Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL]

I am grateful to noble Lords, but of course the Secretary of State and Natural England must have regard to safety. I can just see the headlines: "New Liberal Government Opens Coastal Path—4,000 Deaths in the First Year", and no one is blameworthy because it was never suggested that safety was a consideration. Of course it is, and sensible footwear is probably a good thing for most coastal paths that one can envisage. We have to trust the good sense of people, but we are under an obligation. I appreciate the point made by the noble Lord about families, but if we are going to make a path available for families we must have some regard to safety. That is axiomatic. The Bill says that the Secretary of State and Natural England must have regard to, ""the safety and convenience of those using the English coastal route"," the desirability of the route being close to and providing views of the sea—otherwise, why define it as "coastal"?—and interruptions to the route being kept to a minimum as far as is reasonably practicable. I will take the noble Lord, Lord Greaves with me on that, as it is his intent, too. We want the route to cover as much of the coast as we can; that is the ambition behind its concept. However, Natural England and the Secretary of State must also aim to strike a fair balance between the interests of the public in having right of access over land, which, alone, makes the coastal path possible, and the interest of any person with a relevant interest in the land, which is bound to include their safety. It is bound to include the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, that the landowners have real interests that must be taken into account. The Bill presumes that a balance must be struck as regards that particular piece of land, not that the interests of the relevant person should be set against the interests of the public on the route and coastal access as a whole. We must get a balance between the two contributors to the coastal route: the landowner, who will be making concessions, provision and acceptance, and those who use the route to ensure that, as far as they are concerned, their interests do not trample over the landowner’s. Natural England’s main obligation is to propose a route. It must strike a fair balance in doing so, and the route must go somewhere; otherwise, it is not a route. Natural England and the Secretary of State must ensure that the interests of those who would use the route are met. It must be as close to the sea as possible, it must be safe and, as far as is possible, it must be continuous. However, they are also under a duty to consider the interests of the landowner and their land. It will therefore be a question of balance. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, used the phrase: the correct balance has got to be struck. I could not agree more. I would not be defending this legislation if I thought that it did not recognise that a balance must be struck. We intend that Natural England and the Secretary of State should do everything reasonably practical to achieve a fair balance. Requiring that they aim to strike a fair balance is already a strong inducement for them to do so; they could be judicially reviewed if they did not. We hope and confidently expect that, in most cases, consensus will be achieved between the competing interests. We do not need additional phrases in the Bill, like "best endeavours", as in Amendment A281C. That puts a heavier duty on the Secretary of State and Natural England to strike a fair balance rather than just aiming to do so. However, the Bill is clear: a balance must be struck. We cannot see how the coastal path can come to fruition without these being the objectives of these two bodies. It is therefore unnecessary to amend the legislation. On the one hand, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, and the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, are suggesting a heavier duty. On the other, the noble Lords, Lord Greaves and Lord Tyler, would, through Amendment A282, amend subsection (3) so that the Secretary of State and Natural England would only, ""have regard to … the interests of any person with a relevant interest in the land"," which would put a lighter duty on them. I have the Conservative Benches trying to be more emphatic and the Liberal Benches suggesting a lighter touch, so I am in that happy position of thinking that the Government have got it about right. That is why I shall not concede to the amendments, although I assume that in any case they merely seek, at this stage, to press us about our intentions. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, introduced the question of, ""the safety and security of those living or working on the land adjacent or proximate to the coastal route"." How could the balance be fair if the interests of their safety and security were not observed? It would not be fair at all; it would be a distorted position. People who might use the paths not just for anti-social but for criminal behaviour, as she contended, are subject to the law of the land like anyone else. Nothing about this coastal route gives anybody inviolability concerning their practices. I understand what she says: in certain remote areas of the country, malpractice may occur and advantage could be taken, but that is the case at present, whether we have a coastal path or not. The more remote one is from law and order, no doubt, the greater the likelihood that something might go astray, although the majority of the time that the House spends discussing law and order is spent talking about heavily populated areas and the inner city, rather than the coastal fringes of England where this coastal path will go. We should not entertain too many anxieties about the path being used lawlessly or any more lawlessly than what happens without it in the sea’s vicinity in remote areas of the United Kingdom. We have insisted that the Bill should have a balance between users and those who own or occupy coastal land. That balance lies at the very heart of the proposals and is quite explicit. If I thought that there was any possibility of amending the Bill in one direction or the other to command greater consensus, I have only to listen to the completely divergent, opposing claims from various parts of the Committee to see that the Government’s case rests.