Schedule 19
Marine and Coastal Access Bill [Lords]
1:45 pm
Richard Benyon (Shadow Minister, Environment, Food & Rural Affairs; Newbury, Conservative)
I beg to move amendment 48, in schedule 19, page 305, leave out lines 33 to 35.
We are making great progress but this is a really important issue. I hope to get reassurance from the Minister and for her to understand what we are trying to achieve. The amendment is designed to firm up the objection process in schedule 19 to ensure that the Secretary of State cannot overturn a recommendation of the independent appeal body except in very limited circumstances. Proposed new paragraph 16(3)(a), which we seek to remove, states that the Secretary of State is bound to adhere to the recommendation of the independent appeal body on an objection unless that recommendation involves
“an assessment of the significance”
of a coastal access matter to someone with an interest in the land. That means that the Secretary of State can overturn the decision of the independent appeal body if the significance of the coastal access rights has been assessed. I would be interested to learn when such rights would not be assessed with regard to an objection. How could the appointed body make a recommendation about fair balance without considering the impact of the proposals on the landholder and the public? Indeed, the appeal body would be failing in its duty if it were not to consider the significance of matters to users and owners. It would, therefore, appear that sub-paragraph (3)(a) —introduced as an amendment on Third Reading in another place—provides a loophole, giving the Secretary of State the ability to overturn any decision made by the independent appeal body. I reiterate that we were glad to see the addition of the independent appeal process in another place. However, we are concerned that this sub-paragraph serves to dilute the authority of the independent body’s decisions.
When the appeal process was debated in another place and with industry bodies, it was repeatedly asserted that any objection or appeal process must meet the terms of article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and, in particular, provide an independent appeal process that had some validity and would not be overturned by the Secretary of State. If the Secretary of State is able to overturn almost any decision, it makes a mockery of the so-called independent appeal process. That is not what was intended by the noble Lords in another place, or the industry bodies that were extensively consulted. Paragraph 16(3) of schedule 19 specifies the circumstances in which the Secretary of State might reasonably go against the recommendation of the independent appeals body and includes the ability to overturn recommendations that are “perverse or irrational” or for which there is “insufficient evidence”. We have no problem with the Secretary of State exercising his powers in such circumstances. However, through amendment 48, we seek to remove sub-paragraph (3)(a), which effectively gives him the power to overturn any decision. It completely undermines the whole objection appeals process. Indeed, peers, in the other place, have expressed their concerns about whether the provision even complies with the European convention on human rights. In order to ensure that the objection process is enacted as originally intended, we seek the removal of this provision.