Andrew
George: Certainly, the points that the Minister is making
are reassuring to many of the organisations that might be concerned
about not being consulted. However, can she expand a little more and
give further reassurance to those organisations that find or believe
that they are not able for one reason or another to engage in the
consultation process, or feel that they are being excluded? What
mechanism will there be for a local organisation or individuals with an
interest in a route to contest circumstances when they feel that their
voice is not being heard in the consultation
process?
Ann
McKechin: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, because
someone might not take part in the initial consultation process. There
was a parking scheme in my area in which no one took part until the
scheme came out and then they said, “No, we don’t like
it.” That happens and is sometimes in the nature of public
consultations. That is why we say that after the report is drawn up,
when it comes out, everyone can make representations, including
specific bodies as set out in the regulations. It is in Natural
England’s interest to consult such bodies before drawing up the
report, and to ensure that it takes account of the representations made
when it publishes the
report.
Mr.
Walker: So that we do not get into the realm of endless
consultations, will there be a duty on Natural England to go out and
find people to consult? If we just throw it out there and say,
“Here is the consultation, here is the deadline,” but no
one knows about it or only half the people who might be interested
respond to it, there is a danger that we could end up having to go back
and consult people again. Will Natural England go out and till the soil
to find people?
Ann
McKechin: As I said, there will be a preliminary phase
called “Walking the course”, which in most cases will be
undertaken by local authorities that want to take
part and join in partnership with Natural England in the process. That
is the first, important phase. In the second phase, a media release
will be put out, so a public notice will be sent out as well as use
made of the internet, which is increasingly the medium of choice. There
is a two-part process. “Walking the course” is the most
important part, because making such a detailed study in advance, on a
case-by-case basis, is a better way of ensuring that as many people who
are likely to be affected as possible are physically contacted. Local
authorities, particularly, have very good local
knowledge.
Andrew
George: The main area of potential concern is inevitably
where there is dispute between the interests of landowners, or other
interest groups, and those who may take a different view or access
bodies such as the Ramblers Association. We can envisage that those
interests may conflict, although not always. On most occasions such
issues will be resolved, but in a dispute about access to the coastline
will it be incumbent on Natural England to make clear how it responded
to the issues raised?
Ann
McKechin: Again, the hon. Gentleman raises an important
point. I can assure him that there is a duty of fair balance on Natural
England in the Bill. Yes, at times it will have to make difficult
decisions, but it is specifically stated that it must strike a fair
balance.
Mr.
Walker: May I intervene, because I would like to help?
Because it has to take decisions, Natural England will upset one side
or another. We do not live in a perfect world where there will be an
equal balance; sometimes the interests of landowners who have to derive
a living off their farms will have to take precedence over the rights
of ramblers, so the Minister cannot have a perfect world. I am saying
that to support her.
Ann
McKechin: I fully agree with the hon. Gentleman. Natural
England will have to make decisions from time to time that will not
please everyone. That is why we have said that it has a duty to strike
a fair balance when making a decision, which also needs to be timely so
that people have certainty and know where they will be moving from. I
hope that, on the basis of the reassurances that I have given the
Committee, the hon. Member for Newbury will withdraw his
amendment.
Mr.
Benyon: I do not want to put words into the mouth of the
hon. Member for St. Ives, but I think, coming at the same point
independently, we were both seeking to tie Natural England to a
commitment. I suspect that my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne is
concerned about consultation overload; we want consultation that works.
Under a previous regime, my local authority had a habit of consulting
when it knew what it wanted to achieve. It threw out a consultation
that nobody knew about and came down on the side of the decision that
it had already taken.
Ann
McKechin: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point.
Further to the point that his hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne
raised, I can confirm that local authorities will undertake most of the
work, and be enabled to support Natural England. Natural England
will in turn fund time-limited posts in local authorities so there will
be no new burden on them. It will be time limited. If local authorities
want to take part, they will know in advance when the consultation will
expire and when they will be expected to have done the
job.
Mr.
Benyon: That is helpful. It is much better to have a
quality consultation that everybody can access, that more people know
about and that uses a range of methods to inform people. Through the
Land Registry and other data sources, such as council tax records, it
is perfectly obvious who property owners are. It is less easy to get
access to key interest groups. While I believe that Natural England has
made a good start with this document, which shows a clear approach that
can be made to work in most areas to the satisfaction of most people,
this is a 10-year aspiration, plan or project. We do not know what the
organisation will be like in the future and whether those operating in
certain areas will be as assiduous. The amendment was an attempt to get
more of a duty in the Bill.
Ann
McKechin: May I reassure the hon. Gentleman that there is
a review process? The first review will occur three years after the Act
comes into force. [Interruption.] Yes, three to
five
years.
9.30
am
Mr.
Benyon: Again, that helps me in deciding what to do with
the amendment.
In developing
this part of the Bill, many people have come to us—frankly, very
late in the day—saying that they have property or business
interests, or many other sorts of interests, in parts of coastal
Britain and are suddenly concerned about how the legislation will
affect their lives. That is human nature, as the Minister said. We
cannot expect people just to know, as we do in this bubble in which we
live and breathe, about the minutiae of this legislation. They are
getting on with their lives, and they believe that they will be able to
gain access.
Given the
Minister’s assurances, and an understanding that the principles
laid out in the proposed scheme and the attitude adopted by Natural
England will continue throughout the process, as we prioritise
different parts of the access provisions—work on the more
contentious areas might come later—it is in everyone’s
interest to have the quick wins that will satisfy the demands of
tourism. Local landowners, for example, want a coastal path that will
bring people to their bed-and-breakfast accommodation and so on. The
more contentious issues may be dealt with in two, three, four or five
years’ time, and we want to ensure that interested parties are
consulted. However, the Minister has given us enough reassurance for me
to withdraw the amendment at the appropriate
moment.
Andrew
George: I concur with the hon. Gentleman. The Minister
offered a number of reassurances, which are now on the record. They
point to a requirement for local authorities and Natural England to
agree a consultation plan.
I do not know
to what extent words have been put into my mouth, regarding the
suggestion that I want to create an environment that would result in
consultation overload. I fully accept what the hon. Member for
Broxbourne said; although Natural England needs to demonstrate that it
is trying to balance the arguments fairly in disputes on access to the
coastline, its ultimate decision will doubtless lead to disappointment
on one side or the other. I was seeking clarity on whether the process
would be transparent, and that if there were disputes, Natural England
would make clear the basis of its decisions, explaining how it had
weighed the arguments. I agree with the hon. Member for Newbury. It has
been a good debate, and it has reassured us both. I hope that we have
reassured those organisations that raised concerns about the
availability of wider consultation than appears to be offered under the
Bill. Mr.
Benyon: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn. Clause
292 ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Clause
293 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
294The
English
coast Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs (Huw Irranca-Davies): It is good to be under your
stewardship today, Mr. Pope. We had storms as a backdrop to
our last sitting. Today, the skies are clear—just the day for
walking the coast rather than sitting here. However, we have an
important job to do.
The clause
defines the English coast for the purposes of this part of the Bill. It
refers to the
“coast of
England adjacent to the
sea”. It
includes the coast of any island, except for excluded islands. Islands
that are not excluded—those islands considered part of the
English coast—are those that are accessible on foot. It must be
possible to walk to the island across the foreshore, or by means of a
bridge, a tunnel or a causeway, either from the mainland of England or
from another accessible island. It also includes islands that are
accessible on foot only at certain times, such as at low
tide.
If an island
is not accessible on foot, and is therefore excluded, the Secretary of
State may choose to specify by order that it is included in the
definition of the English coast, provided that they are satisfied that
the coast of the island is long enough to offer an adequate walk-in
route. We will consider whether there are any islands that are not
accessible on foot that should be included.
The case for
including the Isle of Wight has been made in the other place. That is
our largest free-standing island which, by and large, possesses the
same characteristics as a large part of the English coast and its
hinterland. The Isle of Wight is also a unitary authority in its own
right. The coastal path spans the whole of the island and includes 67
miles of well-maintained paths, and the island can be reached by
regular ferry services. In our view, that puts the island into a
specific category compared
with other “inaccessible” islands, and we will take steps
to issue an order to include the Isle of Wight under clause 294(2)(b).
With that assurance and clarification, I commend the clause to the
Committee. Question
put and agreed to.
Clause 294
accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 295
ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause
296Long-distance
routes
Andrew
George: I beg to move amendment 54, in
clause 296, page 191, line 31, at
end insert— ‘(c) any period
of the non-operation of a ferry which is in use as part of the ordinary
route.’. This
amendment is designed to allow Natural England to propose an
alternative route to act as a diversion from the ordinary route when
that ordinary route includes a ferry with a period of
non-operation.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss
amendment 47, in
clause 296, page 191, line 39, at
end insert— ‘(e) future
coastal
developments’.
Andrew
George: The amendment would clarify the relationship of
the coastal path with available ferry services. In estuaries where a
ferry service exists, but does not run all year round or is limited and
operates only on certain days or during certain hours, there are
concerns that it might not provide continuity or connectivity with the
coastal path.
Several user
groups have concerns regarding the use of ferries in the discharge of
the access duty as set out in clause 290(7). The use of seasonal
ferries or those with a limited running period as part of the coastal
pathway will lead to disruptions and gaps in the continuous route. That
was confirmed during debates in the House of Lords when Lord Hunt of
Kings Heath said
that “it
would not be impossible for a summer ferry service to be used as part
of a coastal access route. It is an amenity and enables people to cross
the estuary. If the service is not available during the winter, clearly
the pathway will have to stop at the ferry
point.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 30 March
2009; Vol. 709, c.
930.] As a
result of that and other comments, the use of ferries as a means of
maintaining continuity in estuaries was raised on Second Reading. The
amendment would allow Natural England the flexibility to look at
whether an alternative route could be put in place for use by the
public during periods in which the ferries did not operate. Where that
is practical, it would alleviate the problem. There are a large number
of examples where an intermittent ferry service might provide the
coastal link in an estuarine situation—the Fleetwood to Knott
End-on-Sea route in the Lancashire coastal area is one. On the
south-west coastal path, the ferry across the river Torridge from
Appledore to Instow saves 12 km of walking, but operates only in
summer. There is also only a limited ferry service from St. Mawes to
Place creek in the parish of St. Anthony on the Roseland peninsula, and
from Exmouth to Starcross in south Devon. The primary purpose of this
aspect of the Bill is to maintain a continuous path
around the coast. Where the link is essentially provided by an
intermittent ferry service, Natural England should look for an
alternative continuous route which is all-year-round and more
accessible. There should be a duty on Natural England to identify a
continuous path. I hope that the Minister will take into account the
concerns raised in debates in the House of
Lords. | 
