Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL]

In one sense, this amendment probably anticipates a later group of amendments on estuaries where the role of ferries is important. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, is using this as a probing amendment. Essentially, it is helpful to have some flexibility to use a ferry as part of a route, particularly in relation to estuaries. Natural England has the flexibility to propose the establishment of the route up estuaries to the first public foot crossing, either a bridge or a tunnel, if Natural England considers it suitable. However, it can decide not to run the long-distance route up the estuary and down the other side if the difficulties of taking the route around the estuary outweigh the benefits. That means there will be a break in continuity of the route in such cases. In response to pre-legislative scrutiny, we have amended the provisions in the Bill so that Natural England will be able to extend the route to any point between the mouth of the estuary and the first public foot crossing. A suitable point at which to stop might be a ferry which the public can use to cross the estuary. We accept, by the wording of this Bill, that the ferry may not run on every day of the year or during the whole of the day. However, we are seeking flexibility and the existence of a ferry is one of the criteria in Clause 291(4) for Natural England to take into account when deciding the point between the mouth of the estuary and the first crossing point to which to propose and establish the route. I accept the implication in the amendment. If ferry services are to be a part of the coastal pathway and they are not running, there is a gap. One has to accept that there may be some trade-offs. The ideal situation for the walker might be to have on every estuary a route that takes them to the first bridge or tunnel where they can cross on foot, but the difficulties of doing that may outweigh the benefits where the first crossing-point is a long way up the estuary. Over time, Natural England may be able to extend the route to the first crossing-point on foot, but that is a long-term aspiration. In the mean time it can be achieved by providing a route that goes as far as a seasonal ferry service. It is a way of crossing the estuary at an earlier point. However, I accept that if the service is provided only in the summer or at certain times of the day, it does not offer absolute flexibility for someone walking the coastal pathway. It is for these reasons that the Bill is drafted in this way and why we would argue for the need for this kind of flexibility. In the end, a judgment will have to be made because Natural England could stop the pathway at the point where the estuary begins. In view of the special circumstances of estuaries, we think it better to have the maximum flexibility.