Huw
Irranca-Davies: There is indeed. The hon. Gentleman makes
a good point, which I will come to later. I remark that there are some
perilous walks within his constituency on top of some of those high
crags along the Fan Hir ridge, which has a 200 ft drop on one side and
not much scope for walking away on the other. I shall finish my point
and then come directly on to the point that he raises.
The
responses to the consultation on improving access to the coasts
supported the extension of the reduced liability provisions in the CROW
Act to coastal land and, recognising the complexity of the coastal
environment, they further supported the extension of reduced liability
to include other, non-natural, features. We considered the matter and
agreed that reduced liabilities should apply both to natural features
and to non-natural features on the land, subject to some
safeguards. Those
safeguards are, in essence, to ensure that the occupier has not acted
intentionally or recklessly, which I think we all agree is right. If,
for example, a landowner or an occupier has installed steps to a beach
that was previously private and for their own use, they will not,
subject to the safeguards already mentioned, be liable if a user of the
right of access is injured using those steps. In the end, it is for
users of the new coastal access rights to keep themselves, their
children and others in their care safe within what can be a
dangerous environment. The reduced liability will
benefit occupiers of coastal land where there is already access and will
minimise the burden where new access is created. I shall now
address the issue raised by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire.
The rationale for reducing occupiers’ liability further on the
coast, as opposed to in open country or on registered common land, is
that there may be more hazardous structures, which we do not want a
landowner to be liable to maintain as a result of the proposals. The
existing provisions under CROW have worked well, but there are more
man-made features on the coast and we do not want the proposals to
burden landowners. The message to people using the coast is that they
must be responsible for their own safety by avoiding dangerous or
hazardous-looking features, either man-made or natural.
The hon.
Member for Newbury raised the issue of private beaches. Natural England
proposed that the vast majority of beaches be included within the
coastal access corridor and the responses to the consultation supported
that view. Therefore, we propose that beaches be included within the
new right of access, as they will lie seaward of the route and the CROW
section 3A order will say that all land seaward of the route will be
coastal margin. A beach will, therefore, be included in the margin and
be access land, unless there is a restriction or exclusion for nature
conservation, for example. Decisions on which beaches will be included
will be made as part of the detailed alignment of the corridor and be
determined
locally. The
hon. Member for East Devon is not here to move his amendment himself
and we send him our best wishes, but the thrust of the amendments that
he tabled is that the English coastal route should, wherever possible,
be implemented following close work with landowners. Schedule 20 to the
Bill enables Natural England to work closely with owners and occupiers
in making sure that the route is accessible to the public on the
ground. First,
I would like to make it clear that Natural England will pay for the
implementation of the route. That has always been the clear intention
and nothing in the schedule is intended to change that position.
However, there may be situations in which the landowner wishes work to
be done in a particular way because it benefits him or her as the
landowner. Natural England may agree to put in a fence to keep walkers
from straying on to non-access land, but the landowner may want a
particular, more expensive type of fence than that required for the
purpose, or a particular wall for his or her own reasons. In that case,
Natural England and the landowner might agree to share the costs of the
work. The
schedule provides for that flexibility, enabling the work to be carried
out in a way that is beneficial to the landowner without undue call on
public funds. That is good practice in terms of what currently happens;
we are not reinventing the wheel. There can be agreement, for example,
when the optimum siting for the route requires an obstruction to be
cleared or removed to make the route accessible. Agreement for carrying
out any of the establishment works listed in paragraph 2 of the
schedule, including drainage and the levelling of land, might be
reached by Natural England or the access authority with landowners and
occupiers. I reiterate what Lord Taylor of Holbeach said in the other
place:
“We
have been trying to construct this path, if one may put it that way, on
the basis of consensus and the hope that there will be a buy-in
locally.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21
April 2009; Vol. 709, c.
1476.] I fully
endorse those
sentiments. The
powers to ensure that Natural England and access authorities are able
to carry out the coastal access duty as required by clause 290 are set
out in schedule 20. We consider it more appropriate to set them out in
a schedule rather than in a clause. Natural England will develop its
proposals for improved access to every stretch of the coast, liaising
closely with each of the access authorities concerned as to the likely
management and maintenance requirements of the trail along that length.
It will also take account of all relevant factors, including
topography, surface, rate of coastal change, prevalence of sensitive
features, likely levels and types of use, and any special factors that
might
apply. It
is also important to note my final few comments. Natural England will
indicate in its reports to the Secretary of State, under section 51 of
the Coast Protection Act 1949, the standards for maintenance and
management that it considers should apply to each stretch of coast.
Once the report has been approved by the Secretary of State, Natural
England will use it as the basis for ongoing funding and
prioritisation. There is some clarity there. Natural England will put
in place a funding agreement with the relevant access authority for
both the establishment measures and an initial maintenance and
management programme spanning several years. In some cases, the latter
might involve several authorities working collaboratively. Those
agreements, and the underpinning assessments of need and priority, will
be intended to provide the necessary measure of stability and
confidence across financial years. They will be reviewed and renewed
periodically, in the light of monitoring and
experience. The
amendments would require Natural England or the access authority to
meet expenditure incurred by the owner or occupier in carrying out
agreed works to implement or maintain the route. The Bill provides
powers for meeting such costs and also includes—I keep on saying
this—the flexibility to contribute to the costs rather than to
meet them in full, if the case determines that that is the right
approach. I have described in detail the sort of circumstances in which
that might be appropriate. The details of the payments should be a
matter for agreement between the contracting authority and the
landowner or occupier, taking into account the local circumstances. I
therefore consider that the approach set out in schedule 20 provides
the flexibility to make reasonable agreements with landowners and
occupiers. It also ensures that any necessary works can be carried out
when, for whatever reason, such agreements are not possible. The
provisions are similar to those in the CROW
Act. In
conclusion, the Bill states in paragraphs 5, 6(4) and 8(4) of schedule
20 that Natural England may meet or contribute towards the cost of an
agreement under paragraph 2 of the schedule or section 35 of the CROW
Act. When an agreement is made between Natural England and the owner or
occupier, we would like there to be the flexibility to allow a
contribution from the owner or occupier when appropriate. We are not
saying that Natural England will never meet all the costs,
but
in particular cases, as I have explained, there might be a reason why it
should not do so. We want to retain the flexibility that we have
provided in the
Bill. I
thank the hon. Members for St. Ives and for Newbury for the opportunity
to debate the matter at some length. It is important to give
reassurance, and to show that we have in the Bill the flexibility to
deal with circumstances on the ground in a locally determined
way.
Mr.
Benyon: I am grateful to the Minister for putting those
facts on the record; that will give a lot of comfort to many people.
However, he has sidestepped one of the points that I raised: the impact
that this could have on the capital value or the revenue income of
businesses. Is he telling those businesses,
“Tough—that’s just the way it is,” or can
he give them the comfort of knowing that they could take their case to
the relevant authority and have it reflected in the path’s
route?
11
am
Huw
Irranca-Davies: I can give the Committee some comfort, but
I reiterate that this is a coastal path with spreading room that will
be worked out over a period of 10 years. The local determination, which
I have stressed repeatedly and which is also stressed by Natural
England’s documents, mitigates the need for any compensation. I
think that all members of the Committee would agree that we do not want
a coastal path that is dogged—we have had this debate in the
other place—with endless claims and counter-claims over
compensation. We are not going
there. We
have already discussed how the coastal path could operate to the
economic benefit of many landowners in many respects. However, in
exceptional circumstances where a coastal path route is needed, but,
despite the best dialogue and consultation, there is no alternative
route, and where it could be shown that there would be a material
impact to a landowner’s economic disadvantage, Natural England
may come to a financial arrangement with landowners under the powers of
the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. I stress that
such circumstances would be exceptional and that the power is not one
of compensation in the terms of the Bill. Where there are truly
exceptional circumstances, where it is recognised that there is going
to be an impact and that there is no other way of routing the coastal
path, a provision exists under the 2006 Act for a discussion to be
held. I give that element of comfort on a truly exceptional
basis. Question
put and agreed to.
Schedule
20 accordingly agreed
to. Clauses
299 and 300 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
301Isles
of
Scilly Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Andrew
George: I rise to raise a few issues in relation to the
Isles of Scilly clause. Such a clause often appears in many Bills
because the Isles of Scilly have to be included in primary legislation.
The Isles of Scilly are within the St. Ives constituency and lie
approximately
40 miles off the west coast of Cornwall. They comprise five inhabited
islands. The primary island, where the bulk of the Isles of
Scilly’s population lives, is St. Mary’s, and
the four other islands are St. Agnes, Bryher, Tresco and St.
Martin’s, but there are many other rocky outcrops and islands
besides. I am sure that many members of the Committee have visited the
Isles of
Scilly. The
Minister has decided not to apply certain clauses to the Isles of
Scilly. To what extent has his Department consulted with the council of
the Isles of Scilly in that regard? Having spoken to the Isles of
Scilly’s chief executive and to the council itself about the
provisions, they are pretty content with the proposal not to include
the Isles of Scilly. In fact, I think that it is fair to say that the
Isles of Scilly already have a level of coastal access that goes far
beyond what the Bill provides for, so I do not believe that there is a
substantial requirement to extend the legislation to the Isles of
Scilly. Equally,
the council of the Isles of Scilly was particularly interested in the
Minister’s explanation of the boundaries of the inshore
fisheries and conservation authorities, which we debated last Tuesday,
as that is important to the future development and management of the
seas around the Isles of Scilly, as well as the coastline. It wants to
maintain the integrity of the Isles of Scilly because it believes that
they have a first-class track record in the management of their inshore
fisheries. An official statement has yet to be made, but the Minister
gave a clear indication that he respected, and wished to respect in
future, the arrangements of the council of the Isles of Scilly in
relation to IFCAs.
I draw the
Minister’s attention to the explanatory notes. Paragraph 777
states: “Part
4 of the 1949 Act applies to the Isles of Scilly, but an order under
section 111 of that Act can provide for it to apply as if those Isles
were a separate county (and not part of Cornwall).”
The Isles of
Scilly are not part of Cornwall and are a separate county. In fact,
they were a unitary authority before unitary authorities were invented.
I hope that that reassures the Minister. To what extent does the
Minister’s approach to the Isles of Scilly mirror his approach
to the Isle of Wight? He rose without prompting when we reached clause
294, which applies to the Isle of Wight, to make it clear that he and
his Department intended to ensure that this part of the Bill would
extend to the Isle of Wight. I shall be interested to know what factors
lay behind the decision not to extend the provisions of the Bill to the
Isles of Scilly.
In many ways,
the Isles of Scilly are already well established in terms of coastal
access, but we must consider the “what if” scenario. What
if the council of the Isles of Scilly made a request to a future
Secretary of State that this part of the Bill should apply to the Isles
of Scilly because it feared that it would lose coastal access because
of the attitudes of landowners—primarily and predominantly the
Duchy of Cornwall? What provisions are in place to ensure that that
could be acted on quickly? Equally, if the Secretary of State proposed
such a measure and the Isles of Scilly resisted it, what arrangement
would
apply? We
have an interesting conundrum in respect of the Isles of Scilly.
Members often refer to the West Lothian question. If we apply the
Conservative view that only those Members who represent the area to
which any
legislation under consideration applies may express a view on the issue,
when it comes to the Isles of Scilly clause only one Member of
Parliament would be entitled to decide the outcome. That would give me
absolute power. I could be persuaded that there is a future for
benevolent tyranny after
all. Mr.
Benyon: I had been quietly kipping there when something
exploded. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Isles of Scilly are not
part of
England?
The
Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman may have been quietly
kipping. I have been awake. I am becoming increasingly concerned about
the drift away from what we are supposed to be
discussing.
Andrew
George: We drift no more. Certainly, in answer to the hon.
Member for Newbury, a lot of people in Cornwall see the Isles of Scilly
as England beyond Cornwall. I am sure that they are quite content with
their arrangements, but I would leave it to them to define and decide
their own identity. I would be interested in the Minister’s
response to the questions that have been
raised.
| 
