Marine and Coastal Access Bill [Lords]

Public Bill Committee, 14 July 2009.

Schedule 20

Richard Benyon (Conservative, Newbury)

Good morning, Mr. Gale. I suspect that this may be the final sitting of this glee club, and it falls to me to tidy up various points that have been raised. My hon. Friend the Member for East Devon tabled some amendments that are due to be debated today, but he has fallen prey to the lurgy; we hope that he has not been in close association with a Mexican pig farmer. He is unable to be with us today, but I think that I know the intention behind his amendments, so I want to probe the Minister on various points in relation to the impact that the coastal path will have on landowners or people with an interest in land.

I will start by painting a picture of a particular case that has been put to me. I have had informal discussions about the issue with some of the Minister’s officials, but it is important to put on record how the Government believe Natural England and local authorities should treat the legislation. My example relates to a privately owned, semi-permanent caravan park on the coast. The landowner, at his own expense, has created a footpath along the coast. The footpath goes to the rear of the caravan park and up a cliff, and it affords walkers a safe path and enhanced views compared with those from sea level. It is a better option in every sense—from the public’s point of view, as well as from that of the landowner’s business. If the letter of the law were followed by the local authority and Natural England, they might state that the footpath must be driven across the front of the caravans in the park. That would impact on the landowner’s business; there would be potential safety consequences for some of the caravans’ owners; and there would be a diminished amenity value. I hope that the Minister will say that, in such circumstances, it is right and proper that the footpath goes along the existing route. It is the logical and best route; it has been enhanced and paid for by the landowner; and it affords a better option for every conceivable interest in the proposal.

My hon. Friend the Member for East Devon wanted to press the Minister on the pecuniary cost to coastal interests affected by the provision. I am sure that many members of the Committee have received case studies in relation to the impact on certain businesses. It would be useful if the Minister were to explain whether he appreciates the concerns of those with affected interests. In the south-west, for example, there is a tourism business dependent on what it considers to be exclusive access to a beach area. The business claims that the loss of private beach access to a hotel or holiday home development will result in a minimum depreciation of the capital value of the business of 16 per cent. That is a reduction of £500,000 in the value of that business.

Another south-west business is a hotel that is also dependent on coastal access. The business contributes £1.5 million per annum to the local economy and preserves a key landmark in the form of the hotel. The business believes that the loss of its unique selling point—privacy—would result in the depreciation in the capital value of least £3 million. Those figures could be tested, but half that figure would still be a substantial impact. We talk about the value of the coastal path in terms of tourism—people wanting to walk a coastal path—and its many benefits to local communities and local businesses, which I entirely accept, but we must also accept that there is already a lot of activity in coastal Britain today. There are many companies providing jobs and enormous benefit to those communities, and sometimes those businesses will be at odds with what is proposed in this part of the Bill.

Another business that drew my attention is in Northumberland, where the landowner owns a large area of coast well known for its bird life. Much of the area consists of vegetated dunes and is a site of special scientific interest. The business has always permitted public access to the beach. Its focus is on holiday cottages. It had planned to expand by developing wildlife safaris, with hides and other facilities, along the coast, but those plans have now been put on hold until the coastal access situation is clear. I hope that the Minister’s remarks will provide that clarity.

The business believes that, with a lack of compensation, the changes will have an impact on nesting birds, safety and management issues. Natural England notices ask people not to pass due to nesting birds, obviously at a particular time of year. The sign states:

“Ground-nesting birds, including terns and ringed plover breed here. Disturbance from people walking with or without dogs can cause nesting birds to abandon their nests and expose eggs or young birds to predators. To protect wildlife on this site there is currently no access beyond here. It is illegal to disturb schedule 1 breeding birds.”

There is a potential conflict between what Natural England wants to see in certain areas of our coast and the coastal access we demand that it delivers. It would be very helpful if the Minister were to address some of those concerns in his remarks, particularly regarding the potential impact on a number of existing rural businesses that provide great benefit to the economy of local areas.

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

As the hon. Member for Newbury has said, I suspect we are in our final sitting. It is a great pity that the hon. Member for East Devon is not here. The hon. Member for Newbury has done a good job of setting out the basis for what I am sure that the Minister will acknowledge is a substantial issue. However, I had hoped that the hon. Member for East Devon would set out the argument with examples from his constituency and add to some of the scenarios painted by the hon. Member for Newbury.

Even after the coastal path has been identified and agreed, coastal erosion will inevitably result in a further requirement to decide its route in coming decades. The implication for landowners—in my constituency, for example, there is a non-profit distributing trust that runs a recreational facility, including a golf club—is that where there will be a substantial amount of coastal erosion over the next 20 or 30 years, the coastal path will inevitably take up sections of what is currently well-used land. That may result in significant compromises to the facilities that the golf club can offer. Clearly that issue needs to be considered further.

This debate on compensation is needed fully to understand the consequences for businesses whose viability will be adversely affected by the coastal path. Where the issue of compensation is raised, it may help the process of negotiation. Natural England might be prepared to compromise a little more reasonably over a reasonable request for a diversion in an area where a business would be significantly affected by a coastal path driving its way through an area of quiet tranquillity, where people could otherwise enjoy a private holiday experience. The spectre of compensation itself may ensure that Natural England is prepared to make a reasonable compromise in those circumstances. If compensation were not available I suspect that Natural England might not be prepared to do that. I shall certainly be interested to hear what the Minister has to say.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

It may be helpful if as well as responding to the stand part debate, I also respond to the substance of the amendments, which were not moved but which are pertinent to the schedule. I appreciate the concerns that the hon. Members for Newbury and for St. Ives have raised. We have articulated them on several occasions in Committee. I make it clear once again that I fully expect that in its determination of the route, Natural England will engage fully with all landowners, businesses, the national parks authorities, local authorities and local access forums to make sure that it is the right route and that local sensitivities are taken into account.

I am very familiar with the caravan park issues, both from my visits around the coast of the east of England and from back home, where I live on the Gower. The Gower was the first designated area of outstanding natural beauty, and there are also caravan parks right on the beach and on the cliff heads. How do we reconcile that? The way to do it is through proper local engagement, taking into account local concerns. The hon. Member for Newbury described a case where an existing path goes slightly inland and up on to the headland, where greater views are afforded of the spectacular coast. It might well be that in discussion with the landowner, Natural England said, “That’s a darn fine route. Let’s keep it as that.” On the other hand, there might be a significant amount of shore frontage or spreading room at the front. I know of caravan parks where there is less than a metre between the caravan and the shoreline. There are others with immense spreading room out to the front. It comes to down to very good local engagement and input, and discussions with the landowners to find the most appropriate route. That is what I expect to see happening.

The hon. Gentleman talked about restrictions in relation to nesting birds. Again, the flexibility that is provided in the Bill means that the best solution can be found. He is right to say, curiously, that it might be an occasion where a local business will say that it does not want the area closed, because it wants the public to come along and spend money in, for example, a cafĂ(c) or a bed and breakfast. That is where the environmental aspect comes in. We do not want to see nesting grounds of birds disturbed.

That is why the Bill’s approach of local determination and flexibility is right, rather than having the man in Whitehall or even the Natural England adviser sitting in London making a determination. That is not the way it should work. It should be about walking the route and engaging with landowners, conservation groups and shooting and angling interests that say they must have protection for a nesting ground during certain months. That is where this approach can really work. The hon. Member for St. Ives is right to say that if the hon. Member for East Devon had been here he would have painted lots of pictures of his local examples. Local examples can include the exceptions where difficulties have to be worked through, or the numerous cases where the process already works successfully. They paint a picture of how it can work and where the difficulties can be overcome.

I think I know the local golf club mentioned by the hon. Member for St. Ives. I am not a golfer but I have visited his constituency on holiday and I am pretty sure I know the one he referred to. That will undoubtedly be in one of those areas where these challenges are most acute, where there is coastal squeeze—not only from a coastal path but from coastal erosion, increased storminess, floods and rising sea levels. At the same time there are restrictions causing coastal squeeze on the other side, such as highways and the location of roads. When dealing with these issues, there is an ask, as I have said before, for local authorities to engage their planning powers to ensure that the caravan park, golf course or anything else has a valuable future when confronted with the coastal path and other pressures, both seaward and landward.

Richard Benyon (Conservative, Newbury)

Will the Minister address the concerns of some coastal businesses about liability? For example, I have heard of a landholding where, for a variety of geomorphological reasons, there are quickly shifting dunes. The landholder has been able to restrict access on the basis of safety concerns. Other coastal areas also pose a risk of accidents on rocks and cliffs. Will the Minister say a little more about how liability issues will be raised? I hope he will say that he understands the concerns of businesses that are important to the local economy but stand to lose considerable percentages of capital value.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

I will turn to liability, as it is an important issue. Landowners’ liability for people on their ground was significantly reduced by CROW legislation following the articulation of the same concerns. When the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 introduced a right of access to open country and registered common land mapped as access land, provision was made about occupiers’ liability under the Occupiers’ Liability Acts 1957 and 1984. That has reduced the liability of occupiers, such as landowners, towards members of the public who are exercising the right of access on CROW access land. For example, if someone sustains an injury on CROW land due to a natural feature of the landscape, reduced liability means that there will be no scope to sue the occupier. In addition, if someone sustains an injury climbing over a wall or fence, reduced liability means that there will be no scope to sue the occupier unless the injury was sustained through the proper use of the gate or stile—if it was dangerous through the direct fault of the landowner. I declare an interest here, although not in respect of coastal access; I have rights of way and stiles on my property in the upper Swansea valley. They have been well installed, and were paid for by the Countryside Council for Wales and others. I thank them for that because they installed proper ones, which are not like my makeshift ones. I take part in ensuring that the stiles are adequately maintained.

Roger Williams (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

Landowners’ reduced liability on CROW land was welcomed by my constituents and landowners throughout the country. Does the Minister agree that there is a difference between the CROW right to roam on mountain, moor and heath, where people can choose where to go and keep away from dangerous areas, and the right to roam on coastal access paths, where the routes are laid down? There is a huge duty on everybody to ensure that the route is safe to begin with.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

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.

Richard Benyon (Conservative, Newbury)

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?

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

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.

Clause 301

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

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.

Richard Benyon (Conservative, Newbury)

I had been quietly kipping there when something exploded. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Isles of Scilly are not part of England?

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

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 (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

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.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

I can confirm that the Isles of Scilly are definitely not part of Wales. The clause, as it stands, makes it clear that the coastal access duty and other matters relating to it that are provided for in part 9 of the Bill do not, as has been said, apply to the Isles of Scilly. It goes on to say, however, that the Secretary of State may make an order providing for the application of any of the provisions to the Isles of Scilly and may, in any such order, specify modifications to the provisions in respect of the Isles of Scilly. Before making such an order, the Secretary of State must consult the council of the Isles of Scilly.

To return to the first point made by the hon. Member for St. Ives, if the Isles of Scilly were to beg—I cannot imagine them begging us, but they may come to us at some point in future and say that they would like to be taken into account in the provisions, the clause allows us to do that. The clause makes provision for an order to be made under part 4 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, applying that part of the 1949 Act as amended by the Bill to the Isles of Scilly as if they were a separate county. That arrangement mirrors provisions, both in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 and in the 1949 Act. Rather than rewrite those Acts, we are mirroring them to achieve the same effect. The clause also provides that an order may be made under CROW, applying part 1 as amended by the Bill, to the Isles of Scilly. If they were to beg or ask politely to come within the provisions, that can be done.

The second hypothetical problem posed by the hon. Member for St. Ives was about whether we would decide to force them, in a draconian old-style colonial Government manner, to be included. As I said, before making such an order, the Secretary of State must consult the council of the Isles of Scilly and I challenge any future Secretary of State to go against the will of the council of the Isles of Scilly. I confirm that in the process of introducing the clause—and the wider parts of the Bill as well—we have regularly been in touch with the council of the Isles of Scilly. As the hon. Gentleman mentioned, it is content with the way in which the Bill has been drafted. It does not wish the Isles of Scilly to be included in the legislation at the present time, but the clause holds out the possibility of doing so if things were to change in the future. To reiterate, we are following the precedents, in respect of the Isles of Scilly, that were set out in CROW under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. They are similar to the provisions that we have introduced for the Isle of Wight as well.

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

I am grateful to the Minister for that response and I am content.

Clause 302

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

Briefly, once again, I simply wish to probe the Minister on the advice he has received on subsection (2) (c) in relation to the Duchy of Cornwall. There are a number of constitutional issues that apply to the Duchy of Cornwall and I am interested to know what advice he has received in drafting the clause. There is currently a debate, which I am sure he is well aware of, about the duchy’s relationship to the Crown. I am sure that defining the duchy as Crown land for the purposes of the Bill is legitimate. However, what advice did he seek on the duchy’s constitutional status? Since the duchy was established by charters in 1337 to 1338, the Duke of Cornwall has owned the foreshore around Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly. In England—the hon. Member for Newbury might be interested in staying awake for this bit—the foreshore is primarily owned by the Crown. There are also other very interesting constitutional issues relating to the Duchy of Cornwall. If one dies intestate in Cornwall, it is quite different from dying intestate on the other side of the frontier in England. The Duchy of Lancaster, as I understand it, is much more accountable to Parliament than the Duchy of Cornwall.

The fact that the UK is without a codified constitution gives rise to a number of constitutional conundrums, given the accretions to the English and later British monarchy from 1066. Although I do not wish to go back over the whole history of the issue, what is interesting in relation to this matter is the constitutional basis on which the duchy is incorporated. Those who debate the role of the duchy and its relationship to the Crown point out that the duchy often defines itself at the same time in its constitutional role and as a distinct private estate. I would be interested in any clarification or light the Minister might be able to throw on the issue in relation to the clause.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

Once again, I thank the hon. Member for St. Ives for raising the issue. I am not a constitutional expert beyond the fact that it is my role as a legislator to have some knowledge of constitutional issues. The clause has been drafted by, and included on the advice of, parliamentary counsel, taking into account the issues raised by the hon. Gentleman, and they are content with it. Representatives of the Crown estate and the duchies have been fully involved and consulted and are content with the Bill constitutionally. It is worth reiterating that we have a clause that says that the provisions for creating an English coastal route and access to coastal land apply to the Crown and all Crown land, as they do to any other land. That includes land belonging to the Crown and Her Majesty’s private estates, the Duchy of Lancaster, the Duchy of Cornwall and Government Departments. It sets out the appropriate authorities that may act on behalf of the Crown in respect of those different categories of Crown land. We believe that Crown land should be included in the same way that any other land will be. For example, the Crown estate owns about half of the foreshore around the English coast and has traditionally permitted public access. Under the provisions in the Bill, once fully implemented through the order under section 3A of the CROW Act and the procedures set out in the 1949 Act, there is likely to be public access as of right to the foreshore and to other coastal Crown land, other than where it is excepted or excluded. I might earlier have said “Crown estate” when I should have said “Crown land”.

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

I am grateful to the Minister and it is helpful to have the advice of his counsel on the record.

Clause 304

David Jones (Conservative, Clwyd West)

I want to speak briefly on the clause, which confers primary legislative competence on the Welsh Assembly by inserting two new provisions—matters 16.2 and 16.3—in field 16, which deals with sport and recreation, of the Government of Wales Act 2006. Under matter 16.2, the Assembly would be empowered effectively to create a coastal route in Wales. Matter 16.3, to which I propose to return, would empower it to secure public access to relevant land on the coast. The Assembly provided a memorandum on the background to its application for the powers contained in clause 304 and an indication of how it proposes to exercise them. Will the Minister comment on the indication given in the Assembly’s memorandum that, while the Bill provides for the English coastal access provisions to be binding on the Crown, any provisions in equivalent Assembly legislation would similarly bind the Crown? The memorandum stated:

“However, it is not the Assembly Government’s intention that any Assembly measure”—

the legislation developed pursuant to the powers conferred in matters 16.2 and 16.3—

“should alter, or permit the alteration of, the position with regard to access to land used for purposes within the responsibility of the UK Government without the agreement of the relevant Secretary of State. In this context, land at the coast used for railways, airports...docks, telecommunications, gas, electricity and for military purposes is particularly relevant.”

The memorandum was prepared relatively recently, in June 2009, but I would appreciate the Minister’s confirmation on the record that his understanding is that that intention of the Assembly Government prevails. What would the position be if, for example, a UK Secretary of State wished to withdraw or amend the consent given to the Assembly Government for the preparation of the path? In such circumstances, would the Assembly Government be bound to reconsider and divert the route of the path?

I also wish to raise briefly an issue about the interpretation of clause 304. “Coast” in that clause is defined as

“the coast of Wales adjacent to the sea, including the coast of any island (in the sea) comprised in Wales”.

That is similar to the definition in clause 294, but there is a subtle difference. In clause 294, the English coast

“means the coast of England adjacent to the sea, including the coast of any island (in the sea) comprised in England (other than an excluded island).”

An excluded island is defined as one that

“is neither—

(a) an accessible island, nor

(b) an island specified by the Secretary of State by order for the purposes of this paragraph.”

It seems curious that inaccessible islands appear to be included in the definition of “coast” in clause 304. There are many inaccessible islands around the coast of Wales. If I climb to the top of the hill behind my house I can see Puffin island, which is entirely inaccessible. Perhaps of more significance are islands such as Ynys Elli—Bardsey island—which is much larger but equally inaccessible. Why is there a difference in definition in the Welsh and English provisions in clauses 304 and 294?

Roger Williams (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

I rise briefly, out of interest. Clause 304 includes an amendment to the Government of Wales Act 2006 to include a new matter under the competence of the Welsh Assembly, and yet when I proposed a similar amendment, the Minister said that it was inappropriate in a Bill of this sort to add to the Welsh Assembly’s powers. It seems that the Government are now attempting to do just that. Why is this an appropriate place to achieve what I believe would be a good result?

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

If I can start at the end, the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire has asked about the difference between this discussion and one that we had previously. The difference is that the powers for the inclusion of matters were placed in the Bill after consultation with, and at the request of, the Welsh Assembly Government, who see this as a possibly useful way forward.

I will turn to the detailed points in a moment, because some of them refer to how the Welsh Assembly Government will introduce the necessary measures that underpin the matters inserted into the fields under the 2006 Act. Again, I risk reverting to my previous role, because the clause confers important new legislative competences—in parliamentary counsel terminology—on the National Assembly for Wales in relation to public access to and routes for the Welsh coast. It will add two new matters to field 16, sport and recreation, under schedule 5(1) to the Government of Wales Act 2006.

The first matter enables the National Assembly for Wales to bring forward a measure or measures for the establishment or maintenance of a route or routes on the coast of Wales to enable the public to make recreational journeys. The second matter enables the Assembly to make a measure or measures securing public access to relevant land for recreational purposes. Land will be “relevant” if it is at the coast or can be used in association with either land at the coast or a coastal route. I shall come on to the points raised by the hon. Member for Clwyd, West in a moment.

Those provisions are intended to add value to the Welsh Assembly Government’s existing coastal access improvement programme, which has worked well, by enabling the Assembly to clarify the extent of public access rights to the Welsh coast and secure new areas of land for public access, neither of which they can deliver through the existing coastal access improvement programme due to limitations on their powers.

I can confirm for the hon. Member for Clwyd, West that the Welsh Assembly Government briefing to which he referred, dated June 2009, is still valid and the issues still hold. That is a straight, “Yes”, in response to his query. As I mentioned in my preamble, the provisions are enabling powers that allow the WAG to decide the appropriate way to deal with islands. They may decide to limit access to islands, for example, but, under the Government of Wales Act 2006, we insert matters in the fields to allow the Assembly Government to bring forward measures, subject to consultation, so that they have the flexibility to take issues forward and that they are comfortable with that position.

The hon. Gentleman also raised the issue of railways and so on in list in the same document. I confirm that defence, railways and so on are reserved matters, so the briefing is still correct.

David Jones (Conservative, Clwyd West)

I am grateful for the indication that the Minister has just put on the record. There is one matter that perturbs me however. There are installations around the coast of Wales connected with reserved matters. If, for the sake of argument, the relevant Secretary of State, having consented to the creation of a path that affected one of those installations, decided later that the path needed to be diverted, would it be possible to go back to the Assembly and say, “I would like you to divert your path please.”?

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

The question is whether the Secretary of State can decide to change the route. If the WAG used their enabling powers to pass legislation, it would be primary legislation, as the hon. Gentleman knows. The Secretary of State could repeal it, but only through primary legislation or an order under the Government of Wales Act 2006. There is a route, but it is not easy.

David Jones (Conservative, Clwyd West)

It is not an easy route; it is a draconian route. The impression given in the memorandum furnished to the Committee is that the Assembly Government would not create a route that affected an installation that was subject to the sway of a UK Minister without the consent of that Minister. Circumstances might subsequently change, in which case if the Secretary of State went back to the Assembly Government and said, “I’m sorry, but I’m afraid that that route is going to have to be diverted,” is it the Minister’s understanding that the Assembly Government would acquiesce and divert the route?

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. If the route changed and the Secretary of State indicated that it then impinged upon reserved matters, such as defence, he would make his views known to the Welsh Assembly Government Minister and would expect those views to be taken into account. As with the original use of the powers given to WAG to develop a route, the way in which the provision is set up means that the Secretary of State would have to be engaged with on reserved matters in relation to any subsequent alteration of the route. If the Secretary of State indicated that the alteration impinged upon reserved matters, WAG would need to take note and, where necessary, alter the route accordingly.

David Jones (Conservative, Clwyd West)

I am sorry to labour the point, but this is a matter of some importance. The clear impression given by the memorandum is that WAG would not create a coastal route that affected land that is the subject of reserved powers, if the Secretary of State withheld consent. The clarification that I am seeking, which I think the Minister is giving, is that if the Secretary of State decided, for whatever reason, that a route was no longer convenient, WAG would acquiesce and change the path’s route.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

My understanding reflects the memorandum to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. As he has said, on the initial implementation of any proposals and on any subsequent proposals, WAG need to pay heed to, and work with, the Secretary of State when he states that developments impinge upon reserved matters, such as defence. That would have to be taken into account and an alternative route would have to be found. I will write to the hon. Gentleman and other members of the Committee to clarify precisely that point, because it is an important issue and we want to ensure that the Bill is future-proofed. I will also offer any further clarification that is needed.

New Schedule 1

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

I beg to move, That the new schedule be read a Second time.

I declare an interest as a dog owner and as someone who lives near the coast in my constituency.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

Mainlander.

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

That is right; I am a mainlander. The new schedule would ensure that Natural England is consulted by a local authority that wishes to implement a dog control order on coastal paths. I urge the Committee not to be prejudiced by the totally unacceptable way in which a minority of dog owners allow their dogs to behave in public spaces or by their failure to clean up after them, although such issues cannot be ignored.

The Kennel Club and other dog-owner organisations are understandably eager for as full access as possible to the coastal path, but they are concerned about the frequency, as they see it, with which local authorities implement control orders, often without proper consultation. There are 8 million pet dogs in the UK cared for by an estimated 15 million people, which is an average of almost 12,400 resident dogs per parliamentary constituency. Government statistics show that dog walkers represent between one third and one half of all walkers. Dog walkers also represent a cross-section of society, drawn from across all socio-economic backgrounds.

Research by Hampshire county council shows that the biggest factor influencing where dog walkers exercise their dogs is whether they can exercise their dogs off-lead. If it is not possible to do that within the local area, more than 40 per cent. say that they would drive further away from where they live. However, dog owners’ ability to comply with their obligations under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, to provide their dogs off-leash exercise, has sometimes been compromised by the introduction of another parliamentary measure that restricts their activities—dog control orders under the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005—especially where no alternative provision is made. In effect, two Acts are crashing on dog owners and appear to be in conflict.

DEFRA guidance accompanying the 2005 Act states that local authorities should show that dog control orders are

“a necessary and proportionate response to problems caused by the activities of dogs and those in charge of them”

and should

“balance the interests of those in charge of dogs against the interests of those affected by the activities of dogs”.

The Kennel Club believes that in practice the guidance has been widely ignored and many local authorities are taking a more restrictive approach—I use “believes”, because I do not go along entirely with the club’s approach in every respect. Furthermore, while local authorities are required to notify Natural England of any proposed dog control orders on access land, the club claims that few appear to have done so. The lack of any appeals process has, according to the club, allowed some local authorities to ignore the guidance.

To date, at least 120 councils in England have implemented dog control orders, sometimes issuing as many as 100 in the local area, although there could well be more. The Kennel Club believes that approximately 75 authorities already exclude or restrict dogs on their beaches. The effect of the increasing reduction of access to public open space is making dog ownership less viable and may therefore negate the many health, social and economic benefits.

To balance the issue, the Government should reflect on the potential for the increased role of Natural England in respect of the introduction of dog control orders because, in many areas, restrictions on dog access to the coast has been flouted by dog owners. I give an example from my constituency. On the north coast, near Hayle, there are between 3.5 and 4 miles of towans or sand dunes. A large section was sold yesterday for £80,000, and it was on the national news. The towans are planted predominantly with marram grass and other vegetation such as bracken heath. The owner of that land thankfully cannot do a lot with it due to restrictions. There are ground-nesting birds in the area, particularly at this time of year. Currently, dogs are entitled to exercise off the lead throughout the year in the area. If Natural England was more involved in the setting of dog control orders, that might have resulted in seasonal restrictions on the ability of dog owners to allow their dogs to exercise off the lead. Over the past decade or more, as the exercising of dogs in the area has increased, the preponderance of ground-nesting birds has decreased significantly because of the disturbance caused by dog owners. The Kennel Club is arguing that Natural England should be involved, because it believes that local authorities are not doing a good job. It thinks that that would be a means by which to appeal to Natural England’s better nature and achieve a more acceptable dog-control order than that implemented by local authorities. My argument is that there would be the additional benefit of flora and fauna protection. I therefore hope that the Minister will reflect on the need at least to allow the advice of Natural England to be considered properly when the dog-control orders are implemented.

Richard Benyon (Conservative, Newbury)

There was great debate in another place about the wording used under the Bill about the control of dogs; it came down to the effective control of dogs. Like many people, I was concerned about a farmer having to pay £10,000 to a dog walker who was injured by a herd of cows. The actions of cattle are often centred not on individuals, but on the dog walking beside them, so a rule restricting the type of dog access, such as an order requiring dogs to be on a lead, is not always the best answer. In an incident, someone’s immediate action would be to let go of the dog and he find himself in contravention of a byelaw.

I just hope that such legislation will not drive a coach and horses through established local byelaws. We can all think of areas of coastal Britain where, after local consultation, town councils, parish councils or large authorities designate an area a dog-free beach and make other areas available for dog walking. The matter is all about balance. Such issues should not be controlled from Whitehall. There should be understanding. The Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 was designed principally with urban areas in mind. I am sympathetic to the new schedule tabled by the hon. Member for St. Ives, but I want to make sure that legislative creep will not impose adversely on local communities, make decisions made on their behalf and impinge on the liability of landowners or the rights of dog walkers.

Ann McKechin (Labour, Glasgow North)

I welcome the debate. The key point made by the hon. Members for St. Ives and for Newbury is about balance, which is the principle that we need to bear in mind. As the hon. Member for St. Ives rightly said, there is a small minority of irresponsible owners. A number of them might not be aware of the dangers that sometimes occur in coastal areas. An official from DEFRA recently visited Pembrokeshire where, in the months since access has been extended, there has been a number of cases of dogs falling off cliffs because they had seen something attractive and had gone after it. In such cases, people end up either with a dead dog or with a rescue situation that involves considerable expense with the use of coastguards, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution and so on. It is important that we bear in mind safety as well as the welfare of livestock, which is a particular worry.

A couple of weeks ago, I read an article about problems that have been experienced in Iona, which is one of our great cultural assets. Unfortunately, the increasing number of visitors and the increasing number of dogs that are with them have caused several problems for the croft owners in that small geographical area. Likewise, we need to consider the protection of crops. Along the east coast in particular, some valuable crops, such as asparagus, run almost right into the sea. As they are not fenced off, it is important that appropriate protections are put in place concerning people’s domestic pets. I do not object to the sentiments raised by the hon. Member for St. Ives but, as the hon. Member for Newbury pointed out, it is a question of where the rules are best placed, and I would argue that it is not in primary legislation.

There was extensive discussion in the other place on the question of dogs and the impact on land management and nature conservation. Lord Tyler helpfully informed the other place that there are about 7.3 million dogs in the UK, and 15 million dog owners. In the same debate, Lord Hunt acknowledged the importance to land managers, people accompanied by a dog, other users and responsible organisations such as the Kennel Club and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, of a common understanding of the sort of behaviour that we should expect from a person in charge of a dog.

Lord Hunt noted the Government’s intention to consult on proposals to amend the restrictions in schedule 2 of CROW for the purpose of coastal access to require dogs to be kept under effective control. We propose that the keeper of a dog should keep it on relevant access land, and keep it on a lead or keep it in sight and remain aware of its actions. A person should have reason to be confident that his or her dog will return reliably and promptly on command. We have also listened to the concerns that the National Farmers Union expressed about the walking of dogs near livestock. In view of that, we do not propose to make any change to the current position on open country that a person should keep his dog on a short lead in the vicinity of livestock and that they should comply with any other relevant restrictions made under chapter II of the CROW Act.

The new schedule tabled by the hon. Member for St. Ives seeks to make an amendment to the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005. As he pointed out, that Act provides for an appropriate authority to make a dog control order for land in its area and to consult with persons specified in regulations before doing so. He mentioned that the Kennel Club had expressed concern about the lack of consultation. We are aware of that, although it has not provided any specific examples. To be fair, if people present specific examples, it gives more validity to the allegations that are made.

There are provisions in the regulations with respect to consultation about orders that would affect CROW access land, and the new schedule would require the appropriate authority to consult Natural England where a proposed order would affect the English coastal route. We have made it clear that we want local authorities to be involved, where appropriate and where they are willing to do so, in proposals for the implementation of coastal access. That was a point well made by the hon. Member for Newbury. It is a decision most effectively made at local level, where local knowledge is available and councils are locally and democratically accountable to residents. That is what the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 enables the local authority to do.

The regulations already provide for the sort of consultation that the hon. Member for St. Ives is seeking in the new schedule. Where an order would affect access land under CROW, the authority is required specifically to consult the access authority for that land; the local access forum; and, in respect of any land that is not situated in a national park, Natural England. When the Bill receives Royal Assent, we will consider whether the regulations should be amended to require consultation with Natural England in all cases regarding coastal margin, including land within national parks, but we do not need to make such a provision in the Bill.

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

I just wanted to check that what I heard was right. Did the Minister say that there is a requirement to consult Natural England, but only in circumstances where it affects only national parks? In the cases I cited earlier, there are areas outside national parks where it is very clear that Natural England should be consulted, because it has the expertise.

Ann McKechin (Labour, Glasgow North)

At present, there is a requirement to consult Natural England unless the land is part of a national park. We are considering further regulations when the Bill receives Royal Assent to include all land, including national parks, so we would extend the measure.

The hon. Member for Newbury raised a question about established local byelaws. I am pleased to confirm that the provisions in the Bill do not affect local byelaws and we fully intend that that system should remain in place. Our aim for the coastal route is that it should be continuous as far as reasonably practicable for dog walkers, and I am sympathetic to the view that we should try to do everything possible within reason to allow that to be facilitated. However, we also recognise that restrictions are needed. The hon. Member for St. Ives said that he was accompanied by his dog when he unveiled a mid-way marker along the south-west coast path in Cornwall recently, and I am happy to tell him that we will review the need for any changes to the regulations once the Bill has completed its passage through Parliament. On that basis I urge him not to press his new schedule.

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

I am grateful to the Minister for her response. Although I have much sympathy for the Kennel Club’s concerns in this regard, I thought there was a sufficiently substantive issue for us to have a debate and to clarify some of the points that have emerged. As the Minister rightly pointed out, we need to strike a fair balance between the desires of those who walk their dogs and other users of coastal paths and beaches. I agree that the most appropriate place to resolve those potential conflicts is at local level through democratically elected local authorities. Local control orders are clearly the best vehicle to achieve that.

However—and I think the Minister took this on board—there is a requirement to balance the interests of those who want to exercise their dogs off the lead and the protection of coastal fauna. In some parts of coastal areas, local authorities still do not seem to have quite got the balance right. I mentioned ground-nesting birds, but there are other seasons when the intrusion of dogs exercising off the lead can be detrimental to fauna on the coast. We have to get the balance right. Having heard the Minister’s response to the debate, I think the balance is absolutely right: if in doubt, the decision should be taken at a local level, but in consultation with the experts. I believe that Natural England has a substantial body of expertise on which local authorities can draw, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause 305

Martin Salter (Labour, Reading West)

I rise in the hope of teasing some response out of the Minister about the functions of Natural England. Before I do so, I should point out that last week I all but accused the Countryside Alliance of not lobbying us on a cross-party basis and of being the Tory party at prayer and field. That was monstrous of me. The Countryside Alliance did lobby me, but I completely failed to read its e-mails. I should like to put that on the record as a matter of good grace.

I am worried that we could be about to over-complicate the process for designating sites of special scientific interest or national nature reserves. The current arrangements with Natural England being the notifying authority have worked well for years, yet in the Bill we are bringing in a new power for the Secretary of State to intervene and call in these notifications in sub-tidal areas. I am confused about how that process would work in practice. The Minister needs to explain that to the Committee and possibly to return to it on Report.

There are already more than 60,000 hectares of sub-tidal SSSIs, and the power we envisage will apply only to new or renotified SSSIs. However, the power runs the risk of confusing landowners and land managers, because it introduces an additional stage in the decision-making process. The Secretary of State is already a statutory consultee, which is a crucial point. The clause appears to take little account of the existing notification process, and we know that within its duties and functions, Natural England has a duty to notify a site of special scientific interest if it forms the opinion that the site is of special interest. Special interest relates solely to scientific questions or to biological or geological features, as laid down in the United Kingdom’s sites of special scientific interest guidelines. Legal precedent has confirmed that that decision can be challenged only on the grounds of special interest, but I, Natural England and others are unclear as to the basis on which the Secretary of State can intervene if the grounds for the notification process are so clearly laid out. We could end up with a slightly absurd merry-go-round of notification, denotification as a result of the Secretary of State’s intervention, then renotification, because whatever has been put in the Bill does not absolve Natural England of the responsibility to notify sites of special interest. I am not entirely sure that the Government have thought that through.

There is also uncertainty about how the time scale is affected. Currently, landowners, land mangers and land users have nine months from the date of notification to know whether an SSSI designation will be put in place. Does the Secretary of State who is calling in the process stop the clock, and if so, for how long? I can see a calling-in procedure locking a process in the bowels of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for months, and possible years, while it is considered. There is also the issue of what to do with the site, what can be done with it, and how it affects land values and future usage. The Minister was clear and helpful about marine conservation zones, and a 12-month timetable was put on the designation process.

I do not think that this issue can be dealt with today. It requires further consideration and thought on Report, because we need to be assured that there is some purpose in what the Government intend, and that they are not effectively driving a coach and horses through a system that works well, and that we will not build in unintended consequences purely because the Minister wants to be a backstop in the designation of SSSIs in tidal areas.

Another area of confusion—and this is another reason why I do not think that this issue can be resolved this morning—stems from the fact that the powers apply only to SSSIs in sub-tidal areas. There are many SSSIs that span non-tidal and tidal areas. Are we going to have one process for designation and notification when the tide is in and another when the tide is out? That has not been clearly thought through but, hopefully with the Committee’s support, we have picked up a potential glitch in the system. I am sure that the Minister will have the good grace to enable us to bottom out the issue and resolve it on Report.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

This is a good example of a Committee really adding value to legislative scrutiny, and I thank my hon. Friend for raising his point. He is absolutely right that it is imperative that the Bill’s provisions provide an effective and efficient means of delivering our shared policy aims.

It is not clear to me whether there are any flaws in schedule 13, but I recognise my hon. Friend’s concerns and will look at the schedule’s provisions and engage with Natural England to ensure that we have got it right. We all want clarity and a Bill that functions well, and I will therefore take a further look. In light both of my hon. Friend’s comments and of similar comments made to us by Natural England about the clarity of the process of designating sites of special scientific interest and marine conservation zones in a sub-tidal area, we are currently engaged in a process called “process mapping”—by and large, I strenuously try to avoid jargon, and I promise that that is the one piece of jargon that I will use.

If I strip out the jargon, that means working with Natural England to try to see—on the rare occasions where this may overlap in decision-making—exactly where we can give clarity about how it holds together. Having said that, I am happy to look at this again between now and on Report to see whether it needs clarification or something else.

Martin Salter (Labour, Reading West)

Does the Minister agree that neither the Government nor his Department intended to introduce two entirely different regimes for the notification of SSSIs, depending on whether they are above or below the tide limit? If the Minister wants to get rid of jargon, I see no purpose in the word “sub-tidal”. It is either tidal or it is not.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

It may help if I expand on what we intend this part of the Bill to do. The Secretary of State is responsible in England for contributing to the network of marine protected areas, which will include all relevant areas. That means, in addition to marine conservation zones, sites of special scientific interest, among others. We must give the Secretary of State the ability to select sites that will form the network for which he is responsible. It would be wrong to make him accountable for a network and then deny him the right to designate the sites for it. There is no argument that the Secretary of State should be responsible for selecting the other marine protected areas in the network—marine conservation zones, special areas of conservation, special protection areas and Ramsar sites for important wetlands. On that basis, it would be odd to legislate for the Secretary of State not to have that power for the marine aspects of SSSIs.

We have to take account of the fact that biology, ecology and the vast variety of wildlife do not recognise those administrative boundaries. The problem is that habitats do not always fall neatly into terrestrial or marine areas, which is precisely what schedule 13 is about. We need to provide clarity and an administrative way to deal with that overlap. On the marine side, the Secretary of State is responsible for delivery; on the land side, Natural England is. I am a little concerned about one potential way forward. If we were to strip out the Secretary of State’s role so that he does not have the power of direction, a non-elected public body would be placed higher in the pecking order of decision making in the marine area than the elected Minister of the Crown, whom Parliament had made responsible for delivery.

Martin Salter (Labour, Reading West)

I am sorry but I am struggling with the logic of this. We have already given Natural England that power under previous legislation on land. What is the difference?

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

This is about clarity and my willingness to look at it to see that it actually works. I do not want to create the impression that this power will be used at every opportunity—we have to recognise that. We also have to recognise that the Government and Natural England will be working extremely closely together to create the marine network in partnership. Natural England and the Government will be working hand in hand on the marine aspects, while Natural England will work separately on the development of future potential SSSI sites. Those bodies will have to engage closely, through the necessity of the Bill and other legislation. As Natural England is intimately involved in both the land-based and the marine protected area regimes, I seriously doubt there will be any places where we will not be able to agree whether an area should be a site of special scientific interest or a marine conservation zone.

It is also worth noting that the Secretary of State has a duty in the Bill to report to Parliament in 2012 on progress in designating the network. We have to make the two processes work together. I am willing to have a look at the provision in the light of my hon. Friend’s comments to see what we can do. I also want to look at the process mapping—sorry for the strange jargon—on how the provision will work, so that we can achieve some clarity.

Clause 310

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

Very briefly, is the Minister prepared to clarify a question which I raised earlier on clause 301? On what date will he make a formal announcement about the IFCA boundaries, which he set out in Committee last Tuesday? As regards the supplementary provisions as set out under clause 310, when will that formal announcement be made and when will the local authorities, which are looking forward to the outcome of the announcement, be properly informed? As I mentioned earlier, the Council of the Isles of Scilly, which wishes to retain the integrity of the IFCAs in its own area, and Cornwall would like to know the outcome.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

I have not got the date to hand, but, with due respect to the House, I can confirm that we will make the announcement imminently, before the recess, in order to have that certainty.

Schedule 22

Clause 317

Richard Benyon (Conservative, Newbury)

A very quick question for the Minister regarding subsection (2)(a) which refers to the Marine Management Organisation. When will the Minister bring forward details of the board and the chief executive of this new organisation? Can he tell us how many members of the Marine and Fisheries Agency have indicated that they are prepared to move to the new headquarters in Tyneside? Has a building been identified in Tyneside?

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

I have already put some clarity—as much as I can at the moment—on the record regarding the appointment of board members, the chief executive and the designate chairman who is now in place. I refer the hon. Gentleman back to the part of the debate where I put that on record.

On the transfer of existing Marine and Fisheries Agency staff to the MMO, we have already indicated that Tyneside will be the home of the new MMO, but we have not yet finalised the accommodation. We are still in discussion with MFA staff. In any significant relocation of that type, there is always a significant loss of headquarters staff due to family reasons and so on. I have previously made it clear that we are working very effectively with the MFA, its unions and its staff, and we will continue to do so. The chief executive post, as I previously mentioned, has already been advertised. The board members will follow on behind that. I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman, if he would like further clarification. It is also worth saying that we are on target. The building that will be the home of the MMO will be chosen imminently, and we are still finalising the staff numbers to relocate.

Richard Benyon (Conservative, Newbury)

I suspect that the Minister’s contentment in thinking that the Government are on target is a very optimistic state of affairs indeed. The MFA has very serious morale problems. My understanding is that very few staff have indicated thus far that they are willing to go. My concern is not only for them, but for the integrity of the new organisation, which must hit the ground running. We have a short time scale, and it is important that we transfer as much expertise as possible from the MFA to the MMO. It is a worry if we cannot guarantee that we can get there. Will the Minister give us more assurances that he will engage with those people and give the ones whom we want to transfer an incentive to join the new organisation?

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Order. We are going very wide of the clause, but the Minister may respond, if he wishes.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

Only in short, Mr. Gale. The level of engagement and consultation that we have had with the work force and the representative bodies is significant, intensive and ongoing. We have always recognised that in the relocation, there would be those who would choose not to relocate for either family or professional reasons. However, it is wrong for the hon. Member for Newbury wildly to suggest that we are not adequately ensuring that the transfer of ability and knowledge in the process through the MFA and the other organisations that will form part of the MMO is not being properly addressed.

Can I give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that we are on target? Yes, I can. Despite the time scale being one of the toughest and most challenging for the vesting of a new organisation, we are adhering to it. Can I assure him that the existing expertise, not only in terms of marine science, but fisheries, is adequately addressed? Yes, I can. That is not to say that it is not challenging. However, there could not have been a greater level of engagement than we have had and are continuing to have. We recognise that the existing expertise in the MFA will need to be transferred effectively, and that new expertise will need to be brought in. It is important to remember that the MMO is not the MFA; it is not even the MFA-plus or a super MFA. It is a new organisation that builds on the expertise in the MFA, and significantly augments and expands the expertise into a range of areas. Within its new home, the organisation will expand and reach out to all the areas of expertise that we will need, not least in marine science.

I understand that the hon. Gentleman wants to represent the concerns of those who did not want to move, or did not want to move to that location, but I urge him not to undermine what has been a strong, concerted and thorough process to engage with the affected individuals. Those who have chosen not to move have been at the forefront of our concerns to ensure that their careers are looked after and that their expertise is not lost to the wider DEFRA family or elsewhere.

Clause 318

Ann McKechin (Labour, Glasgow North)

I beg to move amendment 63, in clause 318, page 222, line 45, at end insert—

‘( ) in Part 3 (marine planning)—

(i) paragraphs 4(1) to (4), 5 and 6 of Schedule 5 (statement of public participation relating to MPS) and, so far as relating to those paragraphs, paragraphs 1 and 2 of that Schedule;

(ii) sections 44(1)(b) and (5) and 45(4), so far as relating to those paragraphs;’.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment 64.

Ann McKechin (Labour, Glasgow North)

The amendments provide for the early commencement of the provisions in part 3 on marine planning relating to the preparation and publication of a statement of public participation concerning the involvement of interested parties in the development of the marine policy statement. The amendments will enable us to publish the statement of public participation as soon as we have Royal Assent, rather than waiting for a further two months.

As Members will be aware, the marine policy statement will be the first stage of the new marine planning system. Marine plans have to be in conformity with it, so as to ensure a joined-up, UK-wide approach. We wish to publish an MPS as soon as possible, and to be able to consult on it by early spring of 2010. To do so, we need to ensure that the formal consultation procedures set out in the Bill can be carried out as soon as possible.

Before we can issue the MPS for consultation, we need to issue a statement of public participation, which will set out how we propose to involve interested persons throughout the UK in preparation of the MPS, including a proposed timetable for consultation. It is important that we allow a reasonable period between the issue of the statement of public participation and the consultation draft of the MPS. We wish to give interested parties as much notice as possible of when and how we will consult on the draft MPS, which will enable them to plan ahead for making representations and attending any public meetings about the consultation draft.

Currently, part 3 of the Bill is not commenced until two months after Royal Assent. As Committee members will realise, the final stages of consideration of the Bill will not be until after the summer recess. Therefore, subject to parliamentary approval, Royal Assent is not expected before the end of October at the earliest. That means that the statement of public participation will not be issued until towards the end of December 2009 or the beginning of 2010, which would mean a limited time for preparation.

Clause 319

Ann McKechin (Labour, Glasgow North)

I beg to move amendment 25, in clause 319, page 223, line 41, leave out subsection (2).

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

On a point of order, Mr. Gale. I thank the Committee for its deliberations, which have been a model of forensic analysis and focus. I particularly thank the peers in the other place and want to mention the unfortunate death in the past few days of Lord Kingsland, who was a significant contributor to their deliberations. His wide and exacting knowledge, as well as his role as chair of the Plymouth marine laboratory, helped significantly. I want to pass on the regards of my team and the Committee to Lord Kingsland’s family.

May I also take this opportunity to thank the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, North? Our partnership has been worthy of Monty Panesar and James Anderson’s last-wicket partnership for the England and Wales cricket team. It has been a sterling effort. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, South and East Cleveland, who has been like a twelfth man coming on to the pitch in times of trouble. It has very much been a team effort. I thank all members of the Committee for their constructive and thoughtful contributions throughout the debate. I particularly thank the hon. Members for Newbury and for St. Ives for their significant contributions.

It is worth recording the efforts of the expert, dedicated and enthusiastic Bill team who support me when I get into trouble, which is quite often. I also want to pass on my regards to those described by what the hon. Member for Newbury refers to as a horrible S-word—stakeholders, not socialism—who have lobbied us, and will continue to do so, for their energetic engagement with both the marine and coastal access parts of the Bill. One person whom I have not previously mentioned, but who is worth recalling, is the former chair of Natural England, Sir Martin Doughty, who was a committed advocate of the Bill. I think he will be gently smiling down on us.

Thank you also to the Committee Clerks for their work and to the Serjeant at Arms and the police for maintaining order on this riotous Bill over the past few weeks. Not least, Mr. Gale, I thank you and your colleague, Mr. Pope, for your careful stewardship of what, I think, has been a very good Committee on a Bill that was very good when it entered here and that leaves even better.

Richard Benyon (Conservative, Newbury)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Gale. I am grateful to the Minister for his kind words about Lord Kingsland, who, as he has said, was very active in moving amendments in another place. The Minister has been generous in his thanks, and I can only echo them and thank all members of the Committee. We have worked well on a cross-party basis to improve the Bill. There is more work to be done, which, no doubt, we will do with a similar co-operative attitude. I thank the Minister’s Bill team, who have kept us informed at every step in a very professional way. I am grateful to the Minister and, of course, to the Committee Clerks, who have steered us along.

This is really important legislation, and I look forward to its getting Royal Assent as soon as possible. I think that I speak for all Opposition Members when I say how grateful we are to the many organisations that have lobbied us, and we hope to continue to work with them when the Bill is implemented. The legislation has excited much more interest from a greater number of people than many pieces of legislation do, and I hope that we can represent as many of their views as possible in the final legislation. Thank you, Mr. Gale.

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Gale. I thank you and Mr. Pope. I also associate myself with the thanks and appreciation that the Minister and the hon. Member for Newbury have expressed to all those involved in the preparation and guiding of the process, which we have frankly simply been fronting? Many organisations have been passionately campaigning for and supporting the process. I also associate myself with the views expressed about the late Lord Kingsland.

During the proceedings, I have not sought to enforce the favour that I believe the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs still owes me, but I thank and congratulate him and the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland on the manner in which they have conducted themselves, which has made the proceedings a great deal more constructive and has been beneficial to the legislation.

My final point is to repeat that this is a very important piece of legislation. We have merely completed the Committee debates. I urge the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, in speaking to business managers and on Report, to remember that a number of issues raised during these debates still remain. They concern local accountability and ensuring that the MMO and Natural England do not micro-manage local circumstances and also that the local authorities have a role in this and that we get, and test that we have, the right and fair balance between conservation and socio-economic consequences. There are also still the issues of ensuring that the Bill has a real impact beyond the six-mile limit and of compensation on the coastal margins, which needs teasing out still further.

Once the announcement has been made during the summer recess about the boundaries of the IFCAs and the new authorities, residual issues may well arise. We may need to come back to consider those issues on Report, when I hope that there will be sufficient time to debate those, and other, issues as well.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

I add my thanks to the Committee for the courteous and exemplary manner in which these affairs have been effectively conducted. It always occurs to me that it is a great pity that more members of the public do not see the real work of the House of Commons in Committee. If people saw these kinds of proceedings, they might take a rather different view of the House. It is a sad fact that there is no controversy here and not a television camera in sight. I also add my thanks to the Officers of the House, without whose assistance our proceedings would quite simply be impossible.