Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL]

I am grateful to all Members of the Committee who have spoken in a wide-ranging debate on this group of interesting amendments. It will come as no surprise to Members of the Committee that I will reply first to the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose. Anyone who is kind enough to flatter me about my golfing prowess—inaccurately, I might say—immediately goes to the head of the list. I wanted to answer one specific question of the noble Duke, which is of the greatest importance and sets the terms of this debate. He asked whether any of the excepted land categories in the CROW Act had been amended. The answer is no. We have made no amendments at all to those excepted categories which are an important part of the bedrock of the debate. They relate very much to the questions we have most recently heard on gardens and parks, which I shall come to in a moment. The noble Duke also asked a specific and important question. The list of excepted land in the CROW Act is not access land for the purposes of Section 2(1) of that Act, such as buildings and their curtilage and land used for the purposes of a statutory undertaking. That is the crucial aspect of excepted land, which helps to govern almost every anxiety that has been expressed in this debate about the extent to which there may be intrusion. There are clear safeguards and principles in the CROW Act that this Bill builds upon. There is no right of access to buildings and their curtilage, and there is no proposal for such in this Bill except where local decisions are taken and agreements are struck, which Members of the Committee have advocated attempting in certain circumstances. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, was eloquent in talking about the fact that that might be necessary. However, that is different from statutory provision, and I am grateful to the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, for giving me the chance to be emphatic about that. The CROW Act is framed in a way that does not prevent changes in land use. Land may become excepted land at any time if some change or development occurs so that it falls into one of the excepted land categories in Schedule 1. That is the formal basis of our legislation. Proposed new Section 3A(4) in Clause 293(5) allows the Secretary of State, by order, to modify the provisions of Part 1 of the CROW Act, ""in their application to land which is coastal margin"." Concerns and questions about what changes may be made to the categories of excepted land as they affect land that is coastal margin have been raised in this debate by noble Lords speaking both on their own behalf and on behalf of many organisations that have identified anxieties. We have held a number of discussions with the leading organisations to clarify the position. We have published two papers on the order and excepted land. The first sets out the main measures that we expect the order that will follow from this legislation, if it becomes an Act, to contain. The second paper, Accommodating Future Development Needs, sets out specific ways in which we will ensure that coastal access is appropriate and consistent with the needs of landowners, including any future changes in land use. Once the Bill has received Royal Assent, we shall consult further on the final contents of the order under the affirmative resolution procedure for both Houses to debate and agree, if they so do. The order will, of course, not come into force unless approved by a resolution of each House. We expect that process to identify other categories of excepted land as a result of the kind of discussions that this debate has aired. That reflects ongoing discussions on these matters. Many ports in the United Kingdom presently fall into the category of land used for the purposes of a statutory undertaking. The effect of Amendment A270, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, and the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, would be to prevent potential access being made available on any land identified as suitable "for future port development". Meanwhile, Amendment A361, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, would have the effect of inserting into Part I of Schedule 1 to the CROW Act a new category of excepted land—namely, ""Land identified within the master plans of port and harbour authorities as designated for future port development"." The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, also commented from her experience of that matter. I recognise the importance of land used by port authorities and land that they may need to develop in future. However, while port master plans are important documents, they are not statutory. They should help to inform subsequent decisions on rights of access in a way proportionate to the likelihood of the operational development taking place, but we should not automatically except such land from any right of access just because there may be future development. I think that the burden of the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, reflected that. Our perspective on our ports has changed very markedly in recent years. The ports were extensive because of the kind of business that they were involved in—often, the export of huge quantities of raw materials, of which coal was the outstanding one. The noble Lord referred to Cardiff, which was long concerned overwhelmingly with the export of coal and, subsequently, sea oil. The extent of such a port was considerable, and that is true of many of our other ports, but they have changed through economic use. More importantly, the staggering amount of hugely successful and eye-catching development that we have in the ports has revivified local economies. In fact, there is scarcely a major port in the United Kingdom that has not been almost transformed in recent years. The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, would inevitably emphasise Cardiff there, but it is true of many other significant ports; as their economic role has changed, so have they—but very much for the better. When the ports looked destined to have nothing but an inner-city dereliction quality to them, they were in fact revived through other developments. That is true of Newcastle and Bristol; it is certainly true of Liverpool after the year of culture; and in Wales, it is true of Swansea as well as Cardiff. That not only shows that we must have regard to the potential for developing an economic unit such as a port, which is such an important element in our economy, but surely it testifies to the fact that we must avoid excessive rigidity, lest we are unable to give effect to its transformation. That not just benefits the economies of those localities but in many ways—because it has happened to coincide with the extraordinary flourishing of British and international riverside and seaside architecture—it has restored those cities to former glories. Without necessarily going back to their 19th century roots, they now look forward a great deal more to developments in the 21st century. Therefore, we want degrees of flexibility within this. Natural England’s scheme, which it is required to publish under Clause 288, will set out its approach on land used by a port. The scheme which it has published alongside the Bill says that it will usually be necessary for the trail to avoid ports and other industrial areas in active working use in the interests of safe and efficient operations. I am sure that we all subscribe to that. Natural England will discuss the best approach with the port operator. In addition, it can restrict or exclude the right of access if required for management purposes. It can also propose variations to the route later, if developments make that appropriate. However, that is to be taken in the context of Natural England’s discussions with port operators; it should not—as the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, suggested in his amendment—be put into legislation in a way that would restrict potential port development plans, by elevating them to an effective planning blight, and restrict usage of the area in a way that we want to avoid.