Richard Benyon (Shadow Minister, Environment, Food & Rural Affairs; Newbury, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment 33, in clause 291, page 187, leave out ‘aim to’.

Ann McKechin (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Scotland Office; Glasgow North, Labour)

The amendment, as the hon. Member for Newbury said, sets out how the Secretary of State and Natural England must go about fulfilling the coastal access duty, and sets out what they must take into account. Under the provision as drafted, they must have regard to the safety and convenience of those using the English coastal route, the desirability of the route being close to the sea and providing views of the sea and, as far as reasonably practicable, they must ensure that interruptions to the route are kept to a minimum. That is clearly stated in subsection (2). They must also aim to strike a fair balance between the interests of the public in having rights of access over land, and the interests of any persons with a relevant interest in the land. That means that a balance would be struck regarding the particular piece of land—not that the interests of the relevant person should be set against the interests of the public in the route and in coastal access as a whole. However, the coastal access duty requires Natural England to propose a route, and it must bear that in mind when trying to strike a fair balance. The body is under a duty to consider all options for the route, between the public interest in having the route and the interest of the landowner in  having it cross his or her land. That will necessarily involve a balancing exercise between different landowners’ interests.

It is our intention that Natural England and the Secretary of State do everything that is reasonably practicable to achieve a fair balance. I cannot support the amendment, as requiring that Natural England and the Secretary of State “aim to” strike a fair balance is a strong inducement for them to do so, and we provide additional protection by making the Secretary of State jointly responsible with Natural England for making that decision, which should reassure those with an interest in the land. If they failed to do so, a person with a relevant interest in the land could object to the route under the procedure set out in schedule 19. We hope that consensus can be achieved in most cases, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has indicated. That balance lies at the heart of our proposals, and I believe that the correct balance has been struck. I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment on the basis of those reassurances.

Richard Benyon (Shadow Minister, Environment, Food & Rural Affairs; Newbury, Conservative)

My amendment was sensible, in that it sought to rebalance the fair balance, if the Minister will allow me to express a tautology. However, I understand the points that have been made, and hope that through this process we are able to reassure all sides in the debate that the fair balance can be achieved. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Richard Benyon (Shadow Minister, Environment, Food & Rural Affairs; Newbury, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment 34, in clause 291, page 187, line 23, at end insert—

‘( ) owns the sporting rights’.

Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 46, in clause 296, page 196, leave out lines 14 and 15 and insert—

‘(a) has a legal estate or legal interest in the land, or’.

Amendment 43, in clause 296, page 196, line 16, at end insert—

‘(d) owns the sporting rights.’.

Richard Benyon (Shadow Minister, Environment, Food & Rural Affairs; Newbury, Conservative)

The amendments seek to ensure that those who own sporting rights, separate from being the owner or occupier of land, are included in the statutory provisions for the consultation and in all rights that go with that status. In the Bill, the definition of a person with a relevant interest in affected land who would have particular statutory rights in the consultation process, as well as in the implementation of coastal access, covers only those who own a freehold title or a leasehold title, or are persons in lawful occupation of affected land. Unlike the definition in the CROW Act, that completely neglects those with sporting rights, who have a legitimate legal interest in land.

Sporting rights are granted by type of lease, licence or agreement, and constitute a separate property right. It is vital to understand that they are capable of being owned entirely separately from the land itself, and can be bought and sold. As a legal right, they can be  enforced against all parties, including the owner or the occupier of land. Bizarrely, the current definition of a person with a relevant interest in affected land gives full statutory recognition and rights to a person with a simple permission to graze cattle, for example, which in law is an unenforceable right entirely at the discretion of the owner or occupier of the land, while owners of sporting rights have been excluded, despite sporting rights constituting in some cases a valuable property right that can be enforced against all parties, including the owner-occupier of land. If the coastal path, and in particular the additional spreading room, includes land that is used for shooting, that interest in the land will be directly affected by the path, and therefore those who own a sporting right to carry out shooting on the land should be consulted, and that right should be in the Bill. That is important from the public safety perspective, as much as any other. Owners of sporting rights need to be fully consulted and informed as to where members of the public may go, so that they can take the necessary measures to prevent any risk to the public exercising their right of access.

Martin Salter (Reading West, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman will be aware of starred amendment 65, which seeks to achieve the same objective; it was tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test. Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that it is not just shooting interests that are concerned about this issue and that it could impact, in certain circumstances, on recreational sea fishing? He quite rightly raises the matter of public safety. Of course, the casting of heavy leads or weights from the shore is something that is potentially dangerous and sea fishermen do not want to do that if there is any chance of causing injury to innocent passers-by. There is a wider sporting interest at stake here than just shooters and I support that interest.

Richard Benyon (Shadow Minister, Environment, Food & Rural Affairs; Newbury, Conservative)

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is for that reason that we used the words, “sporting rights”, rather than just the word, “shooting”. When we have this route in mind, we must not think simply of particular areas of the coast that may be relevant to Members in this room. There may be a very narrow area of land between the sea and, for example, a cliff, or there could be much more open land. We have to bear in mind the needs and legitimate rights of all relevant sporting organisations and their supporters.

I believe that owners of sporting rights should be included in the definition of those who have a relevant interest in land, as they are under the CROW Act. The failure to include owners of sporting rights in that way means that they are, for example, not covered by the fundamental principle and statutory obligation behind the coastal access provisions that Natural England and the Secretary of State must

“aim to strike a fair balance between the interests of the public in having access over land and the interests of any person with a relevant interest in the land.”

We come back to that important phrase again—“aim to”. This issue comes down fundamentally to that point.

In addition, there are provisions that enable those with a relevant interest to make an objection to a coastal access report under schedule 1A to the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1959, which is  introduced by schedule 19 to the Bill. Hence, those provisions enable those with a relevant interest to have access to the independent appeals process. It should be noted that the need for access to a right of appeal has been clearly demonstrated by the CROW Act. Under that Act, there have been approximately 3,000 appeals to date, of which about two thirds have been successful. Clearly, those responsible for implementing access do not always get it right. Clause 296 states that those with a relevant interest in land are persons whom Natural England must

“take reasonable steps to consult”.

A further area of concern is sporting rights on existing CROW access land and what happens when land is reclassified as “coastal margin”, especially in respect of spreading room. The owners of those existing sporting rights have certain rights under the CROW Act. Under section 22, for example, they can close land at their discretion. The Government propose that that right will not apply to coastal margin, with no distinction being made between the route and additional spreading room. If such rights are to be lost, owners of those rights should have full statutory rights to object to proposals to reclassify land where existing rights are at stake.

That issue does not seem to be addressed anywhere in the Bill, or in any supplementary guidance, which means that owners of sporting rights will only have the limited rights of any member of the public where land with existing CROW protections is reclassified. It is worth recalling that the Joint Committee on Human Rights stated, in respect of the absence of an independent appeals process from the Bill as it was introduced and happily later amended, that that rendered the Bill incompatible with article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Joint Committee noted:

“In all comparable legislation providing for the designation of public rights of access over private land there is provision for a right of appeal by those affected to an independent court or tribunal.”

The Joint Committee went on to say:

“The Secretary of State’s decision approving the coastal access scheme will amount to the determination of the ‘civil rights’ of those with an interest in the land affected, within the meaning of Article 6(1) ECHR”.

That is the right to a fair hearing. The Joint Committee recommended that the Bill be amended to provide a right of appeal to an independent body, saying that an amendment

“would remove the incompatibility with Article 6 ECHR that we have identified”.

That led to the introduction of an independent right of appeal, which is greatly welcomed.

There is a key group of people who do not have the same status as those listed as having a relevant interest, which does not sit comfortably with the reasoning of the Joint Committee, which specifically refers to the determination of the civil rights of those with an interest in affected land. The position appears to be all the more arbitrary and unjust, given that the Bill gives greater protection to those with no legally enforceable rights than to the owners of sporting rights who do have a legally enforceable property right.

The Government’s arguments in another place on this issue do not stand up to scrutiny. The Minister, Lord Hunt, argued that land under CROW included a number of grouse moors that made shooting interests particularly pertinent and that Natural England’s involvement with local authorities would ensure that shooting interests were properly represented because local authorities

“will have an in-depth knowledge of local interests, such as shooting interests, and will be able to advise Natural England on the proper persons who should be consulted.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 1 June 2009; Vol. 711, c. 31.]

First, the CROW Act makes specific provision for grouse moors. Obviously that is not particularly relevant here, but that provision applied only in respect of dogs under section 23, which the Government intend to exclude under the proposed section 3A order. That is understandable in the context of the current proposals with regard to such matters as grouse moors, although it does not address the other part of the measure, which deals with lambing. I believe that that could be of great concern to farmers in certain parts of coastal England and Wales. It also fails to take account of the fact that shooting takes place on all types of land, and especially in coastal areas. Some 59 leases are granted by the Crown estate to wildfowling clubs covering around 500 miles of the foreshore. These are very ad hoc arrangements enabling people with a great love of the countryside to contribute to conservation. It is hard to see how their rights will be properly secured under this provision.

Secondly, there is no reason to suppose that local authorities have an in-depth knowledge of the complex nature of land ownership in their areas. They understand certain aspects of it, but I would not expect my local authority to have an in-depth understanding of the wide variety of sporting rights that exist in an inland area like mine and I am sure that the same would be true in coastal areas.

Thirdly, the Government propose to disapply section 22 of CROW under the proposed section 3A order, which allows the closure of land for a limited number of days at the discretion of owners or those with an interest in the land, and is vital to those exercising sporting rights. Section 22 of CROW would continue to apply to spreading room, which is the coastal margin other than that over which the route passes, but section 24 can now be used by owners of sporting rights to obtain closures or restrictions to enable them to exercise their rights. There is an essential difference between people who own the land, and who could live many miles away and not have much interest in it, and those who are on the land all the time and could have an interest in the sporting potential that it offers.

Section 24 relates to applications for closures or restrictions in respect of land for land management. Is the activity of shooting by a person owning sporting rights separate from the land in fact land management for the purposes of the Bill? In correspondence, DEFRA has stated that

“land management reasons... can include management for shooting.”

Does that only cover management activities preparatory to shooting but not the actual shooting, or does it cover both? We need to know the answer. Furthermore, the  process of having to apply may be impractical in cases in which the decision on whether to shoot has to be taken at short notice, particularly in pest control.

We want sea anglers to be able to go and enjoy their activity at a moment’s notice. That is part of the joy of activities in the countryside: one does not have to sit down and plan or spend endless hours on the internet trying to find out where exclusions exist. We should be trying to work with the grain of wishes of users of the countryside. If a request is denied, there is no guarantee of a swift appeal under section 30 of the CROW Act. Rights could be rendered meaningless by burdensome bureaucracy and delay. It should also be noted that the application of section 30 won during the Bill’s passage in another place could be rendered meaningless by the use of a future section 3A order by which the remaining CROW protections could be disapplied in respect of coastal margin.

How can owners of sporting rights take comfort from any assurance if they are not even covered by the statutory duty in the Bill under which Natural England and the Secretary of State must aim to strike a fair balance between the interests of the public in having access and the interests of a person with a relevant interest in the land? According to the Bill, they have no relevant interest greater than any other member of the public. That is clearly nonsense. As a look at the CROW Act or the basic principles of property law in this country will confirm, the arguments advanced to date by the Government have produced no good justification for what some must see as an attack on a fundamental right where the proper relationship between citizen and state are at risk.

Martin Salter (Reading West, Labour)

I rise in support of the amendments. Mr. Gale, I draw your attention to the fact that we may be discussing water in the Bill, but the roof just outside this room is leaking tremendously at the moment.

Richard Benyon (Shadow Minister, Environment, Food & Rural Affairs; Newbury, Conservative)

Someone has nicked the lead.

Charles Walker (Broxbourne, Conservative)

For fishing.

Martin Salter (Reading West, Labour)

Perhaps.

I agree with the hon. Member for Newbury, but I must tease him gently. He referred to local authorities having an in-depth knowledge of who owns what and what sporting rights exist. I am sure that he will not mind if I reveal that when he was preparing for a speech the other day for the “save our rivers” campaign, which he and I both support, he required a list of all the angling clubs from my constituency to his. I was happy to provide it, as I am a member of most of them, but the irony was not lost on me that some of those angling clubs rent water off him, so there are cases where even the landowner is not entirely sure which parcel of land is leased to which particular sporting interest. I mean that in a most affectionate and friendly way.

I would also like to put on record my slight surprise that although this is a hot issue, particularly among wildfowling and fishing interests, the Countryside Alliance, which is normally quick to lobby me on such matters, has been strangely quiet. However, I understand that it has opened up its usual channels of communication with the Conservative party. I would like to point out  that the election has not yet occurred. It is always useful when lobbying organisations are equal across the House in making their representations.

Charles Walker (Broxbourne, Conservative)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Martin Salter (Reading West, Labour)

As long as the hon. Gentleman is rude to the Countryside Alliance.

Charles Walker (Broxbourne, Conservative)

Is it not nice that wildfowling, like fishing, crosses all social and economic boundaries?

Martin Salter (Reading West, Labour)

Yes. I am conscious that Members from this party might not speak to me ever again if I continue this love-in with the hon. Member for Broxbourne.

I was lobbied heavily by an organisation for which I have immense respect, and which I cited in my contribution to the Second Reading debate. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Newbury for reminding the Committee of the deliberations of the Joint Committee, which raised the issue as well.

There is correspondence on record from the Minister to the British Association for Shooting and Conservation that is clearly drafted by civil servants and is, frankly, nonsense. It needs to be deconstructed. I know that the Minister, as a reasonable man, will have a way forward for us, but I will read into the record the response to the initial concerns about why the arguments hold very little water, like the roof of the House of Commons.

The Department’s response to BASC can be summarised as follows: shooting is not pertinent to coastal access issues. The letter mentions only wildfowling, and ignores game shooting, pest control—an issue raised by the hon. Member for Newbury—fishing and stalking interests. The Department claims that coastal land is more complicated and has more interests, and that it believes that shooting tenants and holders of sporting rights should be excluded from those able to appeal against the route. That is on the record as a response from the Department to shooting interests, so there is clearly a conflict which needs to be resolved. DEFRA goes on to sweeten the pill by saying it will give Natural England the power to exclude tidal land from spreading room. However, Natural England had already planned to do that. It is not going to help a lot of the shoots, pest control, fishing or stalking interests on the coast.

Here is the irony. A Labour Government have given more rights to the tenants of grouse moors than to wildfowling clubs. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs understands country pursuits. Wildfowling is a pretty ordinary down-to-earth pursuit—a down-in-the-mud pursuit. People spend a lot of time up to their waist or neck in water. How ironic it is that those who can afford expensive grouse moor shooting appear to be given rights in the appeal process, rather than Joe Soap participating in the centuries-old activity of wildfowling.

Charles Walker (Broxbourne, Conservative)

The hon. Gentleman makes the point I was trying to made in my intervention. Wildfowling is not the sole pursuit of the landed gentry. I have nothing against the landed gentry.

Martin Salter (Reading West, Labour)

I have.

Charles Walker (Broxbourne, Conservative)

But wildfowling crosses all social and economic backgrounds and that is something we need to focus on in the amendment.

Martin Salter (Reading West, Labour)

This is obviously the Marxist-Leninist amendment. The problem revolves around the definition of “relevant interest in land” in the Bill. It clearly differs, as the hon. Member for Newbury said, from the Countryside and Rights of Way Act, by excluding tenants and holders of sporting rights. They are not able to make the same formal representations to Natural England against the proposed route, so we end up with the ridiculous situation that a golf club may appeal because it owns the land but a wildfowling or fishing club cannot. I fail to see how that can be justified in any sense.

There are about 200 wildfowling clubs around the coast. An awful lot more people are involved in those clubs than are ever going to be involved in grouse moors or the specific proposals that would be picked up under the appeals process allowed in the CROW Act. The last point I want to make is that the current position conflicts with Natural England’s draft scheme for the implementation of pathways. Clear guidance has been drafted, in consultation with DEFRA advisers, to avoid ports, industry, crops, livestock and military use but no consideration is given to the tenants of sporting rights. I have a huge amount of respect for officials in DEFRA, but this particular measure seems to have been drafted by people with a poor understanding of sporting interests on the coast. That is something in the Bill that needs to be resolved.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Marine and Natural Environment), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Ogmore, Labour)

I welcome the opportunity to follow two good contributions to the debate. I concede that there is genuine concern among sporting interests of all sorts—shooting, wildfowling or fishing—and that this is important to our coastal areas, not only as an activity or pastime but by providing economic and social benefit. To put it in context, I understand that sporting interest cases under the CROW Act provisions amount to 43 per cent. of the current live restrictions on applications from landowners. That effectively covers 3.5 per cent. of the total restrictable area of open access land, excluding Forestry Commission, under the CROW Act. Those interests therefore have a sizeable impact. Those figures include lowland shooting—and thus moorland shooting—live-quarry shooting, including rough shoots; deer shooting; and, of course, fishing. Putting that into context, it is worth noting that the right of access to the coastal margin will be the CROW Act right of access, and that is why I am prefacing some of my comments by saying that the CROW restrictions and exclusion systems will apply to such land. It is important to say that at the outset, because there is more than one way to skin a cat, and I hope to explain how the provisions in the Bill and in the CROW Act will work to maintain the valid interests and pastimes of people and organisations who are not landowners but who have a long and often historic interest in an area of land.

Let me deal with some of the issues that have been raised. I want to correct a misunderstanding by making it clear that section 22 of the CROW Act, concerning  discretionary closures, does not apply to those with sporting interests, and that it applies only to the owners of land. In respect of section 22, we propose to remove the landowner’s right to make discretionary restrictions. We are doing that for several reasons, including for the availability of a coastal route that allows people access along the coast. That is central to the Government’s vision, but it has to be done sensitively and in line with the duties in clause 291(3) to

“aim to strike a fair balance between the interests of the public in having rights of access over land and the interests of any person with a relevant interest in the land.”

I shall expand on that in a moment.

We want landowners and others to talk to Natural England from the outset. The whole basis of the consultation and what has been introduced in Natural England’s draft scheme on coastal access is predicated on the idea of real engagement and consultation, and it builds on what has been done under the voluntary provisions. We recognise that although 70 per cent. of the coast is open to access at the moment, that leaves 30 per cent. to which there is no access, not even through alternative paths.

Another issue that has been raised, in respect of the Bill and the CROW Act, is land management. I want to be emphatic about this point: land management can include shooting and fishing—sporting interests—as well as actions that are preparatory to those activities. The whole gamut of sporting interests, including preparation and the activities themselves, therefore come within land management. Finally, a point was made about bureaucracy and delay in appeals against the refusal of applications for sporting interests. Restrictions can be applied well in advance of the shooting activity for a period of time, so there is time for an appeal to be heard. There are genuine concerns with which we need to deal, but there is more than one way of dealing with them.

Amendments 34 and 43 seek specifically to extend the definition of those with a relevant interest in land that is affected by proposals to include those with sporting rights. Amendment 46 would amend the description in clause 296 of what is a relevant interest to add those with a legal interest; that would include those with a sporting right, as well as those with an easement or a right of common. That is relevant, because Natural England and the Secretary of State must aim to strike a fair balance between the interests of the public in having a right of access and the interests of persons with a relevant interest in the land. Persons with a relevant interest in the affected land may also make that objection to Natural England about a coastal access report under the procedure for hearing objections that we introduced in the Bill in the other place.

The CROW Act definition of interest in land includes rights of common, as well as grazing and sporting rights. I reiterate the comments that Lord Hunt made on Report in the other place about those interests being particularly relevant to the land types involved in the CROW Act. CROW land—open country, including mountain, moor, heath and down—includes a number of grouse moors, as has been mentioned, which makes shooting interests particularly pertinent. Rights of common were also particularly important, as the mapping process involved mapping areas of registered common land.

Martin Salter (Reading West, Labour)

The Countryside Alliance, the Country Land and Business Association and the British Association for Shooting and Conservation are not ill-informed bodies. Will the Minister explain why, despite the assurances given by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath in the other place, the fears and concerns do not appear to have been allayed? How much progress does he hope to make in allaying those fears and concerns if he is merely repeating what was said in the other place?

Huw Irranca-Davies (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Marine and Natural Environment), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Ogmore, Labour)

I think that those bodies have genuine concerns. Certain interests have taken place for many years, if not generations, in some places, and those bodies want not only assurance, but to know that there is a way through this and that they can make their representations and be heard. I will flesh this out a little bit, and I will not only repeat what was said in the other place. I have a proposal, because although I am not a fisherman and do not engage in shooting, I recognise that somebody who takes part in such activities and has genuine concerns whether the Bill will end such activities will not only want to hear assurances, but will want proper access to engage in the process. Those people will say, “Show me, Minister. How can I have an impact on this?” I will come to that in a moment. To deal with my hon. Friend’s point, those concerns are still out there.

Let me state that, as I said at the beginning, I recognise the role that sporting interests such as shooting and angling play in the rural economy, but all interests—I stress all interests—will be taken into account when Natural England draws up proposals for the coastal route and margin. It is important that I mention that that will not be an arbitrary line or a coastal margin drawn on a map by a man in Whitehall. The Bill provides for extensive preliminary work and consultation before Natural England draws up its recommendations. The work that is done on the ground, with the local interests and with regard to the duties contained in the Bill, means that the people doing the work will have to go out and listen to all the various concerns and try to reconcile some of the competing interests out there.

Natural England said, in its draft guidance that I mentioned earlier, that it will work with shoot managers when considering the best alignment for the trail. So it has said on the record that it intends to do that and, as a Minister, I will hold it to that. I have no doubt—I have seen it working on the ground—that it intends to do that. This will be a coastal route built upwards from the ground with local interests.

Natural England has also said that it will draft proposals that will include information on any exclusions and restrictions on access that it considers necessary. Again, those will be based on what it has heard on the ground, working not only with local landowners, and so on, but those with interests, including sporting interests. Natural England will have to advertise the proposals and invite comment, providing the opportunity for absolutely anyone, whether an individual or a sporting interest organisation, to make their views known, so that those can be taken into account by Natural England.

There are the safeguards, if those with other interests feel that Natural England has not taken their views into account adequately in the final proposals. Paragraph 7 of schedule 19 states:

“Representations about a coastal access report may be made by any person to Natural England”,

whether a legal entity, person, individual or organisation, including those with historical sporting interests along a part of the coast. Those representations will go, in summary, to the Secretary of State, along with Natural England’s comments on them. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will read the comments to see whether they have been taken into account properly, in line with clause 291(3), which refers to

“a fair balance between the interests of the public in having rights of access...and the interests of any person with a relevant interest in the land.”

That includes representations by certain organisations specified in regulations.

The Secretary of State must take representations into account when making a determination on the route. As Lord Hunt said in the other place, we expect to include in the list the Country Land and Business Association and the National Farmers Union, and we are open to including other organisations, such as the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, which I met recently, and representatives of fishing interests. We shall consult on the regulations in due course, which will provide the opportunity to decide which organisations we should include. I am sure that Committee members have strong views about which organisations should be included in the regulations.

The Secretary of State must consider such information when reaching his determination on any proposal in Natural England’s coastal access report. Obviously, the Secretary of State will take particular note of representations made by anyone with important and valuable interests, such as sporting rights. I am convinced that the extensive consultation process that Natural England will undertake before drawing up its report, along with the right to make representations on the report, which must be considered by Natural England and the Secretary of State in reaching a determination, will ensure that all interested parties have opportunities to express their views. That bottom-up, consultative approach and preliminary engagement with people—the advertising and invitation for comments—is quite different from what has come before.

Given this very different approach to coastal land, and the consultative nature of the process, we do not believe that the definition of those with a relevant interest has to be the same as under CROW. We have therefore identified in the Bill the people whom it is appropriate to include in the definition of those with a relevant interest in affected land. They are set out in clause 291 and proposed new section 55J in clause 296, and they comprise landowners, leaseholders and those in lawful occupation of the land. That is the most appropriate approach for coastal land.

I shall give one final safeguard. Those with relevant interests, as defined by section 45 of the CROW Act, which includes sporting rights, will have the same rights as they do on CROW land. In other words, they can apply for restrictions and exclusions of access for land management reasons. That takes me back to my original comment that sporting rights fall within land management. That can include the management of a sporting activity, the activity itself and the holding of commercial events associated with the activity. Such sporting activities might well include shooting and fishing. Those with  rights enabling them to carry out such activities on access land can apply for restrictions or exclusions if necessary. That process, with its propensity towards exclusions for sporting rights under CROW, has worked very well. We have made it clear that the Government do not intend to make changes to the categories of people who can make an application for restrictions and exclusions under section 24 of the CROW Act, and that ability remains in place.

I said at the outset that the concerns expressed are genuine, but my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West has asked why those fears have not been allayed. Genuine concerns remain, but it is not appropriate to accept the amendments, because—I am sorry to repeat this—there is more than one way to skin a cat. Those representations can be heard and those exclusions and exemptions can be applied for—in fact, it has worked very well under CROW.

Perhaps the Committee will support me in another matter. I am interested in convening a summit or conference of those with an interest in sporting rights—anglers, shooters and others—so my very good team of officials and I can sit down with them and seek not only to clarify, expand and reassure, but, where necessary, to introduce additional guidance to explain how representations can be heard under both CROW and this Bill and how their interests can be protected. That should provide the proper reassurance that perhaps they have not yet received.

Martin Salter (Reading West, Labour)

I do not think that any Committee member believes that it is the Government’s intention to restrict or disrupt the legitimate activities of wildfowling clubs or sea fishing in such locations. Most of us who picked up that baton and ran with it would be satisfied if the wildfowling clubs and the British Association for Shooting and Conservation were reassured that their appeal rights will be as robust as the Minister has indicated. What is the time scale for bringing the Bill back on Report? That will tell us how long we have to engage in that consultation and clarification process.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Marine and Natural Environment), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Ogmore, Labour)

I cannot anticipate the permutations that go through the usual channels, but we hope to be back in October, subject to any subsequent delays, which I hope will not occur. That will give us time over the summer. I am more than willing—if I say this on the record, it might actually get out there—to come back here in the recess and bring together, with the assistance of my hon. Friend and others, the right group of people to talk about how to explain and clarify how best they can protect their interests. I am also willing, where necessary, to bring forward supplementary guidance to clarify that, because those organisations and people have genuine and valid concerns, and I think that there are valid and genuine ways to ensure that those concerns are heard.

Martin Salter (Reading West, Labour)

That will certainly be sufficient for now, provided that the hon. Members who have raised the issue, particularly the hon. Members for Broxbourne and for Newbury and my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test, have an opportunity to attend that summit on shooting and sporting interests, because we all need to be assured before we come back on Report that the issue has been sorted out.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Marine and Natural Environment), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Ogmore, Labour)

I welcome that, because I know that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have a good feeling for the type of organisations and stakeholders—to use that horrible term—that would be relevant for such a meeting, including those who would want to be involved during the summer.

On that basis, I urge the hon. Member for Newbury to withdraw the amendment and to engage fruitfully and constructively with us over the summer, so that we can work with those people who have sporting interests not only to give them clarity and reassurance, but to show them what they can use in the Bill and the CROW Act, because they have actually already made use of the CROW Act successfully to date.

Richard Benyon (Shadow Minister, Environment, Food & Rural Affairs; Newbury, Conservative)

The problem with that element of the Bill is that it relates to a theme that runs through the whole of part 9, which is quite a woolly piece of legislation. It might have been deliberately designed in that way because the Minister wants it to be flexible, but my worry about keeping it woolly is that it allows for interpretation. That might be from Natural England, in consultation with the local authority, but although that might work supremely well for 95 per cent. of the 30 per cent. yet to be accessed, the remaining 5 per cent. could militate against legitimate sporting bodies.

Whatever the Minister says, access to the objections provisions secured in another place will be weaker under that arrangement. It is perfectly simple to add that one category under clause 291(4). I am sure that his officials are saying to him, “If you concede this, you will open the flood gates to every conceivable organisation.” I counsel him that that will not happen. I have sat up in the watches of the night trying to contemplate the interested bodies that will beat down his door saying, “We deserve exactly the same access to consultation as the sporting bodies, so what is so special about us?” But for the life of me, I cannot think of any.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Marine and Natural Environment), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Ogmore, Labour)

I hope that the hon. Gentleman is right. I do not want my door being beaten down—at least no more than currently happens. I think that we have a way forward, but one reservation, which I have not referred to, is that the amendments would bolt certainty into the Bill, which is not needed, but they do not identify the costs of the representations or objections that might be made. There are serious concerns over the effect of passing the amendments in this shape, when we do not know the cost implications. The economic assessment of our current proposals is that they will cost about £1.5 million, but I have no idea what the amendments will cost, and I suspect, as well intentioned as they are, the hon. Gentleman does not know either. Therefore, if there is an alternative route forward, we should work with those with sporting interests to make it work.

Richard Benyon (Shadow Minister, Environment, Food & Rural Affairs; Newbury, Conservative)

There are colleagues who are always the voices in my head on costs. I suspect that the Minister is applying the 43 per cent. of objections under CROW that came from sporting interests to his thoughts about costs. I submit that there would be a much smaller number of objections for this than there are under CROW—a very small number indeed. CROW encompassed elements of moorland, where there are substantial high-income areas, so I do not agree that the issue would apply.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Marine and Natural Environment), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Ogmore, Labour)

To clarify, the 43 per cent. that I referred to earlier is a measure of the success of the existing CROW provisions. Of the live applications in place, 43 per cent. concern sporting interests. A propensity not to object, but to apply for exemptions and exclusions based on sporting interests is a singular measure of the success of the CROW provisions—they have worked.

Richard Benyon (Shadow Minister, Environment, Food & Rural Affairs; Newbury, Conservative)

I take the Minister’s point, but I am not sure whether I agree with him on cost.

My other point relates to liability. We should consider the interests of the sporting groups that we have been talking about, such as wildfowling. Wildfowling rights have developed over a great many years, and those involved tend to be esoteric individuals who understand and know the foreshore, the marshes and the adjacent land. If they have to be concerned with liability, it will be a huge cost to them and may require different liability insurance. The cost should reflect their status as consultees.

Natural England’s draft scheme, page 33, section 7.6.7, specifically mentions shooting and makes some helpful indications of its approach:

“Shooters should assume at all times that members of the public may be present and take all necessary precautions to ensure their safety, in line with voluntary codes of Practice”

“At all times” could include hours of the day when there is half-light or little light, and this measure will impose new concerns for shooters close to a path. While the guidance mentions specifically that marshes may not be included as part of the spreading room, a person could still be on a marsh close to the 4 m path and worry about public safety.

Martin Salter (Reading West, Labour)

I do not disagree with a word that the hon. Gentleman has said—his amendment is similar to  my starred amendment—but we now have four amendments seeking the same thing, so there is a drafting issue about what each would achieve. The Minister has agreed to hold a summit with relevant interests and to write in and amend the guidance. Bottoming out this issue with the people who have been lobbying me and him, before we determine it in Committee, makes immense sense. Will the hon. Gentleman take my guarantee that I will join him, if the issue is not resolved satisfactorily when we come back on Report? I will have no hesitation in joining him and other hon. Members who are concerned about the matter in the Division Lobby at some future point. On that basis, is he more reassured?

Richard Benyon (Shadow Minister, Environment, Food & Rural Affairs; Newbury, Conservative)

Having drawn lines in the sand, I am about to cross them by saying that I sense that the hon. Member for Reading, West feels that the Minister is moving in his direction. I am happy to take part in a summit with the Minister—he is good company—but he is a very busy man, and I would like to resolve the matter now and save him the bother. Given his assurance to the hon. Member for Reading, West that we can deal with the matter, and given the understanding that I have gained from meetings with the Minister and his officials, I believe that it is a front-loaded consultation—I think that was the expression—and that interested parties, such as those with supporting interests, can be given a triple-lock assurance that their interests will be understood at an early stage. With that provision, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.