View PDF - United Kingdom Parliament

75 Marine and Coastal Access Bill 26 OCTOBER 2009 Marine and Coastal Access Bill 76
[Lords]
[Lords]
[Huw Irranca-Davies]
further afield, in the constituency of the hon. Member
for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams). I was walking there
late one night, when the snow was coming down, and
suddenly realised that I had run out of time. The rivers
were in full flood, I could not return on the track I had
arrived along, and the darkness was coming in. I rang
my wife and told her not to worry and that I would be
back home safely. She replied, “That’s perfectly
understandable, my dear, I’ll see you later,” and then put
the phone down; I was, however, hoping that she would
come out and rescue me when I got back down to the
bottom. I finally returned home four hours later, in
snow and the pitch black. I tell that story only to
illustrate the point that the outdoor environment is
inherently risky and that we manage our own risks.
Bill Wiggin: The problem with this clause is that it is
the Government position, rather than the user of the
outdoors, that is being wrapped in cotton wool. That is
why my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Benyon)
has tabled his amendment. Will the Minister therefore
allay our fears about the liability of landowners, as I
suspect that, in the circumstances, they might be making
parts of the countryside or coast unavailable because
they are fearful of being sued?
Huw Irranca-Davies: I will happily do so shortly.
Although that point is not pertinent to this particular
amendment, I acknowledge that it has been raised.
The other reason why we do not want to take the
approach I have been talking about is that we do not
want to create a lawyers charter. We do not consider it
necessary for people to waste their money instructing
lawyers in order to test the position.
Clause 292 makes it clear that in discharging the
coastal access duty Natural England and the Secretary
of State are required to have regard to the safety and
convenience of those using the English coastal route. I
therefore believe that the approach we have set out in
clause 300 is proportionate to the specific circumstances.
It reflects the position of many who responded to our
public consultation on ways to improve access to the
coast. We are not setting out through this legislation to
change the nature of the English coast and make it safe
in all circumstances; I know that the hon. Member for
Newbury understands that. People must ultimately take
responsibility for their own safety and that of children
and others in their care, and come to the coast with that
thought in mind. I ask the hon. Gentleman to reflect on
that point, and consider withdrawing the amendment.
The hon. Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin) raised
the issue of occupiers’ liability, and there is also the
question of whether owners will be held responsible for
accidents on their land. When the CROW Act introduced
the right of access to open country and registered
common land marked as access land, provision was
made on occupier’s liability under the Occupiers’ Liability
Acts of 1957 and 1984. As the hon. Gentleman will
know, this has reduced the level of liability of occupiers
to members of the public who are exercising their right
of access on CROW Act access land, and that was the
right and proper thing to do. For example, if someone
sustains an injury on CROW Act land because of a
natural feature of the landscape, the reduced level of
liability means there will be no scope to sue the occupier.
In addition, if someone sustains an injury by, for example,
climbing over a wall or a fence, the reduced level of
liability means that there will be no scope to sue the
occupier unless the injury was sustained through the
proper use of a gate or style, provided that the danger is
not due to anything done by the landowner with the
intention of creating a risk or being reckless about
whether a risk was created. That is the clear legal
difference.
Tom Levitt: My High Peak constituency has more
open access land as defined under the CROW Act than
any other constituency in England, and I am not aware
of there having been even one case of liability. People
have been relieved that the liability provisions of the
CROW Act have worked, and there is no reason to
believe that they will not work in this Bill too in a way
that reassures landowners, users of the areas and others.
6.45 pm
Huw Irranca-Davies: I fully agree with my hon. Friend
on that. These provisions work very well.
I have corresponded with my hon. Friend the Member
for Sheffield, Hillsborough as a result of her representations
on behalf of the British Mountaineering Council, the
Ramblers and others, and I just want to put the following
points on the record. I recognise that, as with open
access, there may be occasions when access on the coast
might cause a problem, and Natural England will have
to consider the need for any restrictions or exclusions.
These restrictions will be considered as part of Natural
England’s coastal report, which has to be approved by
the Secretary of State. The Bill requires Natural England
to prepare a scheme setting out the approach it will take
to discharge its coastal access duty, which must be
approved by the Secretary of State. Natural England
will shortly consult on a draft of the scheme, and will
establish that in any case in which it decides that action
is necessary, its policy will be to adopt the option that is
least restrictive of public access.
The hon. Member for North Essex asked whether the
Secretary of State can do anything to give access to
relevant excepted land. Such land is normally excepted
for very good reasons. The key is to get the categories of
excepted land right—we have been talking about that in
this debate. That is why we are currently consulting on
the appropriate categories of excepted land for coastal
access. I hope the hon. Gentleman will contribute to
that discussion and make suggestions as to the changes
that we might propose, such as those to the categories of
excepted land under schedule 1 of the CROW Act.
Certain categories of excepted land are not access land
for the purpose of part 1 so we have made some
proposals.
First, we propose to remove some existing categories
of excepted land that we do not think are appropriate
for the coastal margin. I am sure the hon. Gentleman
will want to offer his thoughts on that. Secondly, we
propose to amend some of the existing categories to
allow for the coastal route to go through them. That
will be of relevance to many Members who are keen
golfers. Thirdly, we propose to add some new categories
appropriate to the circumstances of the coastal margin,
such as formal camp and caravan sites. We also seek
views on these published guidelines and on the meaning