Access to the Countryside (Coastal Margin) (England) Order 2010

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.