Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL]

This is the first time that I have intervened on this Bill and I apologise to the Committee for not having spoken at Second Reading. I should, therefore, briefly now declare my interests. I am president of the Countryside Alliance, a member of the National Trust, a small farmer and, particularly importantly in relation to the five amendments that stand in my name in this group, an equestrian of a sort. The relevance of those first five amendments is that they relate to the many hundreds of thousands of people—namely equestrians and cyclists—who enjoy very limited access to a very small part of the English coastline. The concerns of the British Horse Society and cycling groups have led me to table these amendments. As others have said at earlier stages, this Bill on the face of it does nothing for riders or cyclists, who are excluded not only from nearly 80 per cent of the rights of way network, but from a staggering 93 per cent of the existing network around the English coastline. I appreciate that the parts of the network particularly enjoyed by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, would not be suitable for equestrians. However, many parts could well be used, but are not. I should have thought that it was in all our interests, whether we ride, cycle or rock climb, to get as many horses and cyclists off our increasingly busy roads as possible, but this Bill has chosen not to take that route. I should make it clear that my amendments are modest in the extreme, in that we seek in none of them to extend the access that those groups have, but merely try to ensure that neither deliberately nor inadvertently is that very limited existing access diminished. I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Hunt for his most helpful letter to me on 4 March and for my subsequent discussions with him. I have absolutely no doubt that it is his and the Government’s intention to increase, not diminish, access, and that he has no wish for rights to be taken away from existing users. He could not have put that more plainly in his letter to me. He stated that if people are currently allowed to ride on the foreshore, they will still be able to do so when the new right comes into force. However, there are real fears, based in part on what has happened in some places following the implementation of the CROW Act, that unless there is a clear statement in the Bill to that effect, rights of access for those groups will be eroded. The first amendment, Amendment A281A, seeks to place a requirement on Natural England and the Secretary of State to have regard to, ""the preservation of all existing rights of access to the foreshore"." Perhaps I may explain why that is necessary. We received assurances very like the one in that letter during the passage of the then CROW Bill that there was no intention at all to remove existing rights. I live part of the time in the Exmoor National Park, and before that Bill came into force, equestrians and cyclists had widespread, effectively open, access to what is known as the Forest of Exmoor. It is not, in fact, a forest, but upland and moorland in a range of different ownerships, including the national park. Indeed, if you asked whether you were allowed to ride, you would be told, "You can ride anywhere, except where you can’t". The places where you could not ride were very wet and you would have been unwise to try. Now, since the CROW Act, the national park issues instructions whereby open access applies only to walkers and that equestrians must keep to the paths. I am not aware of any serious attempt at enforcement. Locals who for generations have crossed the moor on horseback might be inclined, if not to rebellion, at least to be less co-operative with the national park if their rights were removed in practice rather than in theory. Those signs are ominous and there are similar signs of increasing restriction on equestrians in other areas—for example, the New Forest. For those reasons I urge that the matter cannot simply be left in the air or in the realms of ministerial assurances. There needs to be a clear requirement in the Bill to try to preserve those existing rights. Many people ride on the foreshore for pleasure or other reasons. People train racehorses on the beach and many more like to take their bicycles on to the hard sand. Whether justified or not, people have a real fear that when the Bill is implemented barriers will go up preventing access to anyone other than pedestrians. I rather think that waving a copy of the excellent letter which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, wrote to me would be less effective in getting those barriers removed than having a clear statement in the Bill. That is what that simple amendment would do and I hope that, if not now, at a later stage there will be no objection to something of that sort being included in the Bill. Amendments A325, A327 and A328 are slightly different in character and I anticipate that the Minister is likely to say that there are difficulties. They relate to instances where coastlines are eroded on long-distance routes and the Government propose so-called rollback provisions so that the coastal route will be preserved—in effect, resited. So far, so good. To provide an alternative to the coastal route when that happens is plain common sense. But the rollback provisions do not apply to the existing miserable 7 per cent of public rights of way to which riders currently have access around the English coast, and which will be part of the coastal route until erosion occurs. The three amendments simply and logically would ensure that not just the coastal route but, ""any other way shown on a definitive map that falls within that route"," is also resited. As it stands, a coastal bridle way—in itself is an extremely rare feature—would be lost for ever while a coastal route providing access for those on foot would simply be resited. Amendment A332, the last of the amendments in my name, deals with alternative routes and similar provisions dealing with diversions during specified periods where, for example, there is some specific danger or a specific land-management requirement. Again they apply only to the coastal route and not to, ""any other way shown on a definitive map that"," after this Bill will fall within that route. The right of access of the rider or the cyclist is removed, but not that of the walker. That short amendment would also remedy that defect. As I said, all my amendments are modest. None seeks to extend access, but all would preserve access that is precious and, sadly, is not likely to be extended in other provisions of the Bill. I beg to move.