View PDF - United Kingdom Parliament

73 Marine and Coastal Access Bill 26 OCTOBER 2009 Marine and Coastal Access Bill 74
[Lords]
[Lords]
As for other islands that may be reached by ferry, I
know that the question of whether Lundy will be included
has been raised before. The island is hugely attractive
and people—including me—love to go there, but access
to it is limited owing to the lack of any regular ferry
service. I am aware that there may be a case for including
it in due course, but Natural England will need to
engage in detailed discussions with the National Trust
and the Landmark Trust before we reach a decision.
I assure Members that I shall be happy to report back
to Parliament on progress relating to the inclusion of
other islands. I do not consider it necessary or appropriate
to include in the Bill a requirement such as that proposed
in the amendment, but I think I have made it pretty
clear that we have not only provided powers in the Bill
but would like access to be available—subject to
consultation, as with the Isle of Wight.
My hon. Friends raised the important issue of seasonal
ferries. Provisions in clause 296 enable Natural England
to make a proposal to the Secretary of State on any
estuary. It may propose that the route should stop at the
mouth of the estuary, that it should stop at any point
between the mouth of an estuary and the first public
foot crossing—either a bridge or a tunnel—or that it
should extend as far as the first public foot crossing. In
deciding on such proposals, Natural England must have
regard to considerations in clause 292(2) and a number
of matters set out in clause 296(4), including the existence
of a ferry by which the public may cross the river. At all
times when discharging the coastal access duty, Natural
England must aim to strike a fair balance between the
interests of the public in having rights of access over
land and the interests of owners and occupiers.
As I have said, Natural England will be required to
undertake an extensive process of consultation with
local interests as it develops its proposals. Estuaries will
be an important issue for many areas. For example, the
coasts of Essex and Suffolk and those of Devon and
Cornwall are indented by estuaries. Natural England’s
discussions with local interests—which will include land
managers, local access forums, local authorities, and
wildlife and other interest groups—will be a key part of
its approach, and the success of the design of the access
corridor.
A proposal in a coastal access report relating to
whether a particular estuary should be included up to
the first pedestrian crossing point will be included on a
case-by-case basis, and Natural England will consider
that in the light of the detailed criteria in the Bill. I
should make it clear, however, that we would not normally
expect Natural England to stop the route at the starting
point for a ferry that does not run throughout the year
unless particular difficulties are involved in taking the
route further upstream to the first public crossing. The
Secretary of State will examine all the issues involved—
including whether the use of a seasonal ferry for the
route is appropriate—before making a decision on the
report.
Natural England will prepare its coastal access reports
over the 10-year implementation period, and will state
in those reports where the existence of a ferry by which
the public may cross the river has been a major consideration
in its decision for the coastal route in any particular
estuary. As I have said, Natural England will report
to Parliament on the implementation of the route after
10 years. If the Secretary of State thinks that an earlier
report should be made, he or she may ask it to make
one, but I do not consider it necessary or appropriate
for the Bill to include such a requirement. Clause 294
requires Natural England to complete a review of the
scheme within three years of its first being approved by
the Secretary of State, and I would expect such a review
to cover the matters that the amendment seeks to require
the report to include. Given that requirement, along
with the requirement for a report after five years in
regard to parks and gardens and the report to Parliament
after 10 years, I urge Members not to press their
amendments.
Amendment 37 seeks to remove clause 300, which
states:
“No duty of care is owed by Natural England”
or anyone acting on its behalf
“under the law of negligence… when preparing”
or proposing the coastal route, in connection with any
failure by Natural England to erect signs warning of
hazards or in connection with any failure by it to restrict
or exclude access. It also states:
“No duty of care is owed by the Secretary of State… under the
law of negligence when… approving proposals”
for a coastal long-distance route or giving direction for
the variation of such proposals
The matter was debated extensively in the other place.
As Lord Hunt of King’s Heath noted, we doubt that a
court would impose such a duty of care, and the aim of
clause 300 is to clarify the legal position. Let us be
frank. We recognise that in places the coast is inherently
dangerous, and we do not want uncertainty about the
legal position to give rise to an over-cautious or nannyish
approach that could result in warning signs unnecessarily
dotting the landscape. That would be in no one’s interest.
Ms Angela C. Smith: I entirely agree with my hon.
Friend. The British Mountaineering Council has made
it absolutely clear that in sports such as rock climbing
and mountaineering safety is the responsibility of the
individual, and risk is part of participation in such
sports. I believe that that is generally the right approach.
Huw Irranca-Davies: My hon. Friend is right. We do
not want to wrap all outdoor activities in cotton wool.
Part of the joy of experience of the outdoor environment
is the risk that is inherent in, for instance, walking up a
hill, along a coast or along a cliff. Those risks are part
and parcel of sport, and of our development as adults
or, indeed, as children.
Tom Levitt (High Peak) (Lab): As my hon. Friend
knows, my constituency has no coastal path but does
contain a huge number of well-established mountainclimbing
areas. All the risks are thoroughly understood
and agreed on by landowners and climbers, and there is
no reason why the same arrangements should not apply
to coastal paths.
Huw Irranca-Davies: Again, I entirely agree.
Let me give the House an anecdote to think about.
On a memorable occasion, I walked through an area
that the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire
(Mr. Williams) will know very well: Fan Hir, that marvellous
ridge where the Brecons lift up before dropping off. The
next mountains to be seen are the Cambrian mountains,