Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Davies of Oldham (Labour) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 21 April 2009. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL].


Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for that clarification. Clause 292 amends Part IV of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 to require Natural England to consult with various relevant bodies before drawing up a report, in addition to the persons already included in Section 51(4) of the 1949 Act. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, proposes to remove the current list and replace it with a new list. He has presented his arguments for that. During the passage of this Bill, the Government have made their views on lists pretty clear. However, in Part 9 of the Bill it is important that we update the list included in the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, but that does not mean that we should extend it to include all the organisations which might need to be consulted. We need to retain some degree of flexibility. The noble Lord’s proposal, about which he is quite frank, is to put his list in the Bill. However, we should not be including consultees for definitive maps on rights of way in this legislation. It is entirely different from the 1949 legislation. Amendment A341 would insert a new section setting out a number of requirements on Natural England at the stage of their consultation during the preparation of their coastal access report. The amendment is too prescriptive and goes too far. The process for consultation in new Section 55D was drawn up to reflect what is already in Section 51 of the 1949 Act, and that places sufficient requirements on Natural England to consult appropriately. Indeed, Natural England’s scheme, published in December 2008 and which we have made available to noble Lords, already builds in such a draft report stage. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, was generous enough to say that he thought that Natural England would probably do what he was prescribing. He is right, but he wants it in the Bill and I am not convinced that that degree of prescription is necessary. Natural England has already said that it will publish its draft proposals on the internet. It will invite all relevant interests to comment on them. It will allow a 12-week period for people to view the proposals and submit comments on the report. Natural England is fulfilling the spirit of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, but his amendment would put in the Bill a prescription that is a step too far because of its rigidity and the limitations that it puts on Natural England, which will work very much along the lines that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has suggested. I hope, therefore, that he will withdraw his amendment.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
709 c1429-30 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Compensation Devolved matters Appeals Armed forces Decommissioning Costs Coastal areas Common land Delegated legislation Coastal erosion Land Licensing Dogs Liability Environment protection Ferries Energy Legislative competence Farms Inland waterways Land use Environment Agency Isles of Scilly Floods Isle of Wight Estuaries Local government Navigation Livestock Planning Ports Public consultation National Assembly for Wales Public footpaths Nature conservation Parish and town councils National parks Ministry of Defence Scotland Wales Rights of way Repairs and maintenance Shipping Seas and oceans Wildlife Rural areas Firing ranges Islands Natural England Lundy Island
Legislation
Marine and Coastal Access Bill (HL) 2008-09
National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk