David Jones (Shadow Minister, Wales; Clwyd West, Conservative)

I want to speak briefly on the clause, which confers primary legislative competence on the Welsh Assembly by inserting two new provisions—matters 16.2 and 16.3—in field 16, which deals with sport and recreation, of the Government of Wales Act 2006. Under matter 16.2, the Assembly would be empowered effectively to create a coastal route in Wales. Matter 16.3, to which I propose to return, would empower it to secure public access to relevant land on the coast. The Assembly provided a memorandum on the background to its application for the powers contained in clause 304 and an indication of how it proposes to exercise them. Will the Minister comment on the indication given in the Assembly’s memorandum that, while the Bill provides for the English coastal access provisions to be binding on the Crown, any provisions in equivalent Assembly legislation would similarly bind the Crown? The memorandum stated:

“However, it is not the Assembly Government’s intention that any Assembly measure”—

the legislation developed pursuant to the powers conferred in matters 16.2 and 16.3—

“should alter, or permit the alteration of, the position with regard to access to land used for purposes within the responsibility of the UK Government without the agreement of the relevant Secretary of State. In this context, land at the coast used for railways, airports...docks, telecommunications, gas, electricity and for military purposes is particularly relevant.”

The memorandum was prepared relatively recently, in June 2009, but I would appreciate the Minister’s confirmation on the record that his understanding is that that intention of the Assembly Government prevails. What would the position be if, for example, a UK Secretary of State wished to withdraw or amend the consent given to the Assembly Government for the preparation of the path? In such circumstances, would the Assembly Government be bound to reconsider and divert the route of the path?

I also wish to raise briefly an issue about the interpretation of clause 304. “Coast” in that clause is defined as

“the coast of Wales adjacent to the sea, including the coast of any island (in the sea) comprised in Wales”.

That is similar to the definition in clause 294, but there is a subtle difference. In clause 294, the English coast

“means the coast of England adjacent to the sea, including the coast of any island (in the sea) comprised in England (other than an excluded island).”

An excluded island is defined as one that

“is neither—

(a) an accessible island, nor

(b) an island specified by the Secretary of State by order for the purposes of this paragraph.”

It seems curious that inaccessible islands appear to be included in the definition of “coast” in clause 304. There are many inaccessible islands around the coast of Wales. If I climb to the top of the hill behind my house I can see Puffin island, which is entirely inaccessible. Perhaps of more significance are islands such as Ynys Elli—Bardsey island—which is much larger but equally inaccessible. Why is there a difference in definition in the Welsh and English provisions in clauses 304 and 294?

Roger Williams (Brecon & Radnorshire, Liberal Democrat)

I rise briefly, out of interest. Clause 304 includes an amendment to the Government of Wales Act 2006 to include a new matter under the competence of the Welsh Assembly, and yet when I proposed a similar amendment, the Minister said that it was inappropriate in a Bill of this sort to add to the Welsh Assembly’s powers. It seems that the Government are now attempting to do just that. Why is this an appropriate place to achieve what I believe would be a good result?

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

If I can start at the end, the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire has asked about the difference between this discussion and one that we had previously. The difference is that the powers for the inclusion of matters were placed in the Bill after consultation with, and at the request of, the Welsh Assembly Government, who see this as a possibly useful way forward.

I will turn to the detailed points in a moment, because some of them refer to how the Welsh Assembly Government will introduce the necessary measures that underpin the matters inserted into the fields under the 2006 Act. Again, I risk reverting to my previous role, because the  clause confers important new legislative competences—in parliamentary counsel terminology—on the National Assembly for Wales in relation to public access to and routes for the Welsh coast. It will add two new matters to field 16, sport and recreation, under schedule 5(1) to the Government of Wales Act 2006.

The first matter enables the National Assembly for Wales to bring forward a measure or measures for the establishment or maintenance of a route or routes on the coast of Wales to enable the public to make recreational journeys. The second matter enables the Assembly to make a measure or measures securing public access to relevant land for recreational purposes. Land will be “relevant” if it is at the coast or can be used in association with either land at the coast or a coastal route. I shall come on to the points raised by the hon. Member for Clwyd, West in a moment.

Those provisions are intended to add value to the Welsh Assembly Government’s existing coastal access improvement programme, which has worked well, by enabling the Assembly to clarify the extent of public access rights to the Welsh coast and secure new areas of land for public access, neither of which they can deliver through the existing coastal access improvement programme due to limitations on their powers.

I can confirm for the hon. Member for Clwyd, West that the Welsh Assembly Government briefing to which he referred, dated June 2009, is still valid and the issues still hold. That is a straight, “Yes”, in response to his query. As I mentioned in my preamble, the provisions are enabling powers that allow the WAG to decide the appropriate way to deal with islands. They may decide to limit access to islands, for example, but, under the Government of Wales Act 2006, we insert matters in the fields to allow the Assembly Government to bring forward measures, subject to consultation, so that they have the flexibility to take issues forward and that they are comfortable with that position.

The hon. Gentleman also raised the issue of railways and so on in list in the same document. I confirm that defence, railways and so on are reserved matters, so the briefing is still correct.

David Jones (Shadow Minister, Wales; Clwyd West, Conservative)

I am grateful for the indication that the Minister has just put on the record. There is one matter that perturbs me however. There are installations around the coast of Wales connected with reserved matters. If, for the sake of argument, the relevant Secretary of State, having consented to the creation of a path that affected one of those installations, decided later that the path needed to be diverted, would it be possible to go back to the Assembly and say, “I would like you to divert your path please.”?

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

The question is whether the Secretary of State can decide to change the route. If the WAG used their enabling powers to pass legislation, it would be primary legislation, as the hon. Gentleman knows. The Secretary of State could repeal it, but only through primary legislation or an order under the Government of Wales Act 2006. There is a route, but it is not easy.

David Jones (Shadow Minister, Wales; Clwyd West, Conservative)

It is not an easy route; it is a draconian route. The impression given in the memorandum furnished to the Committee is that the Assembly Government  would not create a route that affected an installation that was subject to the sway of a UK Minister without the consent of that Minister. Circumstances might subsequently change, in which case if the Secretary of State went back to the Assembly Government and said, “I’m sorry, but I’m afraid that that route is going to have to be diverted,” is it the Minister’s understanding that the Assembly Government would acquiesce and divert the route?

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

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. If the route changed and the Secretary of State indicated that it then impinged upon reserved matters, such as defence, he would make his views known to the Welsh Assembly Government Minister and would expect those views to be taken into account. As with the original use of the powers given to WAG to develop a route, the way in which the provision is set up means that the Secretary of State would have to be engaged with on reserved matters in relation to any subsequent alteration of the route. If the Secretary of State indicated that the alteration impinged upon reserved matters, WAG would need to take note and, where necessary, alter the route accordingly.

David Jones (Shadow Minister, Wales; Clwyd West, Conservative)

I am sorry to labour the point, but this is a matter of some importance. The clear impression given by the memorandum is that WAG would not create a coastal route that affected land that is the subject of reserved powers, if the Secretary of State withheld consent. The clarification that I am seeking, which I think the Minister is giving, is that if the Secretary of State decided, for whatever reason, that a route was no longer convenient, WAG would acquiesce and change the path’s route.

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

My understanding reflects the memorandum to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. As he has said, on the initial implementation of any proposals and on any subsequent proposals, WAG need to pay heed to, and work with, the Secretary of State when he states that developments impinge upon reserved matters, such as defence. That would have to be taken into account and an alternative route would have to be found. I will write to the hon. Gentleman and other members of the Committee to clarify precisely that point, because it is an important issue and we want to ensure that the Bill is future-proofed. I will also offer any further clarification that is needed.