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

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?