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

I beg to move amendment 42, in clause 292, page 188, line 5, at end insert

‘and shall put the proposed scheme or any revised scheme out to public consultation.’.

Greg Pope (Hyndburn, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 55, in clause 296, page 193, line 4, at end insert—

‘(h) consult appropriate representative bodies for recreational users and land management organisations,

(i) consider any other representations received by them.’.

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

It is a great pleasure to have you back in the Chair, Mr. Pope. You will see that we have made startling progress since you were last here, but there are still important issues to resolve before we complete the Committee stage, one of which is raised by my amendment.

The amendment seeks to ensure that before the Secretary of State approves Natural England’s final proposals for the coastal access scheme and lays them before Parliament, those proposals are subject to public consultation. Consultation has arisen on numerous occasions in various areas of the Bill. I anticipate that the Minister will argue that there has been consultation, and that there will be extensive further consultation. I note that on page 9 of the draft scheme guidance on coastal access prepared by Natural England, there is a helpful flow chart of the various processes of the designation of the path, which includes a number of different consultations. I appreciate that, but the consultation that I propose is for a particular area.

There will be extensive further consultation with local authorities and key individuals during the drawing up of coastal access reports, and we support that. However, I wish to make a specific point on an area from which public consultation seems to be conspicuously  absent, and I hope that, in the spirit of the conversations that we have had on these sorts of concerns, the Minister will be able to reassure me.

The amendment deals with public consultation on the coastal access outline scheme, rather than on the coastal access reports, which will be consulted on after the outline scheme is approved. The scheme will outline how Natural England will approach the discharge of its coastal access duty and will constitute the guiding principles for coastal access reports. It is therefore extremely important that Natural England gets it right, and that the concerns of all parties are taken into account before the scheme is sent for approval by the Secretary of State and then laid before Parliament, at which point there will be no recourse to amend it. As the Bill stands, there will be consultation on the outline scheme with “such persons” as Natural England “considers appropriate”. That leaves the choice of who gets consulted completely at the discretion of Natural England. How will Natural England determine who is appropriate? Surely public consultation would be preferable, so that all interested parties are given an opportunity to contribute, rather than an elite few chosen by Natural England.

Although Natural England has released the draft outline scheme, and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has produced a draft section 3A order indicating both how access will be implemented and the changes that the Department proposes to the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, both those documents are subject to change, especially the latter. So much is being left to the discretion of Natural England, and we are putting huge faith in an unelected body. It is hard to know what the final scheme will consist of, and the public must have a right to be consulted, in addition to the consultation that was held prior to the drafting of the Bill. The amendment seeks to ensure that all members of the public are given equal access to the consultation on the outline scheme before the scheme is approved. That means that the best informed version will reach the Secretary of State and Parliament.

Andrew George (St Ives, Liberal Democrat)

I support amendment 42 and would like to give a little more background to amendment 55, which is in my name. On the basis of the case made by the hon. Member for Newbury, I support the opportunity for extended public consultation on any proposals. One issue that has not been covered in the debate so far is that of the many visitor attraction businesses that exist on the coastline. A lot of our attention has been placed on coastal access in relation to members of the public engaged in shooting, or other recreational activities. However, some businesses will be on either side of the coastal footpath, and it is reasonable to ensure their interests in maintaining their businesses. For example, some businesses have a hotel on the headland, but also have exclusive rights to other parts of the coastline right up to the high water mark, and sometimes beyond. That needs to be recognised. In my constituency, there is a local visitor attraction business, a historic house, which is increasingly used for wedding ceremonies and other events, where it is reasonable to expect a certain amount of privacy. That needs to be taken into account when considering the proposals and should form part of the consultation.

Amendment 55 relates to clause 296. It would add a requirement that Natural England consult appropriate representative bodies for recreational users  and land management organisations and consider any representations from them. The setting of the route on the coastal margin will be done locally, and Natural England will have a duty to consult landowners and occupiers and take their views into account. Natural England is required to consult bodies with a relevant interest, as we have already mentioned, such as access authorities, the Environment Agency and local access forums, but it stops there. There is currently no such requirement for Natural England to consult or consider representations from user group bodies or the public. Natural England does not have to consider any representations from members of the public during the drafting of its reports. Some user groups, such as the Ramblers Association, believe that that imbalance could lead to user groups and the public effectively being frozen out of the duty of fair balance, and thus lead to implementation which favours the interests of others and not necessarily those other user groups.

During debates in the House of Lords, cross-party support was shown for greater involvement of user groups and the public in the drafting of the reports. For example, on 21 April, Lord Taylor of Holbeach stated:

“National and local organisations will also be important. The briefings that Peers on all sides have received from some of them show how useful they can be in identifying the concerns of both potential users and those who will be affected. To ignore them would be a big mistake. My third amendment would ensure that they, too, are consulted properly during the preparatory stages.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 April 2009; Vol. 709, c. 1441.]

During discussion of the Bill on Report, the noble Lord Judd said:

“It would be reassuring and helpful for these tremendously committed and important people in our society if my noble friend could unequivocally say at the Dispatch Box that the regulations will underline the importance of such bodies being part of the list of people to be consulted, not least on appeals. That is where the anxiety exists.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 1 June 2009; Vol. 711, c. 49.]

In the same debate, the noble Baroness Hamwee said:

“My Lords, the amendment is about a fair balance. The imbalance is in the consultation, as Natural England will have to consider representations from persons with a relevant interest but not to consult bodies representing user group and the public. That is why this is particularly important. The imbalance is not corrected in the new schedule”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 1 June 2009; Vol. 711, c. 25.]

In response, Ministers conceded that user groups would have their representations passed on in full to the Secretary of State, and that they would be notified by Natural England of reports, but critically that they would not be included formally in the consultations. On behalf of the Government, the noble Lord Hunt said:

“I listened to my noble friend Lord Judd with great care, and we will have to consult in full on the persons it would be appropriate to include, but we have in mind that they would include the Ramblers’ Association, the Open Spaces Society, the British Mountaineering Council, the Country Land & Business Association and the National Farmers’ Union, and we will listen to other suggestions with great interest...I have already named several bodies that we expect to include in the regulations, so that their representations would go in full to the Secretary of State. They include such organisations as the Country Land & Business Association, the NFU, the Ramblers’ Association and the Open Spaces Society.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 1 June 2009; Vol. 711, c. 51-52.]

If the duty of fair balance is to be achieved during the local implementation of the coastal access duty, bodies representing user groups and the public must be  consulted on the content of coastal access reports. I certainly hope that the Minister will offer reassurances that, although named organisations beyond access forums and local authorities are not detailed in the Bill, they will be involved formally in the consultation. I also hope that there will be a requirement for Natural England to take fully into account the representations that it receives and that we receive some further reassurance that the interests of the public, as expressed during the consultation, will be taken fully on board because, as written, other than the response of the Minister in the House of Lords, nothing in the Bill offers the reassurance that we want.

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

Good morning, Mr. Pope. This is an important debate with which to start our sitting because it is key to making sure that as many people as possible can take part in the process of devising schemes and subsequent local reports as we extend coastal access throughout England.

I want to make it clear at the beginning that we fully intend that Natural England will consult as widely as possible on both the draft scheme, which was referred to in amendment 42, and the subsequent reports that are mentioned by the hon. Member for St. Ives in amendment 55. However, public consultation and how we define groups to be consulted is a bit more tricky. I hope to put on the record this morning assurances of the nature of the consultation that we expect to take place, which I hope will satisfy hon. Members.

Amendment 42 deals with the duty on Natural England under clause 292 to set out in a scheme to be approved by the Secretary of State the general approach it will take in implementing the coastal access duty. We have already made copies of the draft scheme available—the hon. Member for Newbury referred to it this morning. I hope that that has added to the understanding of what is intended in the process.

Charles Walker (Broxbourne, Conservative)

I do not expect an answer on this now, but if these consultations take place across the country, will there be budgetary implications for Natural England? Is it sufficiently resourced to manage those consultations or shall we see a massive expansion in the number of people employed by the organisation?

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

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we have taken the cost of consultation into account and we do not envisage a significant increase. I will come on to why we believe that to be the case.

As the hon. Member for Newbury correctly pointed out, the scheme has to be approved by the Secretary of State and then laid before Parliament. That procedure is recommended by Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. The input from Members of this House and from the other place will provide Natural England with an opportunity to take into account any suggestions about the scheme. If necessary, the scheme can then be revised from time to time, subject to further approval by the Secretary of State and it being laid before Parliament.

The Bill already requires Natural England to consult such persons as it considers appropriate before it prepares or revises a scheme. Natural England has developed its draft scheme in consultation with key organisations and I am confident that it will wish to continue those consultations as it develops the scheme. I do not believe that amendment 42, which would require Natural England to put the proposed scheme out to public consultation, is necessary. As I have said, Natural England will want to consult as widely as possible, and given that the scheme or any revision has to be approved by the Secretary of State, it will want to do that in advance of submitting the scheme to the Secretary of State. In approving the scheme, the Secretary of State will take into account the extent and coverage of the consultation process.

I now turn to amendment 55, which also deals with consultation. Clause 296 amends part 4 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 to require Natural England to consult with various relevant bodies before drawing up a report in addition to the persons already included in section 51(4) of the 1949 Act. It is not necessary to extend the list of organisations that must be consulted in clause 296 proposed section 55D(6) in the way that amendment 55would do. The process for consultation in clause 55D was drawn up to reflect what is already in section 51 of the 1949 Act and it places sufficient requirements on Natural England to consult appropriately. Natural England’s scheme, which was published in December 2008, and which we have made available already builds in such a draft report stage.

It might be helpful if I set out in greater detail the process by which Natural England will advertise its intention to start work on a particular stretch of coast and how, once it is drawn up, a draft report will be advertised so that people may be made aware of the proposals. Local authorities will be best placed to know of local interests and, where local authorities are willing to participate, Natural England will enter into agreements to enable the local authority to carry out preliminary work to facilitate the preparation of a coastal access report. We have amended the Bill in the other place to clarify that point.

When a new stretch is starting to be considered and an agreement with the local authority has been reached, the local authority will identify and contact all the relevant local stakeholders and interest groups to inform them. The authority may also at this stage be asked to issue a media release to ensure wider awareness. The authority will start to identify all relevant landowners and other relevant interests in affected land to start the phase described at paragraph 3.3 in Natural England’s draft scheme as “Walking the course”. The authority will visit the land that might be affected and will discuss the options for the route with those who own and manage it. The comments made by the hon. Member for St. Ives about a hotel that might have functions near the coastline on certain days of the week wanting to ensure privacy is a good example of what we would expect.

In the draft report, Natural England envisages the local authority managing the consultation process. In each case, Natural England will agree a consultation plan with the local authority that will incorporate all  reasonable actions to ensure that so far as practicable those who may have an interest are made aware of the consultation. The contacts made during the initial “Walking the course” phase will provide information that will be used to inform individuals at subsequent stages of the process about their opportunity to comment on the draft report, their right to make representations and, if appropriate, object.

Every bit of coast is different. There are many different interests and they vary. The whole process gets the preliminary survey done so that we truly know who needs to be consulted and who needs to be aware in any particular area. In terms of wider awareness, it is expected that the local authority will issue a media release at the beginning of the consultation period and write to local stakeholders and interest groups who will have been identified at earlier stages. Natural England has already said that it will publish its draft proposals on the internet and invite all relevant interests to comment on them. It will allow a period of 12 weeks for people to view the proposals and submit comments on the report. Copies of the report will be provided in alternative formats where this is required by particular consultees, but the aim will be to minimise the number of printed copies, particularly at the draft report stage, for environmental and cost reasons.

In view of the details that I have outlined, it is clear that the consultation will be extensive and comprehensive.

Andrew George (St Ives, Liberal Democrat)

Certainly, the points that the Minister is making are reassuring to many of the organisations that might be concerned about not being consulted. However, can she expand a little more and give further reassurance to those organisations that find or believe that they are not able for one reason or another to engage in the consultation process, or feel that they are being excluded? What mechanism will there be for a local organisation or individuals with an interest in a route to contest circumstances when they feel that their voice is not being heard in the consultation process?

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

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, because someone might not take part in the initial consultation process. There was a parking scheme in my area in which no one took part until the scheme came out and then they said, “No, we don’t like it.” That happens and is sometimes in the nature of public consultations. That is why we say that after the report is drawn up, when it comes out, everyone can make representations, including specific bodies as set out in the regulations. It is in Natural England’s interest to consult such bodies before drawing up the report, and to ensure that it takes account of the representations made when it publishes the report.

Charles Walker (Broxbourne, Conservative)

So that we do not get into the realm of endless consultations, will there be a duty on Natural England to go out and find people to consult? If we just throw it out there and say, “Here is the consultation, here is the deadline,” but no one knows about it or only half the people who might be interested respond to it, there is a danger that we could end up having to go back and consult people again. Will Natural England go out and till the soil to find people?

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

As I said, there will be a preliminary phase called “Walking the course”, which in most cases will be undertaken by local authorities that want to take  part and join in partnership with Natural England in the process. That is the first, important phase. In the second phase, a media release will be put out, so a public notice will be sent out as well as use made of the internet, which is increasingly the medium of choice. There is a two-part process. “Walking the course” is the most important part, because making such a detailed study in advance, on a case-by-case basis, is a better way of ensuring that as many people who are likely to be affected as possible are physically contacted. Local authorities, particularly, have very good local knowledge.

Andrew George (St Ives, Liberal Democrat)

The main area of potential concern is inevitably where there is dispute between the interests of landowners, or other interest groups, and those who may take a different view or access bodies such as the Ramblers Association. We can envisage that those interests may conflict, although not always. On most occasions such issues will be resolved, but in a dispute about access to the coastline will it be incumbent on Natural England to make clear how it responded to the issues raised?

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

Again, the hon. Gentleman raises an important point. I can assure him that there is a duty of fair balance on Natural England in the Bill. Yes, at times it will have to make difficult decisions, but it is specifically stated that it must strike a fair balance.

Charles Walker (Broxbourne, Conservative)

May I intervene, because I would like to help? Because it has to take decisions, Natural England will upset one side or another. We do not live in a perfect world where there will be an equal balance; sometimes the interests of landowners who have to derive a living off their farms will have to take precedence over the rights of ramblers, so the Minister cannot have a perfect world. I am saying that to support her.

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

I fully agree with the hon. Gentleman. Natural England will have to make decisions from time to time that will not please everyone. That is why we have said that it has a duty to strike a fair balance when making a decision, which also needs to be timely so that people have certainty and know where they will be moving from. I hope that, on the basis of the reassurances that I have given the Committee, the hon. Member for Newbury will withdraw his amendment.

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

I do not want to put words into the mouth of the hon. Member for St. Ives, but I think, coming at the same point independently, we were both seeking to tie Natural England to a commitment. I suspect that my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne is concerned about consultation overload; we want consultation that works. Under a previous regime, my local authority had a habit of consulting when it knew what it wanted to achieve. It threw out a consultation that nobody knew about and came down on the side of the decision that it had already taken.

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

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. Further to the point that his hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne raised, I can confirm that local authorities will undertake most of the work, and be enabled to support Natural England. Natural England  will in turn fund time-limited posts in local authorities so there will be no new burden on them. It will be time limited. If local authorities want to take part, they will know in advance when the consultation will expire and when they will be expected to have done the job.

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

That is helpful. It is much better to have a quality consultation that everybody can access, that more people know about and that uses a range of methods to inform people. Through the Land Registry and other data sources, such as council tax records, it is perfectly obvious who property owners are. It is less easy to get access to key interest groups. While I believe that Natural England has made a good start with this document, which shows a clear approach that can be made to work in most areas to the satisfaction of most people, this is a 10-year aspiration, plan or project. We do not know what the organisation will be like in the future and whether those operating in certain areas will be as assiduous. The amendment was an attempt to get more of a duty in the Bill.

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

May I reassure the hon. Gentleman that there is a review process? The first review will occur three years after the Act comes into force. [Interruption.] Yes, three to five years.

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

Again, that helps me in deciding what to do with the amendment.

In developing this part of the Bill, many people have come to us—frankly, very late in the day—saying that they have property or business interests, or many other sorts of interests, in parts of coastal Britain and are suddenly concerned about how the legislation will affect their lives. That is human nature, as the Minister said. We cannot expect people just to know, as we do in this bubble in which we live and breathe, about the minutiae of this legislation. They are getting on with their lives, and they believe that they will be able to gain access.

Given the Minister’s assurances, and an understanding that the principles laid out in the proposed scheme and the attitude adopted by Natural England will continue throughout the process, as we prioritise different parts of the access provisions—work on the more contentious areas might come later—it is in everyone’s interest to have the quick wins that will satisfy the demands of tourism. Local landowners, for example, want a coastal path that will bring people to their bed-and-breakfast accommodation and so on. The more contentious issues may be dealt with in two, three, four or five years’ time, and we want to ensure that interested parties are consulted. However, the Minister has given us enough reassurance for me to withdraw the amendment at the appropriate moment.

Andrew George (St Ives, Liberal Democrat)

I concur with the hon. Gentleman. The Minister offered a number of reassurances, which are now on the record. They point to a requirement for local authorities and Natural England to agree a consultation plan.

I do not know to what extent words have been put into my mouth, regarding the suggestion that I want to create an environment that would result in consultation overload. I fully accept what the hon. Member for  Broxbourne said; although Natural England needs to demonstrate that it is trying to balance the arguments fairly in disputes on access to the coastline, its ultimate decision will doubtless lead to disappointment on one side or the other. I was seeking clarity on whether the process would be transparent, and that if there were disputes, Natural England would make clear the basis of its decisions, explaining how it had weighed the arguments. I agree with the hon. Member for Newbury. It has been a good debate, and it has reassured us both. I hope that we have reassured those organisations that raised concerns about the availability of wider consultation than appears to be offered under the Bill.

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

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.