Andrew George (St Ives, Liberal Democrat)

Briefly, once again, I simply wish to probe the Minister on the advice he has received on subsection (2) (c) in relation to the Duchy of Cornwall. There are a number of constitutional issues that apply to the Duchy of Cornwall and I am interested to know what advice he has received in drafting the clause. There is currently a debate, which I am sure he is well aware of, about the duchy’s relationship to the Crown. I am sure that defining the duchy as Crown land for the purposes of the Bill is legitimate. However, what advice did he seek on the duchy’s constitutional status? Since the duchy was established by charters in 1337 to 1338, the Duke of Cornwall has owned the foreshore around Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly. In England—the hon. Member for Newbury might be interested in staying awake for this bit—the foreshore is primarily owned by the Crown. There are also other very interesting constitutional issues relating to the Duchy of Cornwall. If one dies intestate in Cornwall, it is quite different from dying intestate on the other side of the frontier in England. The Duchy of Lancaster, as I understand it, is much more accountable to Parliament than the Duchy of Cornwall.

The fact that the UK is without a codified constitution gives rise to a number of constitutional conundrums, given the accretions to the English and later British monarchy from 1066. Although I do not wish to go back over the whole history of the issue, what is interesting in relation to this matter is the constitutional basis on which the duchy is incorporated. Those who debate the role of the duchy and its relationship to the Crown point out that the duchy often defines itself at the same time in its constitutional role and as a distinct private estate. I would be interested in any clarification or light the Minister might be able to throw on the issue in relation to the clause.

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

Once again, I thank the hon. Member for St. Ives for raising the issue. I am not a constitutional expert beyond the fact that it is my role  as a legislator to have some knowledge of constitutional issues. The clause has been drafted by, and included on the advice of, parliamentary counsel, taking into account the issues raised by the hon. Gentleman, and they are content with it. Representatives of the Crown estate and the duchies have been fully involved and consulted and are content with the Bill constitutionally. It is worth reiterating that we have a clause that says that the provisions for creating an English coastal route and access to coastal land apply to the Crown and all Crown land, as they do to any other land. That includes land belonging to the Crown and Her Majesty’s private estates, the Duchy of Lancaster, the Duchy of Cornwall and Government Departments. It sets out the appropriate authorities that may act on behalf of the Crown in respect of those different categories of Crown land. We believe that Crown land should be included in the same way that any other land will be. For example, the Crown estate owns about half of the foreshore around the English coast and has traditionally permitted public access. Under the provisions in the Bill, once fully implemented through the order under section 3A of the CROW Act and the procedures set out in the 1949 Act, there is likely to be public access as of right to the foreshore and to other coastal Crown land, other than where it is excepted or excluded. I might earlier have said “Crown estate” when I should have said “Crown land”.

Andrew George (St Ives, Liberal Democrat)

I am grateful to the Minister and it is helpful to have the advice of his counsel on the record.