Clause 301
Marine and Coastal Access Bill [Lords]
11:00 am
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.