Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL]

My Lords, we on these Benches are very happy that this Bill has finally seen the light of day. We have been calling for a comprehensive marine Bill for many years; it is long overdue. Prime Minister Blair first talked of the need for this legislation way back in 2001 and almost every year since there have been further announcements or publications, as I pointed out last week in the debate on the gracious Speech. It is remarkable though that, despite the many years the Government have been apparently thinking about this, what we are dealing with here is far too flimsy. It is full of outline but lacks definition at critical points. The Bill has been described to me as a framework. That is a euphemism on a scale rarely heard even in your Lordships’ House. I might say that it is a pretty rickety framework. I would describe it, at most, as a collection of large but undefined powers, backed up by a lot of optimism that, given these powers, the various bodies involved will somehow work it all out. That is not good enough. The marine environment faces challenges from every side. The conservation issues alone are enormous, but are certainly not the only factors to be considered. The sea is a much loved resource for millions of people who spend their leisure time on or near it, whether sailing or angling. The coast is no further than 70 miles from anywhere in the country. It is no surprise to find that so many spend their leisure time there, whether walking, wildfowling, sitting on the beach or swimming. We need to ensure that the Bill reflects the importance of fishing and proper fisheries management. The marine environment is also critical for UK industry. It will be one of the most important factors in whether we meet our 2020 target on renewable energy. Much of the British economy depends on shipping for transporting goods all around the world. The Government have said that they intend the Marine Management Organisation, which the Bill creates, to be the primary delivery body for managing the marine environment. However, they have not provided for that authority in the Bill. The current, "““objective of making a contribution to the achievement of sustainable development””," is far too vague and passive. On these Benches, we feel that there should be a straightforward duty to promote sustainable development, with a clear definition of what is meant by it. Without a guiding principle, the MMO will be like a rudderless ship—capable of a great journey, but going nowhere. There should also be some appreciation of the many interests the marine environment must reconcile. Why is there no mention of the need to protect the diversity of marine flora and fauna, or to help attain the 2020 renewables target, or to ensure the continuing enjoyment of the sea by the public? There will be much debate in Committee about what the duties of the MMO should be. However, I hope that when the Bill leaves this House there will be much less confusion and concern over this point. There is already a great deal of confusion and concern over whether the Government will actually allow the MMO fully to develop its potential. I assumed, when reading the Bill for the first time, that the MMO was to play a leading role in marine planning in Part 3, marine licensing in Part 4 and certainly in nature conservation in Part 5. However, further discussions have led to the possibility that the Government have already decided that one or more of these parts is to be carved out of the MMO's remit and given to another body. Do the Government intend the MMO to be the primary delivery body? Does the Minister not think that, given the difficulty of reconciling the very different interests of so many stakeholders, it would be much better for one impartial body, with a clear duty to promote sustainable development, to be that overseer? A bewildering array of other bodies is already in existence that must have a role. The Bill is particularly silent on that point too. There is a remarkable lack of detail about who should be consulted at what point and how overlapping responsibilities and conflicts of opinion should be handled. It is key that the Bill should recognise and provide for reconciliation of conflicts of interest. Certain relationships stand out as being particularly important; for example, the role of the Infrastructure Planning Commission in marine planning, or the role that Defra will play beyond the initial marine policy statements. These certainly need to be spelt out to a much greater extent. Relationships between the countless local authorities and stakeholders will also be critical and it is here that the question of success or failure will be decided. We simply cannot leave it until the last minute to decide how complex interactions between regional marine plans, marine conservation zones and established authorities will work. Ensuring a good working relationship between these bodies will deliver a much greater degree of buy-in and compliance than would otherwise be possible. It will also be critical for the necessary consistency and co-ordination around the UK. Nowhere in the Bill can I find any safeguards to ensure that these measures will be implemented universally. There is nothing to establish that the marine plans extend completely across the UK seas. There are no provisions to establish what will happen at the boundaries between different authorities. There is not even a system for ensuring compatibility between what is being done on the sea and what is being done on the land. That lack of detail is not just apparent at the local level. The Bill also contains some very powerful devolution provisions, and yet there is nothing to ensure that the devolved plans and policies are in any way consistent with each other. Of course, we all hope that everyone will develop effective and efficient working relationships but we would be almost negligent if we were to let such important powers pass through this House without making every possible effort to ensure that that will be so. Many of my concerns over the first eight parts also apply to the ninth: coastal access. On these Benches we support the development of increased public access to the coast and will seek to ensure that these provisions guarantee the increased enjoyment of some of the most beautiful parts of the country. However, once again the Bill tries to wave a magic wand and declare, ““It is so””. The Efra committee warned quite rightly that, "““the Bill places so much emphasis on simply trusting Natural England to ‘get it right’””." Why have the Government chosen to give the job of deciding the route to Natural England when local authorities already have experience of adjudicating on footpaths? The attempts of the Bill to identify the many obstacles the route is going to run into, from eroding cliffs, to estuaries and military land, shows just how complicated some of the decisions will be. Excluding local authorities from a formal and influential role will also deny the route the necessary infrastructure to turn it from an expensive quirk that is used only by the extremely determined to a national resource that provides enjoyment for many. How will the route operate without sensible access roads, adequate parking, and co-ordinated public transport, and how can these be provided except by proper involvement of the authority responsible for them? I am confident that local authorities have the expertise, the local knowledge and contacts and therefore a better chance of overcoming many of the practical difficulties of establishing the line of the path and achieving ““buy-in”” at a local level. They should be charged in the Bill with delivering the plans for Natural England to co-ordinate and present to the Secretary of State. The Government have also decided, against so much advice, to avoid inserting a proper right of appeal. Let me be clear, we on these Benches do not consider a review by the Secretary of State to be a proper appeal. I should be interested to hear the Minister’s reasons for excluding such a right. Maybe he decided that Natural England would never make a wrong or unpopular decision and no one would ever have a reason to complain, or maybe he decided that the history of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act shows that such decisions are likely to be frequent and the possibility of a similar rash of numerous and expensive appeals, as happened under CROW, is something best to be avoided. I remind the House that two-thirds of those appeals under CROW were successful. It is clear that the deciding authority frequently makes flawed decisions and in such cases there needs to be a way of putting it right. Would it not be better to set in place a system for deciding the route that enabled private interests genuinely to involve themselves in the development of the route and so reduce the number of unpopular decisions, and to ensure the backstop safeguard of a proper appeal in order to resolve the wrong decisions? As the Bill proceeds, we will be seeking to clarify where the Government envisage the all important line between the public and private interest will be placed. The question of what will be exempted is one that is already concerning many, and the inconsistent messages emanating from the department have made matters only worse. We want to make clear that we welcome the Bill. It addresses important issues for the future of our seas and coast. However, despite the scrutiny of a Joint Committee of both Houses—I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, on its report and his skilled chairmanship of that body—and the report on coastal access provision by the Efra Select Committee, the Government have chosen to ignore many of the recommendations. The Bill is the poorer for the unwillingness of the Government to listen to such authoritative criticism. It means that it will need the most thorough scrutiny by Parliament as it proceeds through its various stages. In this House, I am confident that such scrutiny will be given and that an important piece of legislation will be improved as a result.