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

I beg to move amendment 41, in clause 290, page 186, line 28, at end insert—

‘(6A) Where excepted land described in paragraphs 3 and 11 of Schedule 1 to the CROW Act (excepted land for purposes of Part 1) becomes land which is not excepted land for the purposes  of coastal margin by virtue of an order made under section 3A of the CROW Act, in discharging the coastal access duty in relation to the creation of new rights of way Natural England and the Secretary of State shall use their best endeavours to treat such land as excepted land unless they are satisfied that there are no practicable alternatives.’.

We have reached a milestone in our deliberations. We have completed the really important area of the Bill and we are now dealing with something that has been bolted on. Before the Minister rolls about in laughter, what I am actually saying is that this is a very important part of the Bill, but I would have liked it to have been considered separately. What we have discussed up until now is something that has been long called for by a great many people. Coastal access is equally important, but to perhaps a different group of people.

When I say that I am extremely supportive of increasing access to our coastline, Members on the Government Benches might be waiting for me to say “but”. When I say “but” I believe that the legislation can be tightened and improved, but I would like to put on the record that I have always been a supporter of providing greater access to our countryside. There are a variety of different ways of doing that and this is, perhaps, a noble objective, but there are areas where it can be improved.

The amendment seeks to address an issue that was picked up in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 and should be reflected in this legislation; that is, to secure the privacy and protection from members of the public for certain types of building. I will describe why this is extremely important. The new section 3A of the Act states that the CROW Act protection for dwellings and for buildings used for livestock where the public do not have a right of access within 20 m will be moved in relation to the coastal margin.

The justification for that, I am sure, is that a coastal path will, by its nature, in places require closer access to certain buildings—whether they are people’s houses, agricultural buildings, or any other type of building. That really needs some serious thought. Existing rights of way that will become part of the coastal route and already come within 20 m of dwellings or livestock buildings are no argument for saying that this proximity should be visited on any other dwelling or livestock building on the coastal strip.

The amendment provides that where land close to dwellings or livestock buildings has had its excepted protection removed by virtue of a new section 3A order, Natural England and the Secretary of State should none the less be under a statutory duty to treat such land as if it were excepted land. I will put in a caveat there. There may be certain circumstances—very few—where the Secretary of State needs some leeway. An example might be where a promontory or salient of land is squeezed in really narrow terms, in the unlikely event of there being a building there. In other words, in designing and approving the coastal access scheme, Natural England and the Secretary of State should be obliged to avoid creating new rights of way which are positioned in close proximity to human dwellings, or buildings used for farm livestock.

Many residents who live on or very close to the coastline view the coastal access scheme with great concern. Therefore it is reasonable that they should be  assured that every effort is being made by the authorities to avoid invading their privacy and the enjoyment of their properties, wherever it is practicable to do so. More importantly, in respect of farm buildings, there is a serious issue of farm biosecurity to be taken into account. As well as the day-to-day management of livestock and agricultural activities, safety for walkers, as well as for livestock, is paramount and must be considered.

We must learn from foot and mouth and other farm diseases. We require a much higher level of biosecurity than we have been happy to accept in the past. I know that the Minister will say that, in the event of a foot and mouth outbreak, farmers and landowners will be allowed to close areas around farm buildings containing livestock. That may be so, but it will probably be too late to do that in many areas. A simple amendment, such as this one, requiring what is already accepted in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 to be applied in this Bill will prevent walkers from walking up to a lambing building, for example, looking over the fence, contaminating the animals and carrying disease. There are some important points to be made on biosecurity and, equally, on safety.

Martin Salter (Reading West, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman is making a strong, powerful case. He talks about the powers available to the Secretary of State for the closures of footpaths and rights of way in an emergency, such as a foot and mouth outbreak, but of course in the countryside—he will know this as a landowner and a farmer—if people have got used to using a certain route and there are no people on the ground to enforce closures, perhaps the best thing is to ensure that that footpath does not run in a potentially dangerous place in the first instance.

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

That is precisely what I am trying to achieve here. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for putting that point so eloquently.

One problem with the Bill is that, as with the CROW Act, there can be all sorts of exclusions. However, the majority of people who want to walk in the countryside are not the sort who sit down and look at the local authority website, buy a map, find out where exclusions exist and know when they are leaving farmer A’s land and moving on to farmer B’s and what exclusions and constraints are in place there. So we have to work with the grain of human nature and that means, at the basic level, having an exclusion zone around farm buildings and dwellings where people live. I hope that the Government will accept this important amendment.

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

I welcome Committee members’ welcoming this part of the Bill, albeit the hon. Member for Newbury regards it as something of a bolt-on. We regard it as an integral part and parcel of what we propose, because the demand for responsible access to the coast is huge. We are now making more than 70 million trips to the undeveloped coast every year. Recent research shows that walking is the single most popular activity along the coast. The thrust behind this part of the Bill, which is on improving access, is to give people the confidence and the certainty that, when they arrive at the coast there will be clear, well-managed access in either direction and they will be able to enjoy a rich, varied natural environment that many people take for granted.

Under the legislation the Secretary of State and Natural England will be given a new duty to secure two objectives. The first objective is to do with the long-distance route or routes around the whole of the English coast, accessible to the public for journeys on foot. The second objective is that there be a wider margin of recreational land accessible by foot that the public can enjoy in conjunction with the route. Both aims gained broad support during pre-legislative scrutiny.

In the other place, Lord Taylor of Holbeach remarked:

“We fully support the establishment of the coastal route and we also see the value of the second objective in Clause 286,—

which is now clause 290—

“to expand access sufficiently to allow for recreation.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 1 June 2009; Vol. 711, c. 12.]

Lord Greaves also welcomed the coastal access and quoted the Hobhouse report of 1947:

“The love of open air is nowhere more clearly shown than in the use which is made of the coasts of this country. For countless thousands the seaside is almost synonymous with the annual summer holiday”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 30 March 2009; Vol. 709, c. 877.]

These proposals have to be sustainable and workable. One of the themes that we will draw out in the discussion is the input from local people and organisations to bring the routes forward. That underpins amendment 41, which refers to two categories of excepted land under schedule 1 to the CROW Act:

“Land within 20 metres of a dwelling.”

and

“Land covered by pens in use for the temporary reception or detention of livestock.”

Proposed new section 3A(4) of the CROW Act, which is set out in clause 297(5), will allow the Secretary of State by order to modify the provisions of part 1 of the CROW Act

“in their application to land which is coastal margin.”

I recognise the concerns and questions about what changes may be made to the categories of excepted land, as they affect land that is coastal. We published a paper on the order and excepted land, which set out the main measures we expect to be contained in the order.

We have said that land within 20 m of a dwelling will not be excepted land for the purposes of coastal margin because that would not be appropriate where access would be limited to a margin of land next to the sea. In many cases on the coast, there is already access closer than 20 m from a dwelling and it does not cause problems. Further protection is provided by paragraph 2 of schedule 1 to the CROW Act, which excepts buildings and curtilage.

We have no intention of changing the category under paragraph 11 of schedule 1 to the CROW Act, which is mentioned in the amendment:

“Land covered by pens in use for the temporary reception or detention of livestock.”

However, we have said that we are minded to remove paragraph 10 to schedule 1:

“Land within 20 metres of a building which is used for housing livestock”.

The hon. Member for Newbury rightly raises concerns over biosecurity. However, there are safeguards in the excepted land category because we believe that

“buildings or the curtilage of such land”

would include farmyards that are associated with farm buildings. There is also a power in the CROW Act to apply for a restriction or exclusion of access for land management reasons, so those powers are already in place. The hon. Gentleman rightly said that I would refer to the Animal Health Act 2002. Should there be an outbreak of animal disease, there are powers under that Act to close land where appropriate.

We think that we can deal with the issues raised by the hon. Gentleman with the provisions of the CROW Act, particularly the exception for buildings and their curtilage, and the powers in the 2002 Act.

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

I want to get this absolutely right. The Minister believes that it is possible within this legislation to have the 20 m around a building as excepted land.

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

Within the CROW Act, there are safeguards in the excepted land category. I have referred to the category of buildings and their curtilage, which we believe would include farmyards that are associated with farm buildings. Under the CROW Act, there is also that ability to apply for a restriction or exclusion of access for land management reasons, which I suspect would serve the purpose the hon. Gentleman is trying to satisfy. There are already provisions that can lead to curtailment of access for such reasons so the amendment is not needed.

We will have a further opportunity to debate and discuss the categories of excepted land during the consultation and the debate that we will need to have on the affirmative resolution order under proposed new section 3A of the CROW Act. On that basis, it is not appropriate to accept amendment 41. It would prejudge the results of the consultation on a section 3A order. I understand why the hon. Gentleman has raised the issue, but there is an opportunity to contribute to the consultation on the 3A order, and it should not be prejudged in the Bill. His rightful concerns can form part of the consultation and shape the sort of access that we want. He raised genuine concerns, but I do not think that stamping the measure hard and fast into primary legislation here and now is required. What is required is engagement with the existing powers and consultation on under a 3A order.

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

So much of this is going to depend on Natural England. In our discussions, the Minister and his team sounded very emollient and understanding of the needs of those who live and work along the proposed route. However, The Sunday Telegraph, which has made enjoyable reading for hon. Members in recent weeks, had a supplement this week that identified some coastal walks. Importantly, the walks incorporate existing rights of way and voluntary access provision. When one looks closely at the maps of some of the walks—they are around the country and some are in Scotland—one notices that they do not stick dogmatically and rigidly to a route purely on the grounds that it has to provide coastal access. The walks take in the needs of the walker and access and egress points from the coastal route. They also take in the needs of the land user, and routes are deliberately devised to avoid important buildings and access to them. The routes also offer the best views.

We can learn from voluntary access agreements in framing the Bill. A lot of work could have been done to expand and fulfil the Minister’s manifesto objectives to increase access to coastal Britain using a voluntary approach. I lay down a marker: where the Bill is too dogmatic and where it allows a simple-minded approach from certain authorities in how they progress the plan, we will seek to amend it. I hope, with the Minister’s assurances, that we can address the very important issue of farm buildings.

I have one more important point to make. Many existing footpaths go through farm yards, but the direction of travel on footpath designation in the countryside is moving them out of farm yards, for safety and biosecurity reasons. Some farm yards in my constituency are the convergence point for four different footpaths. During the foot and mouth outbreak, enforcing exclusions was a nightmare for those farmers. One of the great values of the Bill is that it will improve tourism in certain areas, which is why it has been welcomed by many people who live in coastal areas, and why it is important that we get it right. Some farm houses will seek to benefit from the Bill by opening bed and breakfasts. By excluding the route from the vicinity of a farm house whose owners want to benefit from tourism, we could be damaging a legitimate and important part of their business. It is perfectly possible to access the dwelling house without accessing the farm buildings. Perhaps the Minister will assure me that those concerns will be carried through the Bill.

Martin Salter (Reading West, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman and I are neighbours politically, and a project that runs through both our constituencies is a testimony to the value of an effective voluntary agreement. The Sustrans cycle path along the Kennet and Avon river and canal had the potential to generate serious conflict between different users, but we had the good sense to sit down and consider whether the towpath route would get in the way of fishermen, bird watchers, walkers or boaters, and reconfigured the route so that all stakeholders were happy. The voluntary approach worked well, and I think neither he nor I had a single complaint during our time as public representatives as a result of that approach. Surely that should inform how we deal with coastal access wherever possible.

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

Absolutely, and if the Minister had delegated responsibility for delivering his manifesto to me, I would have been able to provide his Government with a wonderful scheme involving local landowners and farmers in a way that has worked in my area and around the country. I just hope that the flexibility that he talks about will exist, and if he can assure me that those practices will be taken into account, I am happy to withdraw my amendment.

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

I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. The argument is somewhat circuitous, because we are arguing both for a blanket-type approach and for flexibility. I assure him that in the consultation we anticipate removal of the standard 20 m exemption in CROW, but we want more flexibility for landowners, farmers and others who want to use their premises on the coast for cafĂ(c)s, restaurants or bed and breakfasts.  We want flexibility, and input into the consultation is key to protect their interests as well as those of people with genuine biosecurity interests. That is where we want to make progress. With that assurance, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the Bill.

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

I will not withdraw the Bill—I do not yet have that power—but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.