Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL]

Clause 2: General objective Amendment 21 21: Clause 2, page 2, line 2, leave out subsection (1) and insert— ““(1) The MMO’s general objective is the promotion of sustainable development of the marine environment. (1A) It is the duty of the MMO to secure that the general objective is so exercised that the carrying on of activities by persons in the MMO’s area is managed, regulated or controlled in a manner which is consistent and co-ordinated (see subsection (2)).”” I believe that my amendments in this group do much the same as those tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. There is a major point of difference between the Government and the Opposition on this issue, and it is perhaps unfortunate that we are dealing with it at this time of night because I know that a number of noble Lords are interested in the outcome of this debate. Both I and, it appears, the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, feel that the current drafting, in which the MMO is tasked with, "““making a contribution to the achievement of sustainable development””," is inadequate. Making a contribution is not enough. My Amendment 21 would seek to make the promotion of sustainable development the general and overriding duty of the MMO. We and many stakeholders in this area feel that there needs to be a clear and unambiguous statement that the management of the marine environment should be towards that end. This Bill was introduced in your Lordships’ House with the claim that it heralds the start of genuine progress in the management of our seas. That is good but if, as the generalised wording of the clause suggests, the Government have such a low expectation of the MMO, I have great concern over whether any real progress will be made. The lack of positive edge in the current drafting suggests that we could be looking at just another addition to the already excessive numbers of quangos that have proliferated under this Government. If the MMO is unable to make a difference in this sector, why do we need another body? The Bill needs to make it clear that the MMO is intended to, can and will make a difference.I hope that I have made clear our perception of the MMO’s role. Our amendments would put our views into the Bill to ensure that the MMO is empowered and acts with authority across its responsibilities. My Amendment 47, to which I am also speaking in this group, would leave the duty of consistency and co-ordination untouched. Ensuring that the management of the seas is consistent and co-ordinated is of great importance. The marine environment is an interlinked ecosystem, as the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, makes clear. Good policies in one area could be made useless by a lack of co-ordination with another area. Consistency will also reduce the cost and bureaucratic delays currently weighing on those who seek to apply for various licences. With a clear and universal system across the MMO’s area, the greater efficiency will also benefit the marine environment. Finally, my third amendment in this group suggests a definition for ““sustainable development””, as does that of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. My amendment was suggested by the British Wind Energy Association and the noble Lord’s amendment by an alternative stakeholder. I do not suggest that Amendment 181 is better than Amendment 180. Indeed, there are great merits in the noble Lord’s alternative. By tabling my amendment I was hoping to highlight the continuing debate over just what sustainable development means. Without a proper understanding of what the Government want to achieve, it will be no surprise to find that many organisations expected to work towards its achievement will be working at cross purposes with each other. I do not agree with giving the natural environment a statutory priority, as suggested in the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Young. Our later amendments show that we believe that the MMO will have to represent a very broad range of interests of which the natural environment is of course an important one; but to give it priority would turn the MMO into yet another conservation body rather than the overarching management body that we are seeking to establish The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, also raises an interesting and commendable question in Amendment 49. We will go into greater detail about the many issues we think the MMO should rightly have regard to when my noble friend the Duke of Montrose discusses Amendment 33. Climate change is obviously one of those issues, an issue which we have included in similar wording in that amendment. I will not try to anticipate what my noble friend will say on that group, but climate change should of course be considered. The current drafting raises the question of why the Government envisage the MMO only, ““making a contribution to the achievement of sustainable development””. From what the Minister has said so far in Committee, the MMO is to be the one-stop shop for managing all marine activities. With all its power, if it is still unable to have a leading rather than a contributory role in the achievement of sustainable development, I do not have great hopes of seeing a change for the better any time soon. I beg to move.