Considered in Grand Committee
Moved By
That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Access to the Countryside (Coastal Margin) (England) Order 2010.
My Lords, the Government are of course committed to providing a route around the coast of England for people to enjoy. The draft order currently before the Committee is the next important step in ensuring that that becomes a reality within the next 10 years. It has been laid before Parliament under the powers in Section 44(3) of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act. Section 303(5) of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 amends the CROW Act to include coastal margin in the definition of access land. It also inserts a provision that enables the Secretary of State to specify certain land as coastal margin.
The Marine and Coastal Access Act is a great achievement. It took almost a year to complete its passage through Parliament and came out all the stronger for the careful scrutiny that it received in this House and the other place. Today I offer my plaudits to the noble Lords I see before me who contributed to the deliberations in our extensive scrutiny of the Bill, which we all enjoyed and look back on with the greatest pleasure, given that the outcome was so constructive. I also pay tribute to the excellent pre-legislative scrutiny work completed by Members of this House in the Joint Committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Greenway.
Part 9 of the Act provides for improving access to the English coast. It does this through introducing new sections into two existing pieces of legislation: the long-distance path provisions of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949; and Part 1 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. New Section 3A of the CROW Act, inserted by Section 303 of the 2009 Act, enables amendments to be made by affirmative resolution order to the existing provisions in the CROW Act as they will apply to coastal land. The draft Access to the Countryside (Coastal Margin) (England) Order before us introduces necessary amendments to the CROW Act which are appropriate to the circumstances on the coast and which, alongside the 2009 Act, will help us to deliver our vision for clear, consistent and, as far as possible, continuous access along the English coast.
We consulted on the proposals for the order between September and December last year and received 197 responses from a range of organisations and individuals. We are grateful to all those who took the time to respond; a summary of those responses is available on the Defra website. We considered carefully all the comments received, which in general have supported our consultation proposals, but we have amended the proposals in some respects as a result of the views expressed. I believe that we have before us a way forward that will contribute to striking a fair balance between the interests of the public and the interests of landowners and occupiers.
Article 3 of the order sets out descriptions of land to which the right of access under Section 2(1) of the CROW Act will apply. The descriptions include the line of the English coastal route, land within 2 metres either side of the line of the route, land to the seaward of the route and land to the landward of the route where it is foreshore, cliff, bank, barrier, dune, beach or flat.
Part 1 of the schedule to the order amends the categories of excepted land at Schedule 1 to the CROW Act as they apply to the coastal margin, removing some existing categories, amending some categories to allow the coastal route to go though and adding new categories appropriate to the circumstances of the coast. Part 2 of the schedule amends the general restrictions at Schedule 2 to the CROW Act, in particular the requirements for control of dogs; for example, it introduces a requirement that a person on the coastal margin accompanied by a dog must keep the dog under effective control and it relaxes restrictions on angling-related activity, for obvious reasons as far as the coast is concerned. Part 3 of the schedule amends the process for making exclusions or restrictions of access and adds a new power to restrict or exclude access to areas of salt marsh or flats where they are unsuitable for the public.
The changes are proportionate and appropriate. The flexibility in the Act and the extensive consultation that Natural England will undertake prior to recommending any route will ensure that all interests are taken into account and that any necessary exclusions and restrictions are in place from the outset. I commend the order to the Committee and I beg to move.
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the order, which we welcome. Those of us who saw through the Marine and Coastal Access Bill, of which he kindly reminded us, will have fond memories of those days spent in Committee but a year ago; it seems a distant memory. However, it is not under that Act that the order is being made; the Minister rightly said that the purpose of the order is to amend the CROW Act.
I must declare an interest: I am a farmer and landowner. Although I do not farm on the coast, I am a member of the National Farmers’ Union, which I know made submissions to the consultation process.
The schedule is where the key matters lie. If I pose questions to the Minister, it is just to get clarification of quite complex legislation that has many impacts, not only on the coastal route strip but also on the margin, which is also part and parcel of the coast. The order in some cases changes arrangements for existing CROW Act land and an owner’s ability to control visitors and activities on it. It is important to try to set those in context.
First, land ploughed in the previous 12 months for the purpose of growing crops or trees is no longer excepted if it is part of the coastal route strip. As I understand it, the margin will be able to be accessed, contrary to what we were led to believe when we discussed these matters. We understood that the strip was confined and that “spreading room”, as it came to be known, would not extend into ploughed land adjacent to the coastal strip. Can the Minister reassure us on that? Similarly, land within 20 metres of a dwelling is no longer excepted if it is part of coastal margin—that means the spreading room area. Assurances were given about privacy and I hope that the provisions do not affect the privacy of people whose property happens to be in that situation.
A golf course is no longer excepted if it is on the coastal margin, which will mean that, in most cases, the whole golf course will be spreading room available from a coastal path, in the sense that there would be no natural landward boundary on most golf courses. That means that much of coastal links would be fully open. People could have a picnic, play a game of football or whatever on the golf course. That may not seem a likely possibility but, none the less, it is something about which I am sure that people who run golf courses would be concerned.
The land used for flood defence or sea defence works, too, is no longer excepted. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure me, because I live in an area where the sea bank is very important and can represent a jolly good walking route—indeed, I use it myself—but there may be more delicate circumstances where, because of natural sand dunes, pedestrian access could over time create problems with the vegetation that holds the sand dunes together. I hope that alternative path arrangements will be encouraged if at any time access to the defence works poses a threat.
I am glad that the coastal margin and spreading room elements will not include—I believe that I am right to say—a regulated caravan or camping site. We were given that assurance when discussing the Marine and Coastal Access Bill. I am pleased about that, but we also need to be mindful of the fact that policing it will be burdensome and that the privacy of people on those sites may be vulnerable. I hope that the impact of that right will be reviewed, so that if it presents a problem it can be revisited at some stage. As expected, fishing is allowed. I think that all of us welcome the fact that sea angling, which is a sport enjoyed by many people, will still be allowed along the coastal path—indeed, it might be encouraged by the improved access.
I express some concern about the dog requirements. We know that dogs must be kept on a lead from 1 March to 31 July, but on margin land they do not have to be kept under a lead as long as they are under control. The Minister will know as well as anyone that keeping dogs under control is a fine art. It is hard to know just what can be done if a dog runs out of control. What rights would owners have if dogs got out of their control in the spreading room area?
I note that Natural England supplants the national park authorities and all the countryside bodies, such as the Forestry Commission, in relation to coastal margin, which means that the management of that element of their activities will come under Natural England’s control. I hope that a proper working relationship will be encouraged between those bodies. No doubt there have already been discussions. It would be useful if the Minister could reassure us on that point as well.
I have already mentioned the whole business of dogs on the coastal margin. Access to salt marshes or flats may be denied if Natural England believes that the land is unsuitable for public access, but will that include nature reserves and bird breeding areas? I read that that could be the case. The order says specifically that access to the coastal margin cannot be made indefinitely for nature conservation or heritage preservation. Have I got that wrong? It would be rather surprising if paths were allowed through areas where birds were breeding and there was an imperative to provide for the security of breeding grounds.
I move now to the effects on farming. Last Saturday, Radio 4’s “Farming Today” investigated the operation of the CROW Act. There were interviews with a farmer from Warwickshire in the heart of the country and a landowner on the Suffolk coast. Both claimed—I think that this is good news—to have no quarrel with people who obey the rules, but the farmer had had people light barbecues on his land and use the fencing for the purpose and, on one occasion, a wooden gate to keep a fire going, while the landowner claimed that the removal of signs indicating where access was allowed was a daily occurrence. What responsibility will Natural England have to monitor and replace signs? Both claimed that dogs normally stray from the path, as do people when the ground is wet and they are not wearing boots. The result of the first is fouling on farmland and of the second is soil compaction. Instances were given of dog faeces passing on a parasite that is fatal to cattle. There are problems with allowing public access to farming areas.
The training of racehorses in the gallops was debated at length in 2000 when the CROW Act was introduced and the record will show the concerns expressed about walkers using paths while horses are being exercised. The rules put in place to protect both parties are expunged in this order; indeed, gallops are expressly permitted as margin land. Who will be liable in the event of injury to a person by a horse or damage to a horse caused by the presence of a person on land adjacent to that used for training?
We talked about golf courses earlier. In the event of members of the public straying on to golf courses, does the golfer have responsibility for ensuring that his hook shot misses the rambler? Who is liable in the event of such an accident occurring, or do people wander on to a golf course at their own risk—in which case, who advises them that that is the case?
A number of matters arise from the order but, on the whole, we recognise how important it is for the safeguarding of the principles of coastal access, which we support. We hope that the Government will keep the order’s operation under review at all times and, in co-operation with Natural England and local authorities, will revisit it should there be a situation in which it needs to be reviewed because of situations arising.
My Lords, I, too, am pleased to be present at this reunion of—I am not quite sure what to say—old colleagues. We should perhaps toast as an absent friend the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, who, along with the Minister, did so much to get the marathon Bill past the rest of us. I understand that people are now calling the Act “MACA”. I am not sure whether that is a desirable acronym, but that is what happens nowadays.
The Minister said that the order is a way forward. I am not sure whether that is a pun about the coastal path or whether the coastal path is going round in circles, but the order is very welcome. I was delighted to hear the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, say that the Conservatives welcome the order and that they support, in his words,
“the principles of coastal access”.
It is possible—but perhaps not likely—that after the coming general election the noble Lord may have more to do with the implementation of this order than the noble Lord, Lord Davies. I remain to be convinced about that, but we will see. Who knows?
As far as I can tell, having tried to go through the order with a fine-tooth comb, it is in line with the Act and the commitments and statements made by the Government and Ministers as the Bill was going through this House and the House of Commons. As always in these matters, I am astonished by the complexity of the order. I wonder whether modern legislation needs to be quite as complex as it is; the country did not collapse 30, 40 or 80 years ago when Acts of Parliament were much simpler and there was much less secondary legislation. However, we are where we are and we get what we are presented with. As always, I blame computers because they make it all possible. However, as I said, the order seems to be generally in line with the Act and what we were told and I very much welcome it.
As the Bill was going through your Lordships’ House, we made the point that nearly everything in the order should have been in the primary legislation. When the CROW Act was passed nearly 10 years ago, the equivalent regulations were in the primary legislation, particularly in Schedules 1 and 2. I still do not understand why it was not possible to amend them directly through the Marine and Coastal Access Bill as it was going through the House and before it was passed. However, we are where we are and we now have the order in front of us.
One general question concerns where we are with the draft scheme. I understand that the consultation period has now closed and I wonder how long it will take Natural England to present the definitive scheme to the Secretary of State for approval.
One or two minor points struck me as I was going through the order. Some of them are repetitions of points that I made when we were discussing Part 9 of the Marine and Coastal Access Bill as it was going through the House, while the others have just occurred to me. These will probably come to light when we see the final version of the scheme but, more important, as we see the proposals for each section of coast. The proof of the pudding will be in how it works out in practice. Some of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, in connection with the relationship with farmland, farmers and farming will have to be resolved locally on the ground and we will see in two or three years’ time whether it succeeds or not. We need to come to a solution that is, if not the most desirable, acceptable to all the different parties involved. Clearly there will have to be compromises.
Article 3, which covers descriptions of coastal margin, refers to part of the coastal margin as being, as we would expect,
“land which is seaward of … an approved section of the English coastal route and lies between”,
that route and the sea. I started thinking about what would happen when there were breaks between the path and the sea. It occurred to me that if there was a building—say, a coastguard’s cabin—on top of the cliff, everyone would take the common-sense view that there was a hole in the access land in the coastal margin where that building was and that the coastal margin would continue either side of the building. Therefore, the margin would continue on the seaward side of such an interruption, even though technically it would not run continuously between the path and the sea.
However, I wondered how big an obstruction would have to be before Natural England said that there was no longer access to the foreshore. An example might be a housing estate that goes right up to the edge of the foreshore. Because of the nature of the foreshore there—perhaps there is a cliff and then the foreshore—the coastal path has to go round the back of the housing estate. Alternatively, there might be some sort of defence installation or perhaps a caravan site that the path cannot go through, or, if the path can get through, there will still be a gap between the path and the foreshore. How big does the obstruction have to be before access to the foreshore is stopped, or will such access always be presumed where it is possible and sensible, even if quite a big obstruction forms excepted land between the foreshore and the path? Again, I suspect that that is something that we will find out in practice when we look at the proposals that Natural England comes back with, but it is an interesting question that I do not think we have discussed before.
Article 5 concerns cases where the landward boundary is to coincide with a physical feature. I simply repeat the point that I made before. If that physical feature is a cliff that can be climbed on or if it has important natural features—perhaps plants or birds nesting—it is important for a number of reasons that the boundary should coincide with the cliff top and not the cliff bottom. That issue has arisen in a number of places on ordinary CROW land. I made that point when we discussed the Bill as it went through the House and I make it again now.
Part 2 of the schedule concerns restrictions to be observed by persons exercising right of access and relates to Schedule 2 to the CROW Act. The important point to make here—it has been made many times but is still misunderstood by some people—is that these restrictions apply to the right of access under the CROW Act but do not apply to any other access, whether by right or by permission, that exists on that land.
Specifically, in relation to coastal land, if there are at the moment common-law rights—for example, of access to the foreshore on horse—are they affected in any way by this Act? Do they still exist and apply? Equally, if people have, by custom or by permission of the landowners, been able to do things on land that are specifically excluded from the right of access under CROW, will they still be able to do them if the same conditions continue? This was a source of great confusion when the CROW Act was first passed and it is still sometimes a source of confusion because of the wording. If you are on the land because you are exercising the right of access under CROW, these restrictions apply. If you are on the land by virtue of some other right, or by consent, these restrictions do not necessarily apply. They may, but not necessarily, and they certainly do not apply in the form set out in the order. That is a very important principle because this Act, like the CROW Act, is not intended to restrict existing activities that happen because people are there either by right or with permission.
I heard what the noble Lord said about salt marshes and flats. It is clear that in some cases it is sensible that there should be restrictions, but I hope that these will not be automatic restrictions whereby just because something is a salt marsh or a flat people are not allowed to go there. There are many salt marshes and flats to which it is perfectly reasonable for people to have access. “Unsuitable” is the sort of word that appears in legislation and potentially gives lawyers a field day. However, if common sense is applied, we can reach a satisfactory situation.
Finally, I hope that Section 26 restrictions, which are for nature conservation and heritage preservation, will not be used in a blanket or draconian way where they apply to climbing on cliffs. At the moment a whole series of extremely intricate rules and regulations applies to where climbers can climb on cliffs where birds are nesting. They are generally known to climbers as “bird bans”. I remind the Committee that I have been a climber all my life. These rules are negotiated in a very intricate way by the British Mountaineering Council and its local representatives, the RSPB and its local representatives and other local nature conservation bodies. They apply particularly to sea cliffs and they work. They are completely voluntary; there are no sanctions for breaking them.
I make a point that I have made once or twice in your Lordships’ House: when you have a group of fairly anarchic, disorganised people, such as rock climbers, who by and large are not organised in clubs, organisations or societies but do it off their own bat, the system works. It works because the people taking part in the climbing accept it. It has been negotiated by their representatives, the BMC and their local access representatives. Any attempt to bring in bans on a wider, more blanket basis, which are clearly not related to the particular circumstances of particular birds on particular cliffs, would not work because people would start to ignore them. It is just one of those things. We have a system that a lot of people put a lot of effort into. It works and everybody agrees that it works. The fact that there are climbers on adjoining parts of the cliff is a disincentive to those who might want to abseil down and steal eggs or whatever they might want to do. It is a system that works and I urge that any attempt to put blanket statutory bans on these cliffs should be resisted. That would work, in practice, far worse than the present voluntary system.
That is the end of the party political broadcast on behalf of rock climbers. I end by, once again, thanking the Government for the order and looking forward to walking on the first of the new paths and the access land that is opened up.
My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for introducing the order before us. I reiterate what has been said about the amount of work that went into the passing of the original Act.
I shall pick up on one or two important points raised by my noble friend Lord Taylor, as well as one raised by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, who asked how big an object would have to be before the route went around it. What about any listed buildings, which might be much smaller? Pure size may not be the answer.
I declare an interest as a member of the NFU and the CLA, which is perhaps more relevant to discussions on access.
My noble friend mentioned golf courses, many of which I suspect will be privately owned. I have the joy of playing on a small, nine-hole course at Southwold. That is a public course and members of the public who go over it know that they are likely to get hit by balls if they do not look where they are going. My noble friend’s point, however, is important if accidents occur. Would the individual be liable, or would it be the club? There are two different ways of looking at the same question.
I am sorry to return to the question of dogs, because we spent an awful lot of time on it when discussing the CROW Act. I am glad that dogs will be required to be on leads at a particular time, but I am still concerned about the phrasing of the definition of “control”; that is, the owner is,
“confident that the dog will return”.
We happen to have a really super Labrador who is gun-trained and was trialled. He is not just a normal shooting dog; he has done trials as well. I could not be 100 per cent certain that, if something occurred, he might not take a liking to it and perhaps go and have a look for himself, while ignoring me—he does not normally ignore me, because that is the way he was trained before we had him. How confident is the Minister about that provision? What happens if the dog in question is out of control and somebody comes across it? When we discussed the matter previously, colleagues from Wales mentioned going through the Brecon Beacons, where sheep graze as well. They said that when dogs got out of control, the farmer invariably received a mouthful of abuse. Where do the respective parties stand in the law? The provision is idealistic—and I believe in an ideal world—but it is still not quite as it might be.
That brings me back to the whole question of this not having been dealt with in detail in the Act, because, as we know, we can talk about these things today but there is no way in which we can alter them. I do not want more legislation to be brought in—for goodness’ sake, we have enough—but will any guidance be given? Is this the final document? What are the public told about access? Will there be guides or encouragement? What is written down?
Our Chairman last week rightly raised in the House the question of Chinese lanterns. I raise it again because Chinese lanterns are an innovation from not that many years ago, but they travel and are likely to cause damage to livestock.
The other issue that I do not think is covered, unless I have missed it, is the whole question of litter left. We live in a fairly quiet lane that goes down to a reservoir. A lot of people come to watch birds and we are very happy to see them—it is lovely to have people enjoying the countryside—but when I was walking the dog back up the other day, as I do regularly, I collected six thrown-away cans of beer. A walker need only be walking without shoes to get their foot cut, as might a dog. What is stated about the whole question of livestock, or even someone’s dog, getting injured by litter left by someone else? That sounds trivial—I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, will tell me that I am worrying unnecessarily—but in this litigious age the honest truth is that an increasing amount of litter is left by people in lovely countryside. I would very much like to have that clarified.
Another point that my noble friend did not raise is where access will allow walkers to walk through areas such as a holiday camp, which may have its chalets further up but coastal access goes through the site. All the people working there will have had clearance from the Home Office to work with children, for example. If it is opened up to general access, which we all believe in, what is to stop people who might take a different view of their walk in the countryside? Has the Minister given that any thought? It could be a problem, although I hope very much that it is not.
I turn to nature reserves and breeding seasons. Just up the road from where we stay is lovely Minsmere, which has free access and seems to work extremely well, but it is organised. The areas that I am more interested in are natural breeding areas that are not organised or supervised. Again, I seek clarification on that.
On the whole, apart from registering my disappointment that we were unable to deal with the specifics of coastal access when we took the Bill through, I welcome the order, but we need to be sure that it will work. In fairness, I mean that not just from the point of view of the farming community but for those who are going to walk and enjoy the countryside. We do not want bad experiences.
Lastly, in Committee on the Bill, I asked: if someone has an accident on the cliff or on the foreshore, whose responsibility is it? Is it that of the lifeboats or of the local authority? Where does the responsibility start and finish? I am still not quite clear about that. With those few words, I thank the Minister for introducing the order.
My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for his considerable assiduity in explaining the Government’s legislation to us time and again. He and I have exchanged views on the question of access rights and golf courses on several occasions. I am aware of his enthusiasm for the game, as much as I am that he does not appreciate the difficulties and dangers as much as I would like.
I have declared my interest as a farmer and as the manager of a golf course. In responding to my concerns when we discussed this issue in Committee on the Marine and Coastal Access Bill, the Minister’s words, as Hansard recorded them, were:
“The noble Duke will have to accept that considerable discussion will go on for a long time before the Bill is completed, and there will be further discussion before the order is drafted ... We will have to engage in additional consultation about these issues”.—[Official Report, 30/3/09; col. 915.]
It is interesting to look at what the consultation has amounted to. Prior to our consideration of the Bill, there was consultation by Natural England in a February 2007 paper. At Annexe 2, it says that the availability of continuous access was considered. The problems with various developments were highlighted, such as the ones that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, was worried about, including caravan sites and golf courses. The paper ended by saying that providing suitable diversions or ways through could make a real difference to the continuity of access.
I have recently been in touch with the English Golf Union, which was included in this consultation and was required to undertake studies in four areas—Suffolk, Devon North, Durham and Cumbria—where it identified 18 golf courses that would be affected. It presented its findings to the coastal lands advisory group. Last year, presumably as part of the 8 September consultation that the Minister has referred to, the EGU received a pro forma, which had to be completed by 1 December, that asked, at question 19: “Do you agree that where there is no suitable route for the seaward side of a golf course, the route should pass through the golf course?”. The answer that the EGU gave to this highly conditional question was yes, provided that the route could be planned in consultation with the golf club managers. It was left with the impression, though, that this legislation would not greatly affect golf courses. There are 147 golf courses that abut coastal areas within their bounds, so there is a considerable involvement of businesses. The EGU, like others, received notice of this current measure on 20 January, yet here we are on 8 February actually considering the matter. I am not yet sure whether the consultation that was put out and ended in December contained the text of the measure that we are looking at today.
My noble friend Lord Taylor raised quite a few questions about the margins of golf courses once the route is established. One of my worries is that in the terms of the Act, as far as I understand it, all the land to the landward side of the route is included as access land up to the first definable boundary. That is liable to become access land——that is, available for the activities that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, described. The question is whether the first definable boundary is likely to be a wall, a fence or something like that—this is where the question arises of the whole course being included—or does the Minister think that the edge of a fairway would be a definable boundary?
Another approach that might have offered a solution appears to have been removed under the measure that we are considering today. Under the CROW Act, landowners had the power to request the closure of access for periods of up to 28 days as long as an alternative was provided. Presumably, that could have provided the protection that golf club competition days might have needed, particularly with regard to the issue of danger to the public. Tempers get quite hot on golf club competition days and heaven knows how much care some golfers might be inclined to take. Why was that not considered in this difficult area?
I understand that there is a proposal that on campsites access will be restricted to the route itself and that further access land surrounding the route will not be created. Will this be the approach that is taken in respect of golf courses?
I realise that I forgot to declare my interests. I am a member of the British Mountaineering Council and its access, conservation and environment group. I am also a member of the Open Spaces Society, as well as its vice-president.
While I am on my feet, I entirely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, about the points that she made about litter. The amount of litter that people spread everywhere nowadays is appalling. The amount of litter on mountains is appalling, as is the amount of litter even on crags, which must in many cases come from climbers. That is why from time to time the BMC organises teams of volunteers to do crag clean-ups. It is a curse of this age, with which we all ought to be completely obsessed until we stamp it out.
Perhaps I may respond to one point with something of an anecdotal nature. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, does not necessarily have to blame climbers, because when I was once sitting on the top of Ben Lomond a piece of rubbish blew past me. I sat there for another 10 minutes and it blew past me again. It was going round and round.
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken and for the volley of questions to which I am meant to produce a response—presumably before 7 pm, as the Committee will not continue for much longer than that. I am not entirely surprised, as we will all recall our extensive discussions on these important issues regarding the coastal path during the passage of the Bill. I am keen to commend the order but I also wish to provide reassurance on the points that have been raised about the consultation that will take place and the decisions that will need to be taken before the construction of the coastal path is achieved in any significant dimension. I emphasise that the creation of the path will involve a process of consultation and, therefore, judgment will be exercised by Natural England, taking into account all those factors that have caused anxiety.
I take first the most obvious point. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, asked what will happen when the coastal path goes through ploughed land. We would not expect the extensive provision and width that will apply to aspects of the path when it causes no inconvenience to anyone and does not adversely affect farmland. The narrowest definition of the path would obtain in the circumstances that the noble Lord mentions. We have indicated that greater breadth might occur elsewhere, where local interests are readily reconciled to that extra dimension. It is clear that, in order to realise the concept of the coastal path, Natural England will seek to pursue a path as close as possible to the coast, as the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, emphasised. However, we all recognise the number of issues that manifestly need to be taken into account. Much of today’s discussion can be summed up against the background that, before decisions are arrived at, full consultation will have taken place and Natural England will have regard to such factors. That will be the situation with regard to ploughed land.
The noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, spoke with great authority about golf courses, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, and the noble Lord, Lord Taylor. I have some experience of golf courses and seaside courses in particular. I know that the issues raised by noble Lords are interesting and significant, but many golf courses already tackle such issues with the minimum amount of difficulty. A large number of golf courses include private rights of way. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, is absolutely right to say that nothing at all in this order, or the Act from which it derives, in any way subverts, destroys or ends the rights that already obtain through historical factors and the exigencies of existing provision.
Those who play on golf courses often have to cope with such a situation and they do so with a degree of consideration. Also, the normal law of negligence will apply in these circumstances, although it will depend on the facts of the case as to whether a court decides that the golfer owed a duty of care to the walker and whether the danger was foreseeable. Most golfers are all too well aware of the dangers and many of them take out their own insurance. Most golf clubs whose courses have rights of access for the public insure all their members against any potential danger. In fact, they do so even when there are no rights of access. If a road adjoined a course, a stray golf ball could cause an accident and I assure noble Lords that a club would be singularly ill advised if it did not have insurance in those circumstances.
I do not think that the coastal path creates anything new. It may affect new areas but, following the concept of how golfers live with members of the public who have a right of way, there is nothing novel in this situation. The normal law of the land applies and people have to act with consideration where propelling a golf ball at considerable speed creates risks for those who are within range. Those are the inevitable facts of that pursuit, to which some of us are drawn for reasons that we would not dare to go into in rational company. I give way to the noble Baroness. She is concerned about the land.
No, I simply seek clarification. I thought that I heard the Minister say that, where there are existing arrangements, there will be no changes. Did I misunderstand him?
Golf clubs manage to deal with rights of way and with members of the public going across their courses, so there is nothing intrinsically new about the coastal path; it does not create a new issue with regard to the law. The natural law of care and concern and the absence of negligence must obtain. A golfer must have some regard to those who are on the path and, by the same token, people on the path are not meant to put themselves into absurd jeopardy with regard to the golfers.
The noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, said, I think, that 137 golf courses have a coastal element to them. I do not know how many golf courses have rights of way but very many do. I could not possibly give the number but I can say that accidents are few and far between. Under the law of the land, proper conduct is necessary so that people are not put at risk. I am simply saying that golf courses cope with rights of way now and I cannot think of any reason why they should fail to cope with regard to the coastal path. Golf courses are different—of course I understand that—but the same features obtain.
I am sorry to come back on this and I trust that I am not nit-picking. I was simply asking the noble Lord to confirm that, where areas are already agreed, the situation will not change. I was not arguing about insurance and so on but asking about the situation where the public already have access. Is the new coastal access path likely to change the arrangements that already exist on the golf courses concerned?
It depends where the path goes in relation to the golf course. I freely admit that the coastal path will affect some golf courses that are currently by the sea and have no public rights of way across them; that is bound to be the case. Natural England will consult the golf course owners about this and there will be discussions about it. Just as in the assurance that I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, with regard to ploughed land, on land where the public may face some kind of danger because of a legitimate pursuit on land alongside it, the path will be at its narrowest definition. The golf course will have to adjust to the fact that the path goes across its land, as all golf courses that have public rights of way adjust and provide the necessary arrangements at present. The practice is carried out with accidents being few and far between. We have to rely on good sense prevailing in those circumstances.
I am reassured to hear the Minister say that he considers that on golf courses the path will have its narrowest definition. Under the Bill at the moment, even with existing rights of way, the whole golf course might be added to the existing right of way as a form of access land. The question is what will be allowed as a definable boundary. Would it have to be something physical and impenetrable or just something visible?
Even on the most extensive golf course by the sea, even if it is linear, there could be only two or three holes that would be affected by a narrow path—the narrow definition of the right of way—proceeding along the coastline and along the course. Those circumstances have nothing to do with the other holes, but I recognise that the path being there, affecting those two or three holes, creates an issue. However, that already obtains with so many courses that I do not think that the coastal path raises anything different in law, in terms of anxiety and public concern, from what obtains at present.
The other significant area that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, raised—he was ably supported in this by others who contributed to the debate—was the issue of dogs. I emphasise that it will be important that we have an effective communications strategy for dog owners so that they are aware of their rights and responsibilities. There is no doubt that in certain circumstances, as we all know, dogs can have a serious effect in the countryside; that is why we have a clear definition of the law about where farm animals graze. We accept that there should be a general restriction requiring the keeper of a dog to keep the dog under effective control.
We set out in the order the sort of actions required of any person in effective control of a dog and exercising the right of access to coastal land. The requirements where a person may be considered to be keeping a dog under effective control are that the keeper of a dog keeps the dog on the relevant access land—after all, it is only that land that is available to the owner and therefore to the dog—and keeps the dog on a lead or keeps it in sight, remains aware of its actions and is reasonably confident that the dog will return reliably and promptly on command. In other words, the dog owner is responsible for the dog. In fact, we expect within that framework that people will act responsibly and will know, whenever they are going along the coastal path, that it will be necessary for dogs to be under control.
Natural England will be able to restrict dogs to leads or exclude dogs for land management or nature conservation reasons on coastal land. It may be, after all, that a dog would be a severe disturbance in a nature conservation area, so Natural England may say that in such an area it is not prepared to allow dogs on the coastal path. This is all part of the necessary consultation. Natural England is guided by the major priority of creating a coastal path that goes around England. By the same token, it has to take into account a range of other interests. If it is dealing with an area of the environment where a dog would be a severe disturbance to wildlife or would give rise to any other aspects of disturbance that an animal might create, it will be up to it to impose a prohibition if necessary.
A number of other issues were raised. On the question of dunes, to which the noble Lord referred, and other areas where it might be possible to walk but which will have to be looked at with care because of the topography, again I make the obvious point that Natural England will have regard to that topography. If the path can be established in a permanent form that does no damage to an area and its features, that will be done. If, as the noble Lord seemed to suggest, this was not possible on a long-run perspective or even a perspective over several years—for instance, if the coastal path was defined on somewhat shifting sands and changing topography—we would expect Natural England, for obvious reasons, to take account of that fact and for the path not to pursue that course.
The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, asked whether the path would be at the bottom or the top of a cliff. It is not going to be on the top of a cliff that is subject to erosion such that within a matter of a year or two of being defined it becomes inherently dangerous. There are some parts of East Anglia where the erosion is so rapid that the most considerable care would have to be taken.
I wish to make it clear that, when I was talking about the top or the bottom of a cliff, I was referring to the landward boundary of the coastal margin and not about the line of the path.
I understood that, but the noble Lord will forgive me if I talk first about the top of the cliff. After all, he expressed the view that, on the whole, that is the preferable location for the coastal path. All sensible people in certain parts of the country will agree with him because it is from the cliff top that views over the sea and inland can be experienced. We can all call to mind areas where that may not be possible or safe and where the path should be at the bottom. That is unlikely in areas of erosion because the waterside is unlikely to be much safer than the top of the cliff.
We are asking a body with a real sense of responsibility to create this path, to consult local interests and to take into account the factors articulated in the passage of the Bill on which assurances were given. I hope that the Committee will accept that that is how we expect Natural England to respond.
We do not regard the issue of privacy in this legislation in quite the same way as we regarded it with CROW. In that Act, we were concerned with a great many inland areas where it was anticipated that one could state right of access to the land without necessarily going too close to a dwelling, so privacy could easily be protected. It is more difficult with a coastal path, because dwellings are likely to be closer to where the path is obliged to go along the edge of the land. Natural England will seek to avoid locating the route where there could be an adverse impact on property.
In the same way, where the route might be quite wide when it approaches a campsite or, in particular, a caravan site that has some permanence to it—I know some campsites have permanence but noble Lords have raised the issue of caravan sites—if the path does not circumnavigate the caravan site and it is only practicable for it to go through the site, the path will be narrowly defined. The noble Baroness talked about access, but the coastal path does not create a fresh problem of access to a caravan site or campsite. After all, by definition, these areas are not bounded or encased in huge steel fences and owners and proprietors therefore take responsibility for access. However, if the path goes through a caravan site, it will be at its narrowest definition at that point. By the same token, assurance will be expected to be given that dogs are kept on leads, as well as all the other factors that ensure that walkers meet their obligations.
I am sure that I have not been able to respond in full to a number of other issues, but this has been a fairly long debate. It has not been as long as the debates that we had on the Bill, but it has been pretty extensive. I hope that noble Lords will accept that the order gives effect to an Act that commanded widespread support throughout the House. We all expressed the extent to which we could see benefit arising from the coastal path. It is quite clear that the obligations on Natural England are substantial. It concluded its consultation on the draft scheme last week. It is now looking at all the responses and we expect the final scheme to be submitted to the Secretary of State as soon as its analysis is complete. We will then know the terms under which Natural England envisages giving effect to the proposals.
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way and for the way in which he has dealt with the various points raised. He said that a lot of questions were asked. I hope that if, on examining the record, he feels that he can add to those points that he has not been able to cover in his principal contribution to the discussion, he will write to those of us who participated. It has been useful to have on the record some definitions of what this complex statutory instrument provides for. I should be grateful if the Minister agreed to that.
Well, of course, my Lords. The noble Lord has given me the chance to note that I did not say anything about litter, an issue that the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, raised. I make the obvious point that litter, as the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said, is a curse of our contemporary society. We all know the terrible damage that it does to areas of scenic beauty. We are bound to anticipate that, on a coastal path of several hundreds of miles, litter problems will occur from time and time and in certain places. The only two solutions to the problem of litter are, first, that those responsible for clearing it up take their duties seriously—but we all know how difficult that is in remote areas such as the coastal path—and, secondly and most crucially, that the public are educated to the obvious fact that they should not destroy the very beauty that they have come to appreciate by being on the coastal path in the first place.
I am grateful for the debate. I had a number of commendatory things to say about the order’s relationship with the Act, but noble Lords have ensured that we have explored those in considerable detail. I shall of course ensure that a full letter is sent to all noble Lords who have participated covering those points that I regret I was unable to deal with.
Motion agreed.