Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL]

My Lords, for me, it is a case of, ““New readers, start here””, as it is clear that many noble Lords have contributed substantially to this Bill. I am no expert in marine matters, although my noble friend on the Front Bench reminded me that I should declare an interest as I live on—or by—the tidal Thames. Like others, I am a veteran or survivor of the CROW Act, and more recently of the Planning Act—I cannot quite get my head around the fact that that is no longer a Bill. This Bill raises many points of principle, as well as connections with that earlier legislation. I was thinking a few days ago how I might start this speech, and thought, we are an island and a seafaring nation. But my roots are not in that, and I suspect that many noble Lords have roots that are not those of the old British bulldog caricature of our nation. Our nation has changed. Certainly, it is one that holds property interests dear, as we saw from the Countryside and Rights of Way Act. Perhaps the most interesting philosophical issues are those that arise from the notion of sustainability and its component parts. Almost every briefing that we have mentions the clause providing that regard must be had to economic and social consequences when considering the designation of a marine conservation area. It is clear to me that that does not give equal weight to the three component parts, but I wonder how far it is possible to legislate for a precise and unchanging balance, not least because society’s standards, expectations and aspirations change. Sometimes that means a particular duty on Parliament—usually the Government or maybe a quango—to give weight to issues that do not have the loudest voices clamouring for them. I hesitate to say this, with a geographer on my Front Bench, but external conditions also change. We hear about the possibility of the Gulf Stream moving, which would have major implications for the seas as well as the land. None of that means that I will not support a duty to promote sustainable development where it is necessary. The Government were right in the then Planning Bill to put climate change in the context of sustainable development. However, I know that not everyone shares that view. I am sure that we will debate this issue, not least because of the renewable energy targets. Another philosophical issue arises from Part 9. The briefings that we have had made much of the dangers to walkers from mud flats and salt marshes. I have no doubt that there are dangers, but should they defeat the objective of access to the coast? Do we want to be such nannies that we cannot leave it to walkers to assess the risks? Risk is a matter that, until recently, we have not talked much about, and something that people of my generation were never trained to assess. It would be dangerous if the Bill gave the message that access means that a route is approved for holiday strollers in flip-flops. A greater difficulty that has already been alluded to is ““access to the access””—in other words, routes from inland to the coast. We must ensure appropriate safeguards. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, said that we would have to watch ““like a hawk””. I do not know whether she realised what she had said: no other noble Lord appeared to register it, but noble Lords are expert at keeping straight faces. There are many resonances for those of us, both inside and outside Parliament, who considered the Planning Bill; for example, in the creation of marine policy statements and how they would fit in with national policy statements. The noble Baroness rightly said that we had to consider the sea as a whole, not in separate precious little parts that might tick boxes in some people’s minds. Clauses on the marine policy statement consultation say that the marine plan must conform with the MPS, "““unless relevant considerations indicate otherwise””." That is less than strict conformity with the MPS. Presumably it is less than general conformity. What is a ““relevant consideration””? One clause is headed ““Relevant matters””, but I am not sure whether those are the same things. In normal life, a relevant consideration would be cost, and, as always, resource issues arise from the Bill. I am also intrigued by the interaction between the Marine Management Organisation and the Infrastructure Planning Commission. I expect that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, is armed with a list of assurances given by the Government during the passage of the Planning Bill. I am unclear, no doubt because of a lack of preparation on my part, about responsibilities for what the non-technical among us would call beaches—the bit between the land and sea—and about the responsibilities and conditions for licensing. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, referred to land-based pollution. I need to do a great deal more work to understand how all the responsibilities fit together. Those of us who felt strongly about the accountability issues that arose in consideration of the Planning Bill will, I am sure, find issues in this Bill, too. However, given the level of support for the Bill, the responsibility of this House is to get it right; not to discard the work that has been done, but to use it as a basis to tease out unresolved issues.