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

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.