---

Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, both for his excellent contributions to our debates and for his kind words. I must immediately refer to my officials, who have worked very hard; I am glad that he has made those comments and I very much echo them. I am also grateful for his remarks on clause stand part, because in one sense they are a response to the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart. Essentially, he is posing the question of whether we got the balance right. I believe we have; I think it is a fair balance. As someone who worries about this country developing into a risk-averse society, I think that one of the most striking outcomes of the public consultation on improving access to the coast was the real concern to ensure that there would not be any action that would result in a loss of the sense of freedom and wildness which make our coastline so attractive. People do not want to see overly managed paths and a plethora of warning signs every few yards. Of course, the coast can present hazards in places—we know that. But the fact is that over 70 million visits are made to what is described as the "undeveloped coast" each year. The vast majority of these are without incident. Clearly, we do not want a risk-averse approach, but we do want to ensure that people do not unduly put themselves at risk. Clause 287 specifically requires Natural England and the Secretary of State to have regard to the safety and convenience of those using the English coastal route. The effect of the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, would be to remove subsections (1), (2) and (3) from Clause 295. They make it clear that no duty of care is owed by Natural England or anyone acting on its behalf under the law of negligence when preparing or proposing the coastal route. This is in connection with any failure by it to erect signs warning of hazards or to exclude or restrict access. The aim of this clause is to clarify the legal position. Without it, it would be up to the courts to decide whether it was appropriate to impose a duty of care in any given case. Apart from the risk-averse behaviour that that might lead to, we think it highly unlikely that the court would impose such a duty. But we do think it prudent to set out the position clearly on the face of the legislation. I believe that the approach we have set out in Clause 295 is measured; it reflects the position that many who responded to our public consultation wanted us to take. People must ultimately take responsibility for their own safety. We do not think it is appropriate or proportionate that Natural England or the Secretary of State should have a significant level of responsibility for accidents that may occur as a result of people choosing to use the new right of access to the coast. The noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, was quite right then to refer to Clause 296 and to ask whether we got the balance right. We think we do, and the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, made some very important points in relation to that. The CROW Act itself limited the liability of occupiers of access land to those exercising the right of access in respect of risks arising from natural features, subject to some safeguards. That is where the occupier has not acted intentionally or recklessly. Recognising that there are many more non-natural features on the coast than are likely to be on open country, the responses to public consultation supported reduced liability to be extended to include other, non-natural features. This clause provides for that reduced level of liability, subject to safeguards that the occupiers have not acted intentionally or recklessly. If, for example, a land owner or occupier has installed steps to a previously private beach for their own use, they would not, subject to safeguards which I have mentioned, be liable where a user of the right of access is injured using them. We think that the provision of reduced occupiers’ liability is part of the fair balance that this Bill strikes between the interests of the public in having rights of access and the interests of owners and occupiers. The reduced liability will benefit occupiers of coastal land where there is already access. We think it will minimise the burden where new access is created. These provisions have been widely welcomed by landowners and users alike, which suggests that we have the balance right here.