Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL]

I have two amendments in the group, and I added my name to the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu. I had copious notes on that first amendment on existing access, but I shall not use them as I would simply be repeating what the noble Baroness said. To some extent, that amendment is related to Amendment A362AA, which is in my name and which would amend Schedule 2 to the CROW Act and allow people to access, ""coastal margin land which is foreshore"," with, ""a dog or a horse"." The reason a dog is referred to is not for us to debate dogs at this stage, as we shall later, but because that is the existing provision on access land under CROW. The right of access applies only to a person or a person accompanied by a dog; it does not apply to any other animals that may accompany a person, which clearly includes horses. I have been provided with a lot of briefing, particularly by the National Federation of Bridleway Associations, arguing that there is often a common-law right of access for people with horses to the foreshore. I cannot judge whether what it states is right or wrong, but it is widely believed and it would be interesting to know the Government's view of that. If that is the case, that comes under the existing rights that the noble Baroness talked about. Even without that, there is no doubt that people have been able to take their horses on to beaches for many years for commercial reasons or for recreation. I am also sympathetic to the other amendments moved by the noble Baroness. I do not think that they work technically, but they concern a very important matter—in particular, the rollback of the coastal route under erosion from the sea. It is likely that where bridleways exist along the coast, the coastal route will follow those bridleways. If there is then erosion, the coastal path that follows the existing right of way will roll back as the coast rolls back, but the right of way will not. The right of way will be fossilised and stay where it is. Indeed, in many parts of the coast there is a right of way that does not exist because it has fallen into the sea. De facto, people go along a different route that is not a right of way. That will be rationalised for walkers, and it would be extremely helpful if it could be rationalised for other users, particularly horse riders. I am not saying in any way that the coastal route will be suitable for horses wherever it exists. Clearly, there will be many places where it will not, but in some places it will and they may be new areas where the coastal route is being created and where, because of the terrain, it could quite easily be made a bridleway, which would allow horses and cyclists to go along it. That is all part and parcel of an interesting and technically intricate relationship between the coastal route and existing rights of way where the coastal route goes along existing rights of way. That is an interesting matter not just where there are higher rights on those existing rights of way, but where it is simply a public footpath. I do not think that the Government have completely thought out the relationship between a right of way that exists that is then incorporated into the coastal footpath, which presumably then becomes access land under CROW. What is the relationship between the access land under CROW and the right of way under highways legislation, especially if it starts to move backwards? Those are complex matters, but I do not think that they have been properly thought out yet and someone has to do so at some stage. The other amendment in my name is Amendment A362AB, which is an attempt to do two things. First, it attempts to be a little more ambitious than the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, by trying to provide more facilities for cyclists and horse-riders where appropriate in the coastal environment and along the coastal route. Secondly, it seeks to improve footpath links to the coastal route, where necessary, so that people can have better access to and egress from the coastal route, rather than simply having to park on it. The amendment suggests a new clause, "Rights of way: improvements associated with the English coastal route", and that English Nature should have to notify the local access authority when it prepares proposals under Section 55A for a new coastal route. It also suggests that each access authority that receives such a notification should carry out a review of its rights-of-way improvement plan in relation to Natural England’s proposals for that section of the coast. It should do so to see whether improvements to higher rights are appropriate and whether the network of linked footpaths into the coastal route is appropriate. I do not know where the word "plan" at the end of proposed new subsection (2)(b) came from. It is a misprint. It should say route, which is fairly obvious, anyhow. The wording in proposed new subsection (4) more or less comes from existing legislation. Proposed new subsection (4)(c) suggests additionally that where a beach is accessible to horses and horses have an historical right to go on it, or because I propose that they should have a right to go on it, the Government should consider access to the beach for people riding or leading horses to make use of it. The rest of the amendment is all about trying to co-ordinate the review of the rights-of-way improvement plan with the coastal access proposals. I am not suggesting that these detailed amendments are necessarily the exact way in which to do this, but there is an important issue here. When Natural England prepares proposals for the coastal route along a particular part of the coast and for new coastal access, someone should look at the existing rights-of-way network in that area to see what changes and improvements need to be made to it to make proper use of the new access along the coast. People will raise the question of cost, but the principle is very clear; this should happen.