Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL]

I shall move Amendment A267D and speak to the cluster of our amendments in the group addressing the same general interest. We have had an interesting debate about the difficulties of imposing a route all around the coast. It was made clear by my noble friend Lady Byford and others that many parts of our immediate coastline are unsuitable for public access and that any path there may well have to find an alternative line. It follows, therefore, that much of it will also be unsuitable to be designated as coastal margin. I want to talk about coastal margin now. My amendments would ensure that coastal margin will be designated only where it is appropriate. Amendment A267D would ensure that there is no duty to have some coastal margin along the entire route. It is clear that there will not in fact be coastal margin along the entire length of the route. There may be many areas where the terrain would make it completely unsuitable. We discussed that in our previous debate. The Bill's drafting should reflect that and not risk raising public expectations to unrealistic levels. The unfortunate belief, which is still prevalent, that people have the right to roam over every piece of land, regardless of whether it is someone's private garden or is under intensive agriculture, shows how important it is to get the correct message out from the start. It is not just inconvenience to those with an interest in the land that is at stake here, it is also the safety of the public. The exclusion of coastal margin from Clause 287(2)(a) means that Natural England will be encouraging people to wander off into coastal margin knowing that it is not safe ground for them to walk over. It goes without saying, therefore, that we do not agree with the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, that there should be access to land that has been specifically designated as unsuitable. The absence of a coastal margin from subsection (2)(b) means that access to this land will not even add to the public’s appreciation of our coastline, which is the whole point of this part of the Bill. My Amendments A336B and A336C would restrict coastal access to the seaward side of the route. As the many documents that have been published about this Bill make clear, looking to spread access in this direction is common sense and would enhance the public’s ability to appreciate the coastline. Spreading landwards, however, not only takes the public away from the very feature that they are there to enjoy but will have a much greater impact on others currently using their land for their own private purposes. My three Amendments A336A, A350A and A362L in this group seek to ensure that the coastal margin is at least identifiable where it has been designated. The hope is that "a physical feature" is a sufficient description of the boundary between land with public access and land without it. That is very optimistic, unless Natural England intends to build a fence, wall or hedge along the margin where there is none. Given that it has set aside only limited funding for this route, this clearly will not happen. The stated impossibility of mapping the coastal margin goes to show only how confusing it will be for the public. If even those designating the route cannot clearly identify which land is accessible and which is not, how can the public be expected to do so? Finally, my amendments to new Section 3A seek to limit the excessively broad powers that the Government are taking on to specify the coastal margin. Will the Minister explain why the powers that are given to a Welsh Minister in Section 3 of the CROW Act, and are briefly set out lines 8 to 12 on page 185, are so different from those that are given to the Secretary of State? In new subsection (4) on page 186, there appears to be a Henry VIII power of the most powerful sort. Will the Minister say what he imagines this power will be used for? I beg to move.