---

Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL]

This small group of amendments is intended to probe the question of liability around the coastal route. I am afraid that I might also drag the following Clause 296 into my remarks, and I hope that your Lordships will forgive the lack of an amendment tabled in my name addressing it. As I understand it, Clause 295 means that Natural England is not liable for any injury that a member of the public may incur along the route, unless that injury was predicted in a representation or request for a restriction or exclusion by someone with a relevant interest in the land. That is in contrast to Clause 296 where the occupier remains liable in much wider circumstances. That does not seem fair. Why should Natural England and, indeed, the Secretary of State be able to shrug off any responsibility for the public when the owner cannot? Clause 296 is an improvement on what went on before in the CROW Act. At least the owner is not to be held responsible by a member of the public falling off a stile as is the case on CROW land. The difference in liability between Clauses 295 and 296 is considerable. What makes it worse is that the owner’s liability extends to members of the public walking across coastal margins, not just the coastal route. We have already had some discussion about how members of the public should be able to expose themselves to risk if they choose, and that Natural England need not regard their safety when establishing limits of the coastal margin. Here it appears that the owner is still to be held responsible even in this area. I beg to move.