Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL]

The Minister explained that the Government think they have the policy right, with the Tories on one side, the Liberals on the other, and the Government playing piggy-in-the-middle, and that must therefore be okay. That is an exact explanation of why the concept of fair balance is not necessarily the best outcome. You have to look at what you want to do and what is right, not just at being in the middle of whoever happens to be arguing two sides of a case. I put that forward as a radical Liberal who never stays in the middle or sits on the fence. I have this vision of the coast with one bay full of illegal immigrants, one infested with Travellers, one full of ravers and another full of golfers. What an absolute nightmare. What tosh people are talking. We are beginning to start talking tosh about this now. The noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, mentioned the fourth dimension. I thought that he was not present but I see that he has retreated to the Back Benches. There is a fifth dimension in connection with safety: the weather. The concept of safety is not fixed and immutable. It depends on the people concerned and how sensible, well equipped, capable, competent and physically capable they are, and it depends on the conditions. The conditions in a thunderstorm at one o’clock in the morning are very different from the conditions at one o’clock in the afternoon on a nice summer’s day. The concept of safety is relative, which is why "having regard" to safety is a recipe for confusion. I have been looking at the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, on which all this is based. I am not sure how many long-distance routes have been set up in this country under the Act—I think it is about 25 or 30, but I am guessing. They include the Pennine Way, the south-west coast path, the Cleveland Way that goes along the north Yorkshire coast, and probably other coastal routes. The word "safety" does not appear in the Act. In those days it was accepted that people would walk sensibly and did not need to be told to have regard to safety. The more you go on about safety, the more danger there is that people will start saying, "Let’s put fences along the top of Beachy Head. Let’s ban this or that". However, I accept that I am not going to persuade the Government. One noble Lord said that designated and maintained paths had to be safe. Again, it is all relative. For example, there is a designated and maintained path that I think is provided by the Lake District National Park, which goes almost to the summit of Great Gable. I have been on the top of Great Gable and had to crawl along because of the strength of the wind and rain. Is that safe or not? It all depends. Do we want a hand-rail up the side of the path on Great Gable? It is all relative; you have to take it sensibly. One noble Lord—it may have been the Minister—said that the fair balance would reduce representations and complaints. I think that instead it will increase representations and complaints, because people will say, "It is not a fair balance". Unless the fair balance criterion is matched by a presumption in favour of the coastal path, which is what the legislation is for, there will be a huge amount of trouble; and whatever new system of appeals and representations we end up with in the Bill, which we will discuss later, it will be overloaded with people saying, "You are not being fair to me", when what they mean is, "I disagree with what you are doing". However, that is enough debate on the matter for today. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment A277 withdrawn. Amendment A277A not moved.