Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL]

I shall speak to my Amendments A281C and A281D. Like my noble friend, I am afraid that I do not agree with the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, in this group. On user safety, I have said previously that danger is relative, and some people are better equipped to evaluate it than others. I am not a nanny type, but the path should be accessible to all and not so dangerous that young people need to be accompanied or people unaccustomed to the rural lifestyle feel intimidated. As much as I am in favour of personal responsibility, the fact remains that the coastal route will be a designated, mapped and maintained path. Such a path carries with it an expectation that it is both safe and convenient, in just the same way as someone crossing a bridge on an open footpath expects it to be adequately maintained. I am faintly surprised by the attitude of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, because he seems to envisage the path as being a cross between Outward Bound and an arduous training course. Such things may well be perfectly satisfying for a certain type of person, but I see the path as a utility designed for the families of Britain. As such, it must be safe for them to use. I have great sympathy for my noble friend’s Amendment A281B. For some people, having a large number of the public coming on to their land represents more than just an inconvenience. Certain people, such as members of the Royal Family or certain notorious public figures, already have to take extraordinary steps to guarantee their security. Driving access through their back garden, even if it is a little distance from their house, will represent a real risk. It will be a risk not just to people; some structures on private land are a valuable part of our heritage and are capable of being damaged if their proximity to the route encourages people to think they, too, are accessible. My noble friend’s amendment would enable Natural England to take these concerns into consideration. It is interesting that my noble friend mentions the problem of travellers. On my farm at home, where a couple of bridleways cross, we have a couple of Travellers’ caravans parked; they have been there for the past six months and there is very little chance of doing much about it. These are the real problems of practical management of the countryside. On subsection (3), my amendments suggest a couple of alternative ways of strengthening the duty to maintain a fair balance. I am of the opposite opinion to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves; where he would weaken it, I would strengthen it. The maintenance of a fair balance is the only principled and workable way forward. From what the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has said, it seems he would be happy to see the fair balance overturned only in favour of greater access, which would be deeply unfair to landowners and goes against the basic right to property. We will come, in time, to the important issue of appeals. I do not want to get into that debate here, but I remind the Minister that the establishment of a fair balance here would do much to reduce the number of representations and complaints later. I do not think that aiming to strike a fair balance is enough; that would imply that if they thought they were being fair, but were mistaken, the decision would stand. The establishment of a fair balance should be an absolute priority and assessed in an objective way.