Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL]

I support my noble friend’s original amendment. The general objectives in the Bill are a little woolly, loose and not clearly defined. The words in Clause 2(1)(a), "““in a manner which is consistent and co-ordinated””," could mean many different things to different people. Those in Clause 2(1)(b), "““with the objective of making a contribution to the achievement of sustainable development””," could mean different things to people in different parts of the country, as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said. The MMO is faced with a difficult task. It is being asked to consider sustainable development, to accept the existing business and resource demands on the ocean and, at the same time, to protect and preserve the things that we want to preserve. Let us consider the fishing industry. We need to have fishing, but we do not want to over-fish or we will have no fishing industry. It is the same with plants and with species about which we do not know much. The amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Taylor is very specific. If the Minister is not able to accept it, I hope he will give it serious thought, as it is very important. At Second Reading, I also raised the interplay between different departments and the MMO and what demands would be made of it by different Acts. I hope that at this stage the Minister may be able to say a little more about that. I know that he and the committee recognised that the MMO can be successful only if it is reviewed by all departments, because so many departments will cut across the work that it is required to do. It will be faced with the question of where sustainability should have economic preference. The example of Lundy Island was given earlier. What is happening there is very exciting. When we come to later debates about areas and zones, we will go into more specifics. What worries me, and what worried me when I was on the Joint Committee, is that the Bill is a skeleton and a lot is due to come out in secondary legislation. My noble friend Lord Kingsland mentioned the question of scientific needs. I hope that he returns to that later. The Government's response to the committee’s suggestion that a subcommittee be established was, I think, that that would be left to the MMO. I respond: really? I thought that we as parliamentarians were supposed to set the ambit within which Bills work and that it is then for organisations, rather like our magistrates, to be faced with making judgments on what the law says. I fear that the Bill is very general and a little bit woolly, and I would like it to be much more clearly defined. I hope that, if the Minister is unable to accept my noble friend’s amendments, he will at least consider them, because we need greater clarification and direction. If he says, ““That is what the Government will give in guidance””, we do not have that guidance before us at the moment, so we cannot as parliamentarians make a judgment. It is up to us to insist that the Government should give us greater clarification. I will not respond to the other amendments in this group, but I strongly support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Taylor.