Marine and Coastal Access Bill [Lords]

The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely good point. He serves with me on the Select Committee and came along on our visit to the Essex coast. We saw a number of cases where, for various reasons, the simplistic notion of driving the path around the entire coast will not work. Marine archaeology may well be one of those reasons. I am glad that, after some discussion, the Government exempted parks and gardens from the provisions of the Bill. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough, who is sadly not in her place, said that she did not like that exemption. She thought that parks and gardens should be included in the Bill, but the fact is that 47,000 people could be affected. We are not talking about landlords or dukes; we are talking about the 47,000 ordinary people whose parks and gardens lie along the coast. I very much welcome the fact that the Government exempted parks and gardens and that the exemption was maintained by the House of Lords. I am, however, concerned by the fact that Natural England has argued throughout in favour of the inclusion of parks and gardens. In the briefing sent to us today, Natural England says:""Further work is needed to clarify the scope of the Government's proposed parks and gardens exemption, and we welcome the commitment from Government to look further at this issue."" In other words, Natural England seems to imply that the parks and gardens exemptions might be waived. It must not be waived; 47,000 very ordinary people living on the coast of England are watching what happens in the House today and in Committee to make sure that their privacy and right of ownership is protected. An Englishman's home is his castle, and the right of ownership is an important part of what we stand for in the House. Those people are watching the debate carefully to make sure that the legislation does not cut across their rights. The same points apply to spreading room. Of course, I believe in headlands and beaches being available to people walking the coastal path, but the Government have introduced the rather bizarre notion of spreading room—a large area, often inland from the path, which will allow people to do all sorts of things, irrespective of what might be happening on the land, most of which is grazing land. There are cows, sheep, horses and—to a lesser extent—pigs on much of that land, but the spreading room provisions take no account of that fact. That, too, seems an unreasonable invasion of the right of the farmer to make use of his land. The whole question of farmers' liability is not properly addressed in the Bill. What if horses, or cows, grazing on the land attack the walker—as may occasionally happen? It appears that the landowner may have some residual liability under the Bill, which seems quite wrong to me. There are many similar things. The question of dogs has not really been addressed. I have four of them. Of course we want to take our dogs for walks along the coast and in the countryside, but those of us who take things seriously know that we must keep the dogs under close control anywhere near livestock. If the Government are indeed right in thinking that tens of thousands of people from Sheffield, Hillsborough will be walking along the coastal path, will they keep their dogs under close control, as those of us who are used to the countryside do naturally?