Dr.
Whitehead: I have listened very carefully to my
hon. Friend’s arguments. I welcome the suggestions for a review
and that we apply good will on the basis of a clear understanding of
what we would like to achieve with the Bill. Therefore, in the spirit
of good will, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn. Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss new
clause 7— Access to the coastal margin (No.
2)— ‘(1) Schedule 2 to
the CROW Act is amended as
follows. (2) In paragraph 1(c),
at the end, insert “or in the case of that part of coastal
margin land which is foreshore, a dog or a
horse.”’.
Andrew
George: I will not extend my remarks on the new clause to
the clause stand part debate. The purpose of the new clause is to
address the issue of dogs and horses. In the debates on the Bill so
far, we have not had sufficient opportunity to debate the accessibility
of the coastal route by equestrians, dog owners or disabled
people—we may wish to return to the issue of disabled people on
Report. Although groups, including the National Federation of Bridleway
Associations and the British Horse Society, have accepted that full
access to the coastal path would be inappropriate—they do not
expect that—they remain concerned that the development of the
coastal path could in some areas reduce their existing rights of
access, such as the non-statutory right of access to the
foreshore.
Horse riders
and cyclists have access to only 22 per cent. of the current public
rights of way network and only 7 per cent. of the network that
currently exists around the English coast. Public access to the
foreshore—the land between the high and low water
marks—with horses both ridden and driven has been enjoyed for
centuries and is still enjoyed today. That is an issue for Crown land
in England and Wales and the Duchy of Cornwall in Cornwall. Historical
research suggests that that is an ancient common law right. English and
Scottish law are the same in this respect, and non-discriminatory
public access to the coast is now, as I understand it, a statutory
right in Scotland.
The Bill
proposes a statutory right of access to the coastal margin, which
includes the foreshore and the beach, but only on foot. Experience with
the recording of public rights of way under the National Parks and
Access to the Countryside Act 1949 and the designation of access land
under CROW suggests that where a statutory right for a limited sector
of the public—that is, those on foot—is legally recorded,
the ability for the rest of the public to enjoy their unrecorded common
law rights is thus compromised. There may be issues regarding access to
the foreshore for other types of recreational users, such as those who
need to bring buggies down to the coast to go kite surfing. The
Minister might be able to clarify that.
Mr.
Swire: Other parts of the foreshore are owned neither by
the Crown nor by the duchy—they are privately owned. I do not
know who briefed the hon. Gentleman on that. There are also other
places where it would be patently wholly inappropriate to allow dogs to
roam freely on the coastal path. I am thinking of the swannery at
Abbotsbury in Dorset, where there are nesting cygnets and swans. The
last thing in the world one would want for the balance of nature is to
have a lot of dogs running amuck among
them.
Andrew
George: I am not calling for that. As I said in my opening
remarks, that is not what is being called for. I am sorry the hon.
Gentleman did not catch that.
The matter of
unrecorded common law rights being compromised is particularly
problematic for horse riders. There was all-party consensus in the
other place that something needs to be done for horse riders and the
Government seemed to accept that there were non-statutory public access
rights to the coastal margin that need to be protected, as in the
clause we have just debated.
In Committee
in the other place, my noble Friend Lord Greaves proposed a similar
amendment to the one before us, which would have clarified the
situation by ensuring that those with a horse or a dog are not included
in the general access restrictions contained in schedule 2 of the CROW
Act. That amendment was withdrawn, but Lord Davies undertook to
reconsider the issue. He made it clear that he understood the concerns
and that there should be clarity that the existing rights of horse
riders are not affected by any new right of access to the coast. He
recognised that there is an issue that clearly needs to be resolved. It
is worth, therefore, taking another look at the amendment tabled by my
noble Friend Lord Greaves in order to probe the Government’s
position on the impact of the development of the coastal path and the
existing non-statutory rights of access that exist in relation to the
foreshore.
Ann
McKechin: I am sympathetic to the concerns that the hon.
Member for St. Ives raised about horse riders and their existing
customary use of the foreshore. It is important to point out that there
is no general common law right to ride on the foreshore in England. In
certain places there is a customary right to ride or there may be a
permissive right to do so, but that will be due to local circumstances
and it is not a national right country-wide. It was the subject of
debate in the other place and of an amendment tabled by the Baroness
Mallalieu to ensure the preservation of existing rights. In response to
those concerns, the Government introduced an amendment
to require Natural England to make it clear that existing rights are not
affected by the new right of access on foot that the Bill provides
for.
The new
provision at clause 297(7) requires Natural England to ensure that, in
relation to coastal margin land, the public are informed that the legal
position is that the right of access conferred by the CROW Act does not
affect any other right of access that may exist in relation to that
land. It also makes it clear that a separate code of conduct may be
drawn up for coastal
land. The
hon. Gentleman’s proposal would go further than the existing
provision. As the hon. Member for East Devon has pointed out, giving
horse riders a right of access to the entire foreshore that forms part
of the coastal margin is not always appropriate. A blanket approach
would not include areas that require special protection from animals
running loose, which would not be
helpful. Any
amendments to the provisions in schedules 1 and 2 of the CROW Act for
the purposes of coastal access will be introduced through an order made
under section 3A, which is provided for in clause 297 of the
Bill. We have published a paper containing the main changes that we
propose to make, and that paper has been made available to the hon.
Members. We will consult on the proposals, which will then be subject
to affirmative resolutions in both Houses of Parliament.
Finally, the
hon. Member for St. Ives mentioned the important point of access for
the disabled. As this is a stand part debate, I can confirm that
Natural England
will consider contributing financially to the creation of improved
rights where it makes sense, which is likely to include action to
facilitate access by people with mobility problems along some suitable
sections of the coast. I hope the hon. Gentleman will welcome that and
on that basis withdraw his
amendment. Andrew
George: I am grateful to the Minister for her response and
the clarification. Her interpretation of the Bill as it currently
stands, as amended in another place, is that it does not affect
existing rights. The societies and organisations that I mentioned in my
opening remarks will be reassured by that, which is very welcome
indeed. To defend myself from the accusation that I am trying to offer
unbridled rights to the coast and to the foreshore for all horse riders
and dog owners, I made it clear that that is not what was intended in
my opening remarks—I am probing the issue. I am not asking for
complete access, which would be inappropriate and which the hon. Member
for East Devon and the Minister
fear. Question
put and agreed
to. Clause
297 accordingly ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Ordered,
That further consideration be now
adjourned. —(David
Wright.) 3.49
pm Adjourned
till Tuesday 14 June at half-past Ten
o’clock.
| 
