Marine and Coastal Access Bill [Lords]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Benyon)—his Front-Bench colleagues would do well to examine how he has approached this Bill and this thorny issue in particular—because the House has just heard an example of constructive opposition that will lead to effective change. When we leave this place, as I will shortly, it is nice to think that we have been the architects of effective change rather than just a handful of soundbites. I shared the concern of the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, recreational angling interests and Members from all parts of the House that some of the coastal access provisions, as originally drafted, could have had unintended consequences. Surely part of what we are about when we scrutinise legislation is guarding against and avoiding those. Nobody in their right mind wants to drive a coastal access path through a piece of land if that would put the public at risk or inhibit the legitimate enjoyment and sport of wild fowlers, who for generations have enjoyed their sport on many of the marshlands and estuaries around our coasts. The recreational angling sector, although less affected, had concerns about coastal access paths going past places of particular popularity with people who beach-cast. I am talking about guys who throw 4 or 5 ounces of lead some 200-odd yards from a beach, so it is not a good idea for a footpath to be immediately behind them—unless a member of the public wants to have a quick swim or possibly be seriously injured in some other way. It was important that those sporting interests could be represented in the consultation mechanism in respect of the establishment of the path. Following some vigorous exchanges in Committee, which were based on amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Newbury and me—there was support from other hon. Members—the Minister kindly agreed to convene a summit on 7 September. I thank him for apprising us of the outcome, and I wish to read into the record what he has said in writing:""I have therefore proposed that those with a sporting right (including holders of sporting tenancies), should be specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State under Schedule 19 to the Bill, to ensure that their representations are given particular consideration by the Secretary of State…The effect of this would be that Natural England would have to take reasonable steps to give notice of a relevant coastal access report to those with sporting rights, and any representations which they made on the report would go in full to the Secretary of State"." That is important. People have criticised this as not so much a victory and not so much a significant policy change, but they are the same bunch who misrepresented the CROW Act and one would not be surprised to learn that they are usually a little late on these issues. The fact that sporting interests will have the ability to make representations right to the very top of the tree—they will have access to the top of the pile—is one of the reasons why the British Association for Shooting and Conservation and the Angling Trust have welcomed the improvement made, the assurances given by the Minister and the conclusions of the summit held on 7 September. As far as I am concerned, and as far as recreational shooters and anglers are concerned, this is a job well done. We do not see the need for this to be a point of contention, so notwithstanding the strong and pertinent remarks that he made, I urge the hon. Member for Newbury to recognise that there is little need for the House to divide on this issue.