Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL]

My Lords, I should declare that I have been a member of the BASC, the Salmon and Trout Association and the Game Conservancy Trust among others and I am a former councillor. This has been an excellent debate. I should like to thank all those who have contributed. It is good to see that nearly half the contributions have come from these Benches. This is the second Bill this year that I have been involved in that has had the benefit of pre-legislative scrutiny by a Joint Committee. I should like to add my voice to the many to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, and his committee on their excellent report. I agree with my noble friend Lord Geddes that it would have been preferable, if not courteous, to have heard the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, higher up in the pecking order. What he had to say was of great interest to this House. I was particularly interested in what he had to say about coastal access, but I will come back to that later. As my noble friend Lord Taylor has said, the Bill is extremely thin on detail, in places deficient. Indeed, one could go further and say that it appears to give the fewest possible restrictions on anything the Government might choose to do in future, or on anybody who might be given the delegated powers. The Government have declared their intention to make everything clear in a blizzard of orders, guidance and memoranda of understanding, which will follow at some unspecified date in the future. This suggests to me that, after years of talking about their commitment to marine conservation, the Government still do not know the answers. Are they really expecting this House to give them these enormous powers without some better idea of what they intend to do with them? We will have to tease out their intentions in Committee. All of us, on all sides of the House, are desperately keen for a sensible marine policy that will promote sustainable development over all UK waters. However, there has been precious little indication that the Government are yet in a position to deliver that. As has become clear in this debate, so much of the Bill is unclear. We will have a very full Committee stage seeking answers to our many questions. There are fundamental questions about the role of the Marine Management Organisation. Two government organisations have likened it to a ““champion of the UK seas””—a powerful, scientifically rigorous body that could make a real difference—or possibly just as one more public body, well intentioned but powerless to make headway against the myriad special interests that dominate this sector. Surely we already have enough quangos involved in this area. At the moment, the outcome rests entirely on the guidance that the Secretary of State may, or may not, produce. That is unacceptable. There need to be strong and clear duties in the Bill. The promotion of sustainable development needs to be the overarching duty and needs to be clearly defined. The MMO’s relationship with European, international and other UK bodies needs to be clarified. The Joint Committee report listed a bewildering array of bodies where there will be unclear and overlapping remits. If the Minister is unable to say how he intends the system to work, how can he expect effective memorandums of understanding to be drawn up? The relationship with the Infrastructure Planning Committee was touched on when the Planning Act proceeded through this House last Session. We will certainly return to this in Committee. I was particularly interested in the contribution of my noble friend Lady Byford when she highlighted the possible conflict of this Bill with other legislation, namely the Planning and Energy Acts, and which should prevail. However, where it is clear that the MMO is the boss, safeguards must be written in to ensure a proper system of consultation. The MMO must also be suitably advised. Does the Minister intend to ensure that there are sufficient resources for a scientific advisory panel? Consultation and clear relationships will also be needed when it comes to the devolved powers. It would be ridiculous for the MMO to establish marine policy up to the border with Scotland, only for an entirely inconsistent policy to be continued from there on, as ably argued by my noble friend the Duke of Montrose. I have no doubt that these devolved matters will be discussed at length at later stages of the Bill. There is a need for compatibility and co-operation with the devolved powers, not only with Scotland but also with Wales, as argued by my noble friend Lord Glentoran, whose future contributions will also be invaluable when it comes to Ireland. The marine planning statements are another part of the Bill where detailed questions need to be asked. I understand that the Minister was seeking to have as much consistency as possible between this Bill and the Planning Act, in that there will be parliamentary scrutiny of the statements, which is reassuring. However, questions remain over the timetable of the statements. We hope that will happen as soon as possible as so many other provisions appear to hang on them. Once again, there is a remarkable lack of clarity as to their compatibility with the devolved equivalents. On marine plans, we shall be looking carefully to ensure that they cover the entirety of the UK's seas, not just one or two experimental plans. There appears to be no timetable for the production of these plans. The compatibility between the plans and their neighbours, both across national and local boundaries, will be critical. There seems to be no exploration of the interaction between the various neighbourhood plans, both marine and land-based. On marine conservation zones, once again there is no clarity on whether there will be management plans or, if there is a management structure, who will designate them, and on what grounds. Will it be the MMO or another body? If another body, will it have the necessary marine scientific expertise, and how on earth will the enormous overlaps of responsibility be handled? What will be the MMO’s role? How long will it take before the zones are set up, and will the Government set up a scheme once and for all, or will the system be constantly added to? The body that is given the responsibility for designating these zones has a very difficult task ahead of it. My noble friend Lord Geddes talked about the practicalities of balancing the needs of shipping with the aims of protective zones and the need actively to mark the zone boundaries. New restrictions are never popular and I hope that there will be a suitable system of consultation and stakeholder involvement to ensure that those who use the sea are able to contribute to the protection of it, from anglers to sailors and from fishermen to commerce. My noble friend Lord Shrewsbury talked of the need for zones to protect sand eels and their valuable role in the maritime food chain, to name but one interested party. Decisions must clearly be made on proper scientific evidence. It is even unclear what zones are being contemplated. Are we talking about a network of no-take zones seeking to protect fish stocks, flora and fauna and aggregates? A network is certainly needed and we are glad to see it is one of the few things specifically referred to in the legislation. But why are we not looking at setting up a flexible and dynamic system of zones that can encompass all sorts of sites worthy of all sorts of protection, in addition to a network? Here I have in mind zones set up to protect our maritime heritage, whether of cultural, historical or architectural interest, as so ably argued by my noble friend Lady Hooper. These zones will certainly need periodic review, not just on a national level, with the appropriate parliamentary scrutiny, but also on a local level. There must be allowance for the adjustment of zones that are not achieving what they were intended to, for small adjustments or even for the decision that the matter needing to be conserved is out of danger and restrictions can be limited or lifted. There is also a great deal of confusion over where the zones will or can be set out. It is clear from the Scottish Parliament’s briefings that it considers anything up to 200 miles fair game, but this confidence does not seem to be shared by the Government. Will the Minister explain the legal powers that the UK Government have to impose restrictions in the seas between six and 12 miles and between 12 and 200 miles? How will the zone restrictions be enforced? Will they be subjected to a strategic environmental assessment? Finally, I should like to turn to coastal access. As my noble friend Lord Taylor said, we support the principle. Our concern is, once again, that of feasibility. The implementation of the CROW Act has given us a good idea of some dangers and pitfalls that need to be avoided. For example, the lack of proper consultation in establishing the CROW Act led to numerous appeals—more than 3,000, I believe—with all the associated cost and delay. It is extraordinary that the Government have decided that the solution is to abolish the right of appeal. We would like to ensure a proper consultation and the statutory involvement of local authorities. This would ensure that the number of appeals is greatly reduced. Disputes will always happen unless a procedure is established whereby a fair balance is struck between private and public interests. I hope that my noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu will feel able to contribute to the Committee stage. He demonstrates his ability to balance having 100,000 visitors to his lovely estate with managing its magical wildlife habitat. In the same vein, I am sure that the experience of my noble friend Lord Cavendish in Morecambe Bay, and with sand eels, will bring a valuable contribution to this Bill at a later stage. There are many possible points of dispute. The route of the path is only one, although it will be one of the trickiest. There is also the need to avoid certain sites because of danger to the public, such as MoD land, industrial sites, mudflats and salt marshes, or because of damage to the environment such as nature reserves, or because of private rights, such as people’s gardens or parks—an already contentious area, especially when you consider spreading them. Will the path, or alternative paths, be mapped clearly, showing the spreading room? The use of the path has already been questioned. Will it be footpath only? Will horse use be voluntary or compulsory on parts of the path? Will that make those parts of the path a bridleway, with all the accompanying problems of motorbikes, quad bikes and 4x4s? What about dogs? There are no doubt many other matters, but I will stop there. I have tried to highlight some of the issues that we think will need change or clarification. There are many that I have not had time to touch on. No doubt, they will all be discussed in Committee. I look forward to the Minister’s response.