---

Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL]

I will also speak to Amendments A333 to A336. All the amendments in this group deal with alternative routes where, for different reasons, the usual route is not usable or is banned from being used and there has to be an alternative route provided, which in most cases will obviously be further inland. Amendment A331 deals with proposed new Section 55C, which is about alternative routes. Subsection (2) states: ""The report may include, in relation to the route (‘the ordinary route’) or any part of it, a proposal under subsection (3) or (4)"." This is a proposal for an alternative route which is to operate as a diversion. Amendment A331 says that, where there is a blockage of the route for whatever reason, there has to be an alternative route. The Bill says that it "may" include proposals for an alternative route. The amendment says that that must be the case where appropriate. It may be semantics or it may be an important point. Amendment A333 probes the question of proposals for an alternative route under proposed new Section 55C(3), ""which is to operate as a diversion from the ordinary route, or part of it, during one or both of the following—""(a) any specified period (or periods), and""(b) any period during which access to the ordinary route … is excluded by reason of a direction under Chapter 2 of Part 1 of the CROW Act (exclusion or restriction of access)"." The second part of that is fairly clear and obvious but the first part is not. "Any specified period or periods" is a very general and vague phrase. The purpose of the amendment is to probe what it means. It is linked to Amendment A336, which takes out subsection (5), again for the purpose of probing it to understand what it means. It says: ""In subsection 3(a) ‘specified’ means—""(a)specified in, or determined in accordance with, the proposal, or""(b) determined in accordance with the proposal by—""(i) a person specified in a proposal or""(ii) a person determined in accordance with the proposal, details of whom are notified to Natural England in accordance with the proposal"." This is getting very close to being legislative gobbledegook. It took me a very long time to understand it, and I am not sure that I do now. The basic question underlying all this is: what kind of circumstances may apply where subsection (3)(a) closures may be brought into effect? Amendment A334 is intended specifically to bring in the question of ferries and to require an alternative route to be provided when ferries are not operating. At the moment the coastal path can be defined as including a journey by ferry. It specifically says it is a journey on foot, except where there is a ferry. As we have discussed, there are seasonal ferries, ferries which operate once or twice a day, ferries which operate every half hour, ferries which do not operate on Sundays, et cetera. This amendment would require an alternative route to be provided if the journey was blocked because a ferry was not operating for any substantial or reasonable period of time. Amendment A335 is about the provisions in proposed new Section 55C(4), which are optional alternatives. The subsection states: ""(4) A proposal under this subsection is a proposal for an alternative route which is to operate as an optional alternative to the ordinary route, or part, during any period for which the ordinary route, or part, might reasonably be regarded as unsuitable for use by reason of—""(a) flooding,""(b) the action of the tide,""(c) coastal erosion or encroachment by the sea, or""(d) the effect of any other geomorphological process"." I am glad to see that geomorphology appears again. This is to probe what is meant by, ""optional alternative to the ordinary route"." Are there optional alternatives at any time? Is there an alternative for people who do not want to go across land which might be liable to be flooded, even if it was not the flooding season, or for people who do not want to be caught by the tide, even if it is low tide and they could get across? What is an optional alternative? Is it an option that exists all the time, or does it exist only when either flooding is taking place, the tide is in or it is a particularly high tide, or there is coastal erosion or encroachment by the sea—I am not sure that coastal erosion should be here; that should be a permanent alternative, but never mind—or the effect of any other geomorphological process? I am not sure what such a process might be; I suppose it might be a landslide, if the route goes below cliffs that are liable to that kind of process. Is it a permanent option that exists all the time and the person walking along the coast decides whether or not to exercise it, or is the option decided by someone else who says, "Ey up, the tide’s in. Let’s put a sign up sending people around a different way"? This is quite important. In practice, if there is an optional route, it ought to be there all the time and people can then exercise their judgment about whether to go along the potentially dangerous route or to take the safe one. I beg to move.