Andrew George (St Ives, Liberal Democrat)

I rise to raise a few issues in relation to the Isles of Scilly clause. Such a clause often appears in many Bills because the Isles of Scilly have to be included in primary legislation. The Isles of Scilly are within the St. Ives constituency and lie approximately  40 miles off the west coast of Cornwall. They comprise five inhabited islands. The primary island, where the bulk of the Isles of Scilly’s population lives, is St. Mary’s, and the four other islands are St. Agnes, Bryher, Tresco and St. Martin’s, but there are many other rocky outcrops and islands besides. I am sure that many members of the Committee have visited the Isles of Scilly.

The Minister has decided not to apply certain clauses to the Isles of Scilly. To what extent has his Department consulted with the council of the Isles of Scilly in that regard? Having spoken to the Isles of Scilly’s chief executive and to the council itself about the provisions, they are pretty content with the proposal not to include the Isles of Scilly. In fact, I think that it is fair to say that the Isles of Scilly already have a level of coastal access that goes far beyond what the Bill provides for, so I do not believe that there is a substantial requirement to extend the legislation to the Isles of Scilly.

Equally, the council of the Isles of Scilly was particularly interested in the Minister’s explanation of the boundaries of the inshore fisheries and conservation authorities, which we debated last Tuesday, as that is important to the future development and management of the seas around the Isles of Scilly, as well as the coastline. It wants to maintain the integrity of the Isles of Scilly because it believes that they have a first-class track record in the management of their inshore fisheries. An official statement has yet to be made, but the Minister gave a clear indication that he respected, and wished to respect in future, the arrangements of the council of the Isles of Scilly in relation to IFCAs.

I draw the Minister’s attention to the explanatory notes. Paragraph 777 states:

“Part 4 of the 1949 Act applies to the Isles of Scilly, but an order under section 111 of that Act can provide for it to apply as if those Isles were a separate county (and not part of Cornwall).”

The Isles of Scilly are not part of Cornwall and are a separate county. In fact, they were a unitary authority before unitary authorities were invented. I hope that that reassures the Minister. To what extent does the Minister’s approach to the Isles of Scilly mirror his approach to the Isle of Wight? He rose without prompting when we reached clause 294, which applies to the Isle of Wight, to make it clear that he and his Department intended to ensure that this part of the Bill would extend to the Isle of Wight. I shall be interested to know what factors lay behind the decision not to extend the provisions of the Bill to the Isles of Scilly.

In many ways, the Isles of Scilly are already well established in terms of coastal access, but we must consider the “what if” scenario. What if the council of the Isles of Scilly made a request to a future Secretary of State that this part of the Bill should apply to the Isles of Scilly because it feared that it would lose coastal access because of the attitudes of landowners—primarily and predominantly the Duchy of Cornwall? What provisions are in place to ensure that that could be acted on quickly? Equally, if the Secretary of State proposed such a measure and the Isles of Scilly resisted it, what arrangement would apply?

We have an interesting conundrum in respect of the Isles of Scilly. Members often refer to the West Lothian question. If we apply the Conservative view that only those Members who represent the area to which any  legislation under consideration applies may express a view on the issue, when it comes to the Isles of Scilly clause only one Member of Parliament would be entitled to decide the outcome. That would give me absolute power. I could be persuaded that there is a future for benevolent tyranny after all.

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

I had been quietly kipping there when something exploded. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Isles of Scilly are not part of England?

Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)

Order. The hon. Gentleman may have been quietly kipping. I have been awake. I am becoming increasingly concerned about the drift away from what we are supposed to be discussing.

Andrew George (St Ives, Liberal Democrat)

We drift no more. Certainly, in answer to the hon. Member for Newbury, a lot of people in Cornwall see the Isles of Scilly as England beyond Cornwall. I am sure that they are quite content with their arrangements, but I would leave it to them to define and decide their own identity. I would be interested in the Minister’s response to the questions that have been raised.

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

I can confirm that the Isles of Scilly are definitely not part of Wales. The clause, as it stands, makes it clear that the coastal access duty and other matters relating to it that are provided for in part 9 of the Bill do not, as has been said, apply to the Isles of Scilly. It goes on to say, however, that the Secretary of State may make an order providing for the application of any of the provisions to the Isles of Scilly and may, in any such order, specify modifications to the provisions in respect of the Isles of Scilly. Before making such an order, the Secretary of State must consult the council of the Isles of Scilly.

To return to the first point made by the hon. Member for St. Ives, if the Isles of Scilly were to beg—I cannot imagine them begging us, but they may come to us at some point in future and say that they would like to be taken into account in the provisions, the clause allows us to do that. The clause makes provision for an order to be made under part 4 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, applying that part of the 1949 Act as amended by the Bill to the Isles of Scilly as if they were a separate county. That arrangement mirrors provisions, both in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 and in the 1949 Act. Rather than rewrite those Acts, we are mirroring them to achieve the same effect. The clause also provides that an order may be made under CROW, applying part 1 as amended by the Bill, to the Isles of Scilly. If they were to beg or ask politely to come within the provisions, that can be done.

The second hypothetical problem posed by the hon. Member for St. Ives was about whether we would decide to force them, in a draconian old-style colonial Government manner, to be included. As I said, before making such an order, the Secretary of State must consult the council of the Isles of Scilly and I challenge any future Secretary of State to go against the will of the council of the Isles of Scilly. I confirm that in the process of introducing the clause—and the wider parts of the Bill as well—we have regularly been in touch with the council of the Isles of Scilly. As the hon. Gentleman  mentioned, it is content with the way in which the Bill has been drafted. It does not wish the Isles of Scilly to be included in the legislation at the present time, but the clause holds out the possibility of doing so if things were to change in the future. To reiterate, we are following the precedents, in respect of the Isles of Scilly, that were set out in CROW under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. They are similar to the provisions that we have introduced for the Isle of Wight as well.

Andrew George (St Ives, Liberal Democrat)

I am grateful to the Minister for that response and I am content.