Andrew George (St Ives, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment 54, in clause 296, page 191, line 31, at end insert—

‘(c) any period of the non-operation of a ferry which is in use as part of the ordinary route.’.

Greg Pope (Hyndburn, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 47, in clause 296, page 191, line 39, at end insert—

‘(e) future coastal developments’.

Andrew George (St Ives, Liberal Democrat)

The amendment would clarify the relationship of the coastal path with available ferry services. In estuaries where a ferry service exists, but does not run all year round or is limited and operates only on certain days or during certain hours, there are concerns that it might not provide continuity or connectivity with the coastal path.

Several user groups have concerns regarding the use of ferries in the discharge of the access duty as set out in clause 290(7). The use of seasonal ferries or those with a limited running period as part of the coastal pathway will lead to disruptions and gaps in the continuous route. That was confirmed during debates in the House of Lords when Lord Hunt of Kings Heath said that

“it would not be impossible for a summer ferry service to be used as part of a coastal access route. It is an amenity and enables people to cross the estuary. If the service is not available during the winter, clearly the pathway will have to stop at the ferry point.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 30 March 2009; Vol. 709, c. 930.]

As a result of that and other comments, the use of ferries as a means of maintaining continuity in estuaries was raised on Second Reading. The amendment would allow Natural England the flexibility to look at whether an alternative route could be put in place for use by the public during periods in which the ferries did not operate. Where that is practical, it would alleviate the problem. There are a large number of examples where an intermittent ferry service might provide the coastal link in an estuarine situation—the Fleetwood to Knott End-on-Sea route in the Lancashire coastal area is one. On the south-west coastal path, the ferry across the river Torridge from Appledore to Instow saves 12 km of walking, but operates only in summer. There is also only a limited ferry service from St. Mawes to Place creek in the parish of St. Anthony on the Roseland peninsula, and from Exmouth to Starcross in south Devon. The primary purpose of this aspect of the Bill is to maintain a continuous path  around the coast. Where the link is essentially provided by an intermittent ferry service, Natural England should look for an alternative continuous route which is all-year-round and more accessible. There should be a duty on Natural England to identify a continuous path. I hope that the Minister will take into account the concerns raised in debates in the House of Lords.

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

I am concerned that the hon. Gentleman’s amendment would limit the most important quality of the proposal for a coastal access path— simplicity and clear understanding. There may be many ways to deal with continuance of the path in the off-season when a ferry no longer operates. I would hate the Bill to go down the route of making a complex timed requirement to open up certain other areas. I have in mind the Cromarty firth, off the Moray firth, where there is a narrow neck of water with a summer ferry, so people have good access at that time. If, when it is closed, we create a requirement to open up what I think is called the Invergordon—

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

The Bill does not affect coastal routes in Scotland.

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

I am well aware of that, but that is the area I have in mind, which is similar to many others. It would open a vast inland area that includes a busy working port. It is an example in my head. I know it is in Scotland but it may well apply in England, where a six-month alternative route would cause great complications. I understand where the hon. Member for St. Ives is coming from and look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

Our amendment relates to the list on page 191 of the Bill. Proposed new section 55C (4) gives four reasons why a route may be diverted, and they are

“flooding, the action of the tide, coastal erosion or encroachment by the sea...the effect of any other geomorphological process.”

We seek to add “future coastal developments”. There is concern that once the coastal path has been designated on undeveloped land, any future developments will have to take into consideration the route of that path. There may be times when the route should be allowed to continue where it is, but there may be other opportunities in which the chance of development—jobs, securing the legitimate business interests of landowners or businesses based in that area—would be threatened because of the path running through the property.

Future coastal developments, in particular those that need to be on the land-sea boundary such as marinas and boat yards, should not be opposed due to the presence of an existing coastal path. Diversions should automatically be made around such sites once planning permission has been granted. We shall go on to talk about planning and the relationship of the coastal path to planning legislation under later amendments, but I am respectfully suggesting to the Minister that in most circumstances, the path should be subordinate to legitimate development of businesses such as the ones I have listed in coastal areas. Not to include that in the clause would be of potential harm to many legitimate coastal businesses, which may well support the proposal but feel threatened  by the fact that future developments will be made very difficult by what is effectively a new charge on the land around their property.

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

Let me first set the backdrop for the two amendments. Clause 296, to which they refer, inserts new provisions for coastal access into the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, which sets out the provisions for the designation of long-distance routes. The clause also inserts new sections after section 55 of the 1949 Act, including proposed new section 55C, which provides for Natural England’s report, which we have just discussed, to identify in addition to the “ordinary route” an “alternative route”, which may

“operate as a diversion from the ordinary route...during ...specified...periods”

or when

“access to the ordinary route...is excluded”

or restricted—for example, for land management purposes. The provision also enables the alternative route to operate flexibly, for example during the nesting seasons of particular species or breeds of birds, which might vary from year to year, not only from season to season.

Turning to amendment 54, I understand its intent. I take the point of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland: Wales is not directly included in the provisions, but as a north Gower mudflat boy I am aware that estuarine environments are some of the trickiest environments, both for walking and access and for habitat and species. The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for St. Ives would mean that an alternative route could operate as a permanent alternative route—it would be a stand-by route. That ordinary route could include a ferry with a period of non-operation—I take the point made by the hon. Member for Newbury, that at a certain time of year, or on a certain date, the ferry stops operating. Some ferries might have well scheduled operations, but others might decide when the season has come to an end early, “We’ll stop now.” However, what about advising people that there is now an alternative route, bearing in mind what I said about the trickiness of estuarine environments?

Charles Walker (Broxbourne, Conservative)

Is it not the case in reality that if there is an alternative route, there is a dual route? It would be almost impossible to inform and educate people as to when the route shuts and opens. If there is a ferry route, people can use the ferry; but in reality, if the map shows that there is a dual route, they will use that, if they do not fancy getting on a ferry and paying £5.50 or whatever.

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

Indeed. As a keen walker myself, as I am sure other members of the Committee are, when I set out in the winter, not least if I am going into a more challenging environment, whether upland moors or around estuaries and so on, or when I suspect that there may be some disconnection in the route along the way, either because of seasonal variations or because of flooding aspects and so on, I tend to ensure that I plan the route. I take that into account and think, “Well, there may not be a ferry running, but there may be alternatives”—a bus alternative and so on.

However, I want to explain to the hon. Member for St. Ives that the flexibility already in the Bill allows Natural England not only to consult but to bring forward  the appropriate route up the estuary to the first point of crossing. Alternatively, should there be the option for a permanent route, it will identify that permanent route. It will identify, mark and chart that route, and that will become the permanent route regardless.

Andrew George (St Ives, Liberal Democrat)

I fully accept the Minister’s point and the intervention of the hon. Member for Broxbourne. But as I understand it, regulations that entitle local authorities to designate permissive footpaths still exist. That is certainly the case in my part of the world, where the designation of permissive footpaths continues. Those who seek access to the countryside for recreational and other purposes often find themselves falling foul of permissive footpath regulations or being uncertain when those regulations apply.

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

The hon. Gentleman is right: permissive path regulations are still available. For example, in a particular estuarine environment, realistically, following consultation and recognising the difficulties of that environment, Natural England may recommend going to that first crossing or ferry point and no further, and that will be as far as it can regularise the route. Then, the local authority and landowners, in the way that they currently handle their local access discussions, might well decide to put in place an alternative route and signpost that—they might even link it to a bus route or something, in the way that many already do, particularly where there are popular walking areas throughout the year.

We do not expect Natural England to stop the route before the first public crossing point or at an earlier ferry that does not run all year round, unless there are particular difficulties with taking the route further upstream to the first public crossing. If Natural England, after proper consultation with landowners, ramblers and everyone else, sees that there is a route that it can put round an estuary, I suspect that it will do that. But if it thinks that the route can go so far and no further—that is, to the first crossing point—it is not for us to say that we see an alternative route, which may go way inland, up and down and in and out. But if Natural England is able to identify that permanent route, it will do so. Therefore, there is no need for the amendment. It would apply to alternative routes as much as to the main route. We consider that we have the balance of the legislation right, as it applies to estuarine environments. The extra flexibility that I have described will be of much help. In view of that, I urge the hon. Member for St. Ives to withdraw his amendment. I understand the motivation behind it, but I do not think that it is necessary.

On amendment 47, the hon. Member for Newbury mentioned his worry about potential harm. Again, I understand his intent, but the current provision from Natural England’s report will include

“an alternative route which is to operate as an optional alternative to the ordinary route, or part,”

where the ordinary route may

“reasonably be regarded as unsuitable for use”

in particular circumstances, including flooding, action of the tide and coastal erosion. That will ensure that safety and continuity of the route are maintained.

Amendment 47 would mean that the alternative route may operate as an optional alternative during periods when the route may reasonably be considered unsuitable for use because of future coastal developments. There is a moot issue here: when we talk about future coastal developments, are we talking about developments within the next one, two, five or possibly 10 years, or perhaps even developments on a wish list 20 years down the line?

The hon. Gentleman’s amendment goes too far, but there is provision. I want to make it clear that coastal access will not be a barrier to development. The CROW right of access is flexible to allow for changes in land use. There are a number of different ways in which we can ensure that coastal access is appropriate and consistent with the needs of landowners, including any future changes in land use. The line of the route and the spreading room are not fixed permanently. The 1949 Act, as amended by the Bill, will enable Natural England to review them and to propose changes to the Secretary of State, subject again to a full consultation and representation process at a later date. This is not—nor should it be—a once-and-for-all measure to stymie future development. The legislation can take account of changes in use and future developments, including unforeseeable developments.

Should a route be blocked as a result of development resulting in the land becoming excepted land, and therefore excepted from the right of access, Natural England could review the route and draw up a report proposing a variation. I hope that hon. Members accept that the existing powers are adequate to ensure that future development is catered for. In addition, the CROW Act provides for access to be restricted or excluded by direction in certain circumstances. Anyone with an interest in land can apply to Natural England for a restriction or exclusion on a number of grounds, such as land management, which includes the management of land as part of a business.

If a land manager were to apply for a restriction or exclusion, Natural England would first discuss the situation with the landowner to establish whether less restrictive measures could be effective, such as advisory notices. However, if the restriction or exclusion is necessary, Natural England will make a direction restricting or excluding the CROW right of access. The Bill and the CROW legislation therefore contain provisions to deal with the sort of eventuality to which the hon. Member for St. Ives referred. With those clear assurances, I hope that he will feel comfortable about withdrawing the amendment.

Andrew George (St Ives, Liberal Democrat)

I am grateful to the Minister for his response; it is very important to probe these issues. In response to the question about stopping intermittent or limited ferry routes, he said that alternative routes can be explored flexibly in consultation. Organisations such as the Ramblers Association will be seeking reassurance, where possible—I accept his point that safe, accessible routes will not always be identified, especially in estuarine situations—on the establishment of such routes.

I have discussed the problem of permissive routes and possible uncertainty. I have some concerns about whether regulations allowing local authorities to designate permissive routes are being applied appropriately, although that is another debating point. Permissive routes—in other words, intermittently available routes—already  exist in other settings, irrespective of whether they apply as a consequence of a resolution to the issue before us. I accept the Minister’s comments, provided that the consultation allows for the exploration of a solution.

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

It might help to mention another enhanced capacity in the legislation and underpinning regulation: the ability to explore, where appropriate, access and egress routes from the coastal path. Again, that would be done through consultation with Natural England and engagement with local access forums and local authorities. At points of disruption along the coastal path, particularly within estuarine environments—this relates not just to permissive routes—there might well be scope to have a dialogue with local landowners and to say, “The route stops here.” I suspect that, in most cases, access or egress routes will already exist. However, such constructive dialogue could ensure that a walker can literally end a route with access to a road or bus stop. Local authorities could sign post bus transport or other links during the winter. The legislation provides for such flexibility, and it would be good to see local authorities engaging in that sort of approach.

Andrew George (St Ives, Liberal Democrat)

Once again, the Minister has reassured me still further by intervening, and I am grateful to him for that response. In passing, I will comment on amendment 47, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Newbury. Although I understand the principle and sentiment behind it, my concern, which the Minister articulated in his response, is that it refers to future coastal developments without any consideration as to whether they are required to be on the coast, such as port developments, or whether they are simply the kind of developments that those responsible would find desirable to develop on the coastline, such as a nice house with a coastal view, in which case it is not essential that it should obliterate the coastal path. It is important to put future coastal developments in some kind of hierarchy. That is essential, because it is impossible to develop port access, for example, or the other developments that I have described, unless they are clearly on the coast—it cannot be done any other way. Having listened to what the Minister said on amendment 54, I am content.

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

I thought that amendment 47 would be an elegant addition to that proposal, because it sits comfortably with the issues relating to erosion. I refer again to Natural England’s draft scheme, which I think gives good indications on how a path would be moved if that became necessary as a result of geomorphological change or erosion. I will not press the amendment, if the Minister can assure me that he will talk to organisations such as the British Marine Federation and perhaps fishing organisations, which have been relatively silent on potential problems surrounding the development of key areas, because the path could enter constrained environments around small fishing communities that might need to develop in order to survive.

I have work-based businesses, in particular, in mind when thinking about that, so I can address the point made by the hon. Member for St. Ives. We could argue about the legitimate right of a landowner to apply for planning permission to build or extend a house. Landowners  have rights that should be not subjugated by local planning authorities saying, “Well, you cannot do that because the coastal access path goes there.” I am much more concerned about businesses being unable to develop as they might need to over the next 10 years in order for hard-pressed industries, such as the fishing industry, and legitimate coastal businesses, such as marinas, to survive. If the Minister can assure me that either he or his officials will be available to discuss that with organisations such as the BMF, we will be able to make progress.

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

I can indeed assure the hon. Gentleman that we have already, in the Bill’s long fruition, engaged systematically and repeatedly with all those organisations and others, and we will continue to do so. I also give the assurance that Natural England will also be involved in that engagement, both nationally and locally, when those proposals for the coastal path are brought forward. It is vital to recognise in respect of amendment 47 that future coastal development that is critical and to which there is no alternative must be factored in significantly, whether it affects ports, marinas or other things. However, a fuzzier wish list of areas for possible future development on an array of alternative sites should also be factored into the discussions on the routing of the coastal path. As the hon. Member for St. Ives has said, there are some things that are imminent and right in front of us and to which there are clearly no alternatives, and there are others that we do not want to see as a necessary impediment to the development of the coastal path. I can give him those assurances.

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

I am grateful to the Minister for those assurances. I hope that the message will go out to planning authorities that they must not see the coastal path as an inalienable charge on the land that they cannot be flexible about in terms of planning applications. With those assurances, I am sure that the hon. Member for St. Ives will be happy to withdraw the amendment.

Andrew George (St Ives, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

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

I beg to move amendment 59, in clause 296, page 192, line 16, at end insert—

‘(2A) The proposals which may be included in the report by virtue of subsection (2)(a) or (b) do not include proposals relating to any part of the English coastal route—

(a) which is established as a result of waters of a river being treated as part of the sea by virtue of section 295 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 (river estuaries), and

(b) the line of which passes over land which, for the purposes of section 3A of the CROW Act (power to extend access land to coastal land etc: England), is coastal land by virtue of subsection (11) of that section.’.

Greg Pope (Hyndburn, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 60 and 61.

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

These are technical amendments to ensure that the power in the Bill to propose the route beyond the tidal range of a river on an estuary can work effectively. Clause 295 sets out how the coastal access duty applies where the coast is interrupted by a river, allowing Natural England to treat the relevant upstream waters of a river as though they were the sea. It is necessary because the coastal access duty in clause 290 applies to the English coast, which is defined in clause 294 as being the coast of England adjacent to the sea.

Subsection (3) says that where the coast is interrupted by a river, the coastal route may be extended as far upstream as the first public foot crossing. However, in order to allow access to the route, the land that it covers must be accessible to the public as coastal margin, which we intend to define for the rest of the coast through an order under section 3A as land adjacent to the foreshore. In situations where the first public foot crossing of a river is upstream of the tidal range of that river, there will be no foreshore, so the land cannot become coastal margin.

Amendments 60 and 61 remedy that by treating land at the brink of any non-tidal waters as part of the foreshore for the purposes of the definition of coastal land in section 3 of the CROW Act, where waters of a river are treated as part of the sea under clause 295. We feel that in such circumstances, the main issue is continuity of the route. It is important that Natural England has the ability to propose the route beyond the tidal range of the river where it has taken the decision to define the sea as extending up as far as the first public crossing point. We are concerned with the route itself only beyond the tidal range of the river and do not intend that access will be permitted to the margin of land beside the route on that part of the river. To achieve that, the order under section 3A of CROW will create another category of excepted land to remove from the right of access the land beside the route on those stretches of it.

Amendment 59 provides that where waters of a non-tidal river are treated under section 295 as being part of the sea, and the line of the route passes over land that is coastal land by virtue of section 3A(11) of CROW, it is not possible to use the powers in section 55D(2)(a) or (b). Those are the powers enabling Natural England to draw the boundary of the margin or an alternative route strip to coincide with a physical feature. We have taken the view that since the main aim of the amendments is to ensure the continuity of the route, it would not be appropriate to have the power to widen the route strip to coincide with a physical feature in those circumstances.

In essence, the power provides for the land beside a non-tidal river to be designated as coastal margin so the route can pass up the estuary to the first crossing point or to a point between the mouth and the first crossing point. However, it does not enable the route strip to be widened to coincide with a physical feature. In order to be consistent with the aim of continuity of the route, we intend to provide that the land beside the route strip on a non-tidal river is excepted land.

Without the amendments, we believe that Natural England would not be able to fulfil the coastal access duty on estuaries and continuity of the route would not be possible. I commend the amendments to the Committee.

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

The Minister referred to these as technical amendments, but they are more fundamental than that, because they redefine what is meant by the term “coast”. My future amendments will seek to portray, as have my previous amendments, that different circumstances exist in many of our estuary environments in relation to the meaning of the term “coast”.

On Government amendment 59, if the boundary does not coincide with a physical feature, how will it be defined? Does that mean that there will be no spreading room on the landward side? We need an explanation, because the issue is fundamentally important. What constitutes a physical feature?

On Government amendments 60 and 61, we tabled a number of amendments that were not selected for discussion, but they reflected the concerns of many people and organisations that, by including estuaries in the coastal access provisions, the Government may be going a step too far by extending the duty beyond the Bill’s original purpose, which is to improve access to the English coastline.

Moving inland along estuaries will impose a route that is not necessarily in the interests of those who wish to follow the coastal path, and that will draw more businesses, private dwellings and, more importantly, conservation areas into the scheme. We are forgetting about the vast majority of people who want to walk in coastal areas. Such people do not necessarily want to walk the length and breadth of a coastal region, circumnavigate the whole coastline, or walk along the entire south-west coast. The majority of such people want to access a point on the coast by public transport or by car and walk a section of beautiful coastline before perhaps cutting inland on a right of way to take a circular route, or they may want to wander back along the same route. Those are the people that we should be concerned about, and I sometimes wonder whether our discussions are losing touch with that fact.

Many estuaries have considerable environmental, developmental and geographical constraints. The Coastal Access Forum consists of important organisations, and I will list them for the record: the Association of Leading Visitor Attractions, the British Marine Federation, the British Association of Leisure Parks, the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, the British Holiday and Home Parks Association, the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers, the Country Land and Business Association, the Historic Houses Association, the National Farmers Union, the Tourism Alliance and the Visitor Attractions Forum.

Those organisations recognise that estuaries can present different problems for access provision compared with the coast, and point out that estuaries are often highly developed with commercial or residential property, and may be subject to environmental constraints. Most importantly, the organisations make the valid point that consideration should be given to the presence of existing public rights of way, the practicality of establishing a route and the impact of any associated coastal margin when estuaries are being looked at for coastal access.

Rather than attempting to redefine estuaries as coast, it would surely be simpler for the Government to acknowledge that the creation of margin and route along estuaries is fraught with difficulty, and that it should not be added to the Bill. Some of the maps towards the end of Natural England’s excellent draft  scheme show how complicated life becomes when one moves beyond what is more frequently termed the tidal barrier. The Severn estuary, which is of interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne, involves the communities of Weston-super-Mare, Clevedon and Bristol on one side and parts of Cardiff, Newport and Chepstow on the other. All along the estuary are a large number of interests, be they residential or commercial. We have to be extremely careful how we progress this argument.

Roger Williams (Brecon & Radnorshire, Liberal Democrat)

In order that there be no doubt about the matter, this part of the Bill does not refer to Wales. Presumably that is for illustration purposes only. The Welsh Assembly Government are setting out their own scheme.

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

I was once again plucking an example from the air. Perhaps, to satisfy the hon. Gentleman, I can use the Southend-on-Sea estuary, which includes Canvey Island, Tilbury and, on the other side, Sheerness and all the developments around the Medway. He was right to pull me up on this, but half of the estuary to which I referred was English coast. The redefinition of estuaries as coast for the purposes of this Bill does not change the simple fact that estuaries are not coast.

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

The hon. Member for Newbury raises legitimate concerns about the complexity as we go further up rivers and estuaries. That is why the Bill gives Natural England flexibility to propose the establishment of routes up the estuaries. We realise that estuaries can be small, medium and large. They are very different. Each has its own unique circumstances. Natural England can decide not to run the long distance route up the estuary and down the other side if the difficulties of taking the route around the estuary outweigh the benefits.

We understand that there are challenges. The ability to include estuaries is bound by a strict set of criteria set out in clause 291. Natural England must have regard to:

“(a) the safety and convenience of those using the English coastal route,

(b) the desirability of that route adhering to the periphery of the coast and providing views of the sea, and

(c) the desirability of ensuring that so far as reasonably practicable interruptions to that route are kept to a minimum.”

Natural England must additionally have regard to the matters set out in clause 295(4):

“(a) the nature of the land which would...become part of the coast...

(b) the topography of the shoreline...

(c) the width of the river upstream to that limit;

(d) the recreational benefit to the public of the coastal access duty being extended...

(e) the extent to which the land bordering those waters would, if it were coastal margin, be excepted land;

(f) whether it is desirable to continue the English coastal route to a particular physical feature

(g) the existence of a ferry ”.

The list is not exclusive. It must be remembered that at all timeswhen discharging the coastal access duty, Natural England must also aim to strike a fair balance between the interests of the public in having rights to  access and the interests, including the economic interests, of owners and occupiers. That has to be a fair balance of those interests.

Charles Walker (Broxbourne, Conservative)

Where the route deviates from the coast up an estuary and perhaps beyond the estuary up the river, was I right in thinking that it would not necessarily follow the river bank and that alternative routes may be found?

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

There would be flexibility. We are trying to make sure that we do not end up with a prescriptive path, which will end up with further difficulties for users. We have made it quite clear that we do not think that this will cover all estuaries. It would be an excessive use of powers. We want Natural England to use its discretion, but to use it fairly and reasonably and practically.

The hon. Member for Newbury asked about the phrase “physical feature”. Section 55D(2), which clause 296 would insert in the 1949 Act, enables the coastal margin to be expanded to a physical feature beyond the normal definition of coastal land. A physical feature might be a fence, a group of rocks, cliffs or a landmark. I think that a physical feature is easily defined; I think that it is obvious to the eye what a physical feature is.

With regard to the boundary, we simply mean that the route strip will not be able to be expanded to meet a physical feature. It will just be a route strip of a specifically defined width. There will be no access to a margin of land to the landward side of the route strip; there will just be access to the route strip itself.

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

I want to get this matter absolutely clear. So, we are talking about a different level of designation here, are we? Any extension of the route that entered the estuary area of a river would not have spreading room. Strictly speaking, it would be a 4 m path with no rights of access to either side of that path.

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

I am waiting for inspiration on that issue, because the hon. Gentleman has raised an important point about clarification and I am keen to ensure that I address it.

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

May I assist the Minister, while she seeks inspiration, by raising another point? In our debate on clause 295, she quoted the list in the clause about:

“(b) the topography of the shoreline adjacent to those waters;

(c) the width of the river upstream to that limit;”

and so on. However, that list did not include the legitimate rights of businesses nor the rights of property-owners. Perhaps she could give us some assurance that those factors are recognised there too?

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

May I just reiterate for the record that I actually mentioned that taking account of economic interests would be integral to Natural England making a decision on the fair balance when it looks at the economic interests of landowners in terms of clause 291? So I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that economic interests will be taken into account.

I also understand that the estuary, after the tidal limit, will be just a route strip—that is it. It is simply a route strip, which will be a narrow path.

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

I am confused about where in the amendment it says that. It is important to get this point in the Bill. There will be a great many people concerned at this proposed change to the Bill and I want the Minister to reassure them, because the Government are now talking about an entirely different proposal. That different proposal would exclude all concept of spreading room, there would only be a 4 m path and there can be no extension from that.

Regarding the Minister’s other point, that the commercial interests of people in estuaries will be considered by Natural England, we need that in the Bill. That point does not appear to be listed in the Bill. Perhaps the Minister can clarify where that point enters into our understanding.

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

I point out that clause 295(4)(g) states that there must be a balance struck between the interests of the public and the interests of owners and occupiers. “Interests” would obviously be economic interests.

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

I apologise to the Minister, but clause 295(4)(g) is about:

“the existence of a ferry”.

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

My apologies. I just want to clarify that, when we talk about the “interests of owners and occupiers”, which is mentioned throughout the Bill at other points, we mean their “economic interests” as well as other factors that may apply. That point has been made in our debates on other clauses in the Bill.

However, if the hon. Gentleman is still concerned about this particular definition of a physical feature, I would be prepared to withdraw these amendments at this stage, so that we can seek further clarification that will hopefully be of assistance to him.

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

I am really grateful to the Minister. That is a very reasonable and thoughtful way of proceeding. I can assure her that I will work very closely to try to achieve that, because I think that that might be a way forward here.

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

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.