Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL]

I am grateful to all Members of the Committee who have spoken to this interesting group of amendments, which has raised some important issues. Amendment A267D raises a matter of considerable principle. If we accepted the amendment, it would mean that we would not necessarily have an objective to establish a coastal margin along the whole of the English coast. We attach a great deal of importance to the public having access to the whole of the English coastline as far as possible, but not where such access would be inappropriate, which I believe was the burden of the contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor. Some land is excepted from the right of access and restrictions can be put in place, if required, for matters such as nature conservation. We understand the anxieties reflected in this amendment but they have to be allayed by the concept of excepted land and the way in which land will be designated. The amendment might look fairly modest but it strikes at the principle of what we are seeking to achieve—namely, access to the English coast. Amendment A277A would mean that the Secretary of State and Natural England would have to have regard to the safety and convenience of those using the coastal margin as well as the coastal route. I can see the proper anxieties about this, but I accept entirely the argument put by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, with regard to the coastal margin. The coast can be a dangerous environment and Natural England will certainly have to have regard to safety in putting forward a proposal for the coastal route. The Secretary of State should equally have regard to the very important issue of safety in improving any such route. However, the coastal margin is a different matter. It is important to allow people to make their own decisions and we do not want to exclude anywhere that might be dangerous in such a way that we restrict the opportunities available to the more adventurous to explore what the coastal margin can provide. I shall therefore reject the amendment as a step towards a nanny state in an area in which we want to preserve aspects of freedom for the more adventurous among us. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that not just in the spirit in which I present the argument but also in that presented so ably by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. People take enormous risks on sea cliffs, for example. I saw a programme the other day about the southern coast of England, not regarded by mariners as the most hazardous, where people were shown climbing up not simply vertical cliffs but those with very pronounced overhangs. Having conquered the cliffs, they were leaping a considerable distance back into the water below, having ascertained that it was deep enough. By heavens, that looked like risky behaviour, but those people had made the decision to try it. If they derive a huge amount of what on the whole looks like safe fun—people are not bent on wrecking their lives when they engage in such activities—they should be allowed to do so. I am with the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, in his desire to protect the opportunities available to the more adventurous. Amendment A278A would mean that the Secretary of State and Natural England would have to have regard to the desirability of both the coastal route and the coastal margin adhering to the periphery of the coast and providing views of the sea. For land to be part of the coastal margin, it must fall into the definition of coastal land and therefore has to be adjacent to the sea. I know that noble Lords are pressing for a definition of the coastal margin but, given that the amendment is expressed in fairly general terms, perhaps I may respond in an equally general way. When we are talking about the coastal margin, we are talking about land adjacent to the sea. Amendments A336A to A336C deal with the ability to include land within the coastal margin and the route strip up to a physical feature. It is important that there is clarity about what land forms part of the coastal margin, and the point of these subsections is to allow Natural England to give a clear boundary to the coastal margin and enable it to make sense of the geography. Therefore, I am going to resist the issue of a map, despite the blandishments of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, who has added his support to the Front-Bench arguments. I do not like the idea of a map, but I accept the issue of definition and the argument presented by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, and with considerable force by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, that people will need to know what the spreading areas are. The obligation is certainly on Natural England to ensure that the signage is clear, that people know where the boundaries are and that we know the nature of the coastal margin. However, a map is a different matter. A map raises significant issues. It is certainly the case that a statement must be submitted to the Secretary of State of the reasons that Natural England intends to act. It needs to submit a map to the Secretary of State or, if not a map, a statement giving its reasons for not acting in accordance with a request for a map from anyone who makes such a representation. Natural England will have to justify why it is not prepared to provide a map. However, the line of the route is going to be included on a map because that will form part of the report that Natural England will present to the Secretary of State. Where a map is required to give clarity over the extent of the coastal margin, that map should certainly be provided. Where these issues may be in doubt and anxieties are raised—a point to which the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, gave voice and, to a certain degree, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor—a map will be provided. However, the Government do not believe that maps will be necessary for clarity over where the coastal margin lies in most situations. In some areas it will be necessary and judgments will be made about where such a necessary map needs to be defined in order to allay people’s anxieties, but in most situations we will not need a map in order to define the coastal margin. If we did, we would be asking Natural England to engage in a very expensive mapping process. The money could be better spent elsewhere when these issues are clear and where there is no dubiety and uncertainty among the public of where the coastal path goes and where the margin lies because it can be so clearly identified. I am reflecting the fact that the English coast is a varied landscape, and in some areas a map may be absolutely essential for definition. I give a clear undertaking that we expect maps to be provided in those areas; that will be an obligation. Where a map can help to provide clarity of the route, location and extent of the coastal margin, it will be provided. However, let us take one area that has been held up as a wonderful example of an existing coastal route around the south-west. Noble Lords who have had the pleasure of walking along it share the experience with the noble Baroness, Lady Byford. She said that you do not need much definition of the coastal route if there is a garden wall on one side and a drop of several hundred feet on the other with a narrow defile in between. That route is clearly marked and does not need too much in the way of a map. Although I do not pretend to be the best navigator in the House—even on land, let alone at sea—I cannot remember having any anxieties about how to keep to the south-west coast path. However, there are other parts of our coastal landscape where the definition will need to be clearer and I therefore indicate that Natural England will be under an obligation to give that clearer definition, which may well require a map to be provided to anyone who intends to follow the path in that area. Amendments A336D and A358E seek to ensure that where the boundary of the coastal margin is drawn to meet a physical feature, where the feature is a cliff or rock face the boundary will always be drawn to include it within the margin. We have always said that we intend that the description of land that will be coastal margin will include cliffs that are adjacent to the foreshore. Where the margin is drawn wider to meet a physical feature, we want Natural England to have the flexibility to respond to the particular circumstances in an appropriate way. In such cases, a decision on whether any particular cliff will be included will depend on the detailed work and assessment during the implementation phase. I hope the noble Lord will accept that the intent is to meet the concept of the amendment and that we have drawn the Bill in terms that will allow for flexibility in decision-making in those areas to take account of the features that the noble Lord said were so important. Amendment 358D seeks to remove the ability in Clause 293(5) for the Secretary of State to specify descriptions of land in England which are coastal margin. The Secretary of State’s powers are not quite Henry VIII powers; they would be limited to extending the definition of open country to include "coastal land or coastal land of any description". This power is already contained in Section 3 of the CROW Act and was rejected as inadequate following public consultation as it did not go far enough for us to reach the objectives with regard to the path and the coastal margin. It did not provide the continuity of access which the consultation process confirmed is of great importance to the public. The Committee will understand why the Government are eager to defend the Bill, which gives additional powers—not Henry VIII powers—to meet the public concern that there should be continuity with regard to the path. Amendment 358D, taken together with Amendment 358F, would reduce the powers of the Secretary of State to below those currently provided in the CROW Act because it would remove the Secretary of State’s power to modify by order the provisions in Part 1 of the CROW Act in their application to land which is coastal margin. It would take away the Secretary of State’s powers to apply the provisions of Part 1 of the CROW Act in a way which is appropriate for the complex situation of the coast. I understand the noble Lord’s anxieties about the powers allotted to the Secretary of State. All legislation in which powers are offered to the Executive should be subject to scrutiny and the Executive should be challenged on its intent, but I emphasise that all we are doing here is building on the provisions of the CROW Act and making sure that we have got sufficient powers to deal with the complex situation of the coastal path and the adjoining margin. Amendment 362L would add a new sub-paragraph after paragraph 6(2)(b) to Schedule 19 to allow Natural England to erect and maintain a notice or sign which indicates, including by provision of a map, the direction of a route or extent of an area of coastal margin. The powers in Schedule 19, together with the powers that we already have in the CROW Act, would enable Natural England to put up such notices without the need for the amendment. We have given thought to the issues to which the noble Lords, Lord Cameron and Lord Taylor, gave voice because we are concerned about this, but we are certain that we have the powers for Natural England to put up signs that identify or provide information about the route, warn of obstacles or hazards along the route and other signs relating to the route. Notices provided under the powers in CROW may inform the public of an appropriate matters which relate to access land. These notices may include maps, if they are defined as necessary because of the nature of a particular part of the coastal environment, and we envisage that in many cases they will do so—for example, when the powers are used to erect information boards close to car parks or other places where the public may be expected to seek to gain access to coastal land. Natural England will have to consult with the owner and occupier before erecting any such notice or sign, and may meet or contribute to the cost to others of erecting such notices and signs. We are certain that in parts of our coastal environment these powers will be necessary. There is no cause for undue anxiety about the way in which they would be exercised because they are provided to meet the fears expressed in the debate that the public may not be sufficiently aware of either the route or the extent of margins without adequate guidance. That is the nature of this provision and, on that basis the amendments—which I hope were probing—can be safely withdrawn.