is approved. That means that the best
informed version will reach the Secretary of State and
Parliament. Andrew
George (St. Ives) (LD): I support amendment 42
and would like to give a little more background to amendment 55, which
is in my name. On the basis of the case made by the hon. Member for
Newbury, I support the opportunity for extended public consultation on
any proposals. One issue that has not been covered in the debate so far
is that of the many visitor attraction businesses that exist on the
coastline. A lot of our attention has been placed on coastal access in
relation to members of the public engaged in shooting, or other
recreational activities. However, some businesses will be on either
side of the coastal footpath, and it is reasonable to ensure their
interests in maintaining their businesses. For example, some businesses
have a hotel on the headland, but also have exclusive rights to other
parts of the coastline right up to the high water mark, and sometimes
beyond. That needs to be recognised. In my constituency, there is a
local visitor attraction business, a historic house, which is
increasingly used for wedding ceremonies and other events, where it is
reasonable to expect a certain amount of privacy. That needs to be
taken into account when considering the proposals and should form part
of the
consultation. Amendment
55 relates to clause 296. It would add a requirement that
Natural England consult appropriate representative bodies for
recreational users
and land management organisations and consider any
representations from them. The setting of the route on the coastal
margin will be done locally, and Natural England will have a duty to
consult landowners and occupiers and take their views into account.
Natural England is required to consult bodies with a relevant interest,
as we have already mentioned, such as access authorities, the
Environment Agency and local access forums, but it stops there. There
is currently no such requirement for Natural England to consult or
consider representations from user group bodies or the public. Natural
England does not have to consider any representations from members of
the public during the drafting of its reports. Some user groups, such
as the Ramblers Association, believe that that imbalance could lead to
user groups and the public effectively being frozen out of the duty of
fair balance, and thus lead to implementation which favours the
interests of others and not necessarily those other user
groups. During
debates in the House of Lords, cross-party support was shown for
greater involvement of user groups and the public in the drafting of
the reports. For example, on 21 April, Lord Taylor of Holbeach
stated: “National
and local organisations will also be important. The briefings that
Peers on all sides have received from some of them show how useful they
can be in identifying the concerns of both potential users and those
who will be affected. To ignore them would be a big mistake. My third
amendment would ensure that they, too, are consulted properly during
the preparatory stages.”—[Official Report, House of
Lords, 21 April 2009; Vol. 709, c.
1441.] During
discussion of the Bill on Report, the noble Lord Judd
said: “It
would be reassuring and helpful for these tremendously committed and
important people in our society if my noble friend could unequivocally
say at the Dispatch Box that the regulations will underline the
importance of such bodies being part of the list of people to be
consulted, not least on appeals. That is where the anxiety
exists.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 1 June
2009; Vol. 711, c.
49.] In the
same debate, the noble Baroness Hamwee said:
“My
Lords, the amendment is about a fair balance. The imbalance is in the
consultation, as Natural England will have to consider representations
from persons with a relevant interest but not to consult bodies
representing user group and the public. That is why this is
particularly important. The imbalance is not corrected in the new
schedule”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 1
June 2009; Vol. 711, c.
25.] In
response, Ministers conceded that user groups would have their
representations passed on in full to the Secretary of State, and that
they would be notified by Natural England of reports, but critically
that they would not be included formally in the consultations. On
behalf of the Government, the noble Lord Hunt
said: “I
listened to my noble friend Lord Judd with great care, and we will have
to consult in full on the persons it would be appropriate to include,
but we have in mind that they would include the Ramblers’
Association, the Open Spaces Society, the British Mountaineering
Council, the Country Land & Business Association and the National
Farmers’ Union, and we will listen to other suggestions with
great interest...I have already named several bodies that we
expect to include in the regulations, so that their representations
would go in full to the Secretary of State. They include such
organisations as the Country Land & Business Association, the NFU,
the Ramblers’ Association and the Open Spaces
Society.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 1 June
2009; Vol. 711, c.
51-52.] If
the duty of fair balance is to be achieved during the local
implementation of the coastal access duty, bodies representing user
groups and the public must be
consulted on the content of coastal access reports. I certainly hope
that the Minister will offer reassurances that, although named
organisations beyond access forums and local authorities are not
detailed in the Bill, they will be involved formally in the
consultation. I also hope that there will be a requirement for Natural
England to take fully into account the representations that it receives
and that we receive some further reassurance that the interests of the
public, as expressed during the consultation, will be taken fully on
board because, as written, other than the response of the Minister in
the House of Lords, nothing in the Bill offers the reassurance that we
want.
9.15
am
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Ann McKechin):
Good morning, Mr. Pope. This is an important debate with
which to start our sitting because it is key to making sure that as
many people as possible can take part in the process of devising
schemes and subsequent local reports as we extend coastal access
throughout England.
I want to
make it clear at the beginning that we fully intend that Natural
England will consult as widely as possible on both the draft scheme,
which was referred to in amendment 42, and the subsequent reports that
are mentioned by the hon. Member for St. Ives in amendment 55. However,
public consultation and how we define groups to be consulted is a bit
more tricky. I hope to put on the record this morning assurances of the
nature of the consultation that we expect to take place, which I hope
will satisfy hon. Members.
Amendment 42
deals with the duty on Natural England under clause 292 to set out in a
scheme to be approved by the Secretary of State the general approach it
will take in implementing the coastal access duty. We have already made
copies of the draft scheme available—the hon. Member for Newbury
referred to it this morning. I hope that that has added to the
understanding of what is intended in the
process. Mr.
Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con): I do not expect an
answer on this now, but if these consultations take place across the
country, will there be budgetary implications for Natural England? Is
it sufficiently resourced to manage those consultations or shall we see
a massive expansion in the number of people employed by the
organisation?
Ann
McKechin: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we have
taken the cost of consultation into account and we do not envisage a
significant increase. I will come on to why we believe that to be the
case.
As the hon.
Member for Newbury correctly pointed out, the scheme has to be approved
by the Secretary of State and then laid before Parliament. That
procedure is recommended by Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform
Committee. The input from Members of this House and from the other
place will provide Natural England with an opportunity to take into
account any suggestions about the scheme. If necessary, the scheme can
then be revised from time to time, subject to further approval by the
Secretary of State and it being laid before Parliament.
The Bill
already requires Natural England to consult such persons as it
considers appropriate before it prepares or revises a scheme. Natural
England has developed its draft scheme in consultation with key
organisations and I am confident that it will wish to continue those
consultations as it develops the scheme. I do not believe that
amendment 42, which would require Natural England to put the proposed
scheme out to public consultation, is necessary. As I have said,
Natural England will want to consult as widely as possible, and given
that the scheme or any revision has to be approved by the Secretary of
State, it will want to do that in advance of submitting the scheme to
the Secretary of State. In approving the scheme, the Secretary of State
will take into account the extent and coverage of the consultation
process.
I now turn to
amendment 55, which also deals with consultation. Clause 296 amends
part 4 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 to
require Natural England to consult with various relevant bodies before
drawing up a report in addition to the persons already included in
section 51(4) of the 1949 Act. It is not necessary to extend the list
of organisations that must be consulted in clause 296 proposed section
55D(6) in the way that amendment 55 would do. The process for
consultation in clause 55D was drawn up to reflect what is already in
section 51 of the 1949 Act and it places sufficient requirements on
Natural England to consult appropriately. Natural England’s
scheme, which was published in December 2008, and which we
have made available already builds in such a draft
report stage.
It might be
helpful if I set out in greater detail the process by which Natural
England will advertise its intention to start work on a particular
stretch of coast and how, once it is drawn up, a draft report will be
advertised so that people may be made aware of the proposals. Local
authorities will be best placed to know of local interests and, where
local authorities are willing to participate, Natural England will
enter into agreements to enable the local authority to carry out
preliminary work to facilitate the preparation of a coastal access
report. We have amended the Bill in the other place to clarify that
point.
When a new
stretch is starting to be considered and an agreement with the local
authority has been reached, the local authority will identify and
contact all the relevant local stakeholders and interest groups to
inform them. The authority may also at this stage be asked to issue a
media release to ensure wider awareness. The authority will start to
identify all relevant landowners and other relevant interests in
affected land to start the phase described at paragraph 3.3 in Natural
England’s draft scheme as “Walking the course”.
The authority will visit the land that might be affected and will
discuss the options for the route with those who own and manage it. The
comments made by the hon. Member for St. Ives about a hotel that might
have functions near the coastline on certain days of the week wanting
to ensure privacy is a good example of what we would
expect. In
the draft report, Natural England envisages the local authority
managing the consultation process. In each case, Natural England will
agree a consultation plan with the local authority that will
incorporate all
reasonable actions to ensure that so far as practicable those who may
have an interest are made aware of the consultation. The contacts made
during the initial “Walking the course” phase will
provide information that will be used to inform individuals at
subsequent stages of the process about their opportunity to comment on
the draft report, their right to make representations and, if
appropriate, object.
Every bit of
coast is different. There are many different interests and they vary.
The whole process gets the preliminary survey done so that we truly
know who needs to be consulted and who needs to be aware in any
particular area. In terms of wider awareness, it is expected that the
local authority will issue a media release at the beginning of the
consultation period and write to local stakeholders and interest groups
who will have been identified at earlier stages. Natural England has
already said that it will publish its draft proposals on the internet
and invite all relevant interests to comment on them. It will allow a
period of 12 weeks for people to view the proposals and submit comments
on the report. Copies of the report will be provided in alternative
formats where this is required by particular consultees, but the aim
will be to minimise the number of printed copies, particularly at the
draft report stage, for environmental and cost
reasons. In
view of the details that I have outlined, it is clear that the
consultation will be extensive and comprehensive.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2009 | Prepared 10 July 2009 |