Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL]

I have Amendments 27, 46, 85, 89 and 180 in this group. The noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, half apologised for making what she said was a Second Reading speech. It was not that at all. It was absolutely pertinent to Clause 2, which is entitled ““General objective””. As she said, this is right at the heart of the Bill. It is clear that there is a great deal of disquiet around the Committee that so far what the Government have set out is not as satisfactory as it might be. In fact, it is unsatisfactory in two ways. First, to quote the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, it is a little woolly. I shall use slightly stronger language: it is weak and feeble. No matter what the role of the MMO is thought to be, it is set out here in a weak and feeble way. Secondly, my noble friend Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer and the noble Baroness, Lady Young, addressed more eloquently than I can the degree to which the MMO is an organisation which, when the chips are down, puts conservation first. It is clear that there are different views around the Committee, but a general view is that it needs strengthening, although there may be differences on the extent of that. I do not think that anyone will disagree that the primary purpose of the Bill is to put the seas around these islands into a much better state as regards eco-systems, biodiversity and marine environment. The general objective under Clause 2 is the main purpose for having this organisation and a new marine planning system and for bringing together all the marine licensing systems and regulations, but that is not done in a sufficiently satisfactory way. The Joint Committee suggested that the purpose of the Marine Management Organisation as set out in the Bill is ambiguous. We cannot let the Bill leave this House in an ambiguous state. Some people will go more for development, or perhaps sustainable development, and others will go more for conservation. Whatever we think the Bill should say, it should be set out much more clearly than it is. As noble Lords have pointed out, Clause 2 as it stands—setting out the general objective—really does not fit the Bill. No one disagrees with the fact that the functions of the MMO are clearly set out in the Bill. We might disagree about the way in which those functions are to be exercised, but we know that they cover marine planning, regulation and licensing. But the Bill says that the primary objective is the duty to ensure that those functions, "““are so exercised that the carrying on of activities by persons in the MMO’s area is managed, regulated or controlled—""(a) in a manner which is consistent and co-ordinated””—" Of course it should be, but that is a managerial point, not a primary function of a body. It does not say what the MMO should be consistent and co-ordinated about. The subsection goes on to provide that the functions are exercised, "““(b) with the objective of making a contribution to the achievement of sustainable development””." The Government point out rightly that it would be wrong to say that the objective of the organisation should be to achieve sustainable development. Putting in legislation aims that may or may not be achieved is never a good idea. They can be objectives, but to say that a body has to do something is unrealistic. Further, lots of other organisations working in the marine environment will affect whether sustainable development is achieved or the level is increased. The MMO cannot do this on its own, and that is absolutely right. But to use that excuse to say that all it has to do is make a contribution towards sustainable development is weak and, as the noble Baroness said, a little bit woolly. Other amendments in the group make the modest suggestion that the Bill should provide that the MMO will further the achievement of sustainable development by promoting it rather harder than simply making a contribution. If this clause is weak and feeble, managerial in tone and lacking in the broader vision and purpose we talked about earlier, what should it say? It should use stronger terms than ““making a contribution to””, so Amendments 27 and 46 provide other wording. Amendments 85 and 89 apply to later parts of the Bill in relation to the marine policy statement and marine plans. However, whatever wording is used, it ought to be consistent across the Bill. We could talk for ever about the question of defining sustainable development, but the Government have provided a definition in the United Kingdom sustainable development strategy which has the advantage that it can evolve over time and is not written into legislation. However, referring to it in legislation seems to be a convenient way of pinning it down. It may be that the definitions proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, are better, and these matters can be discussed. What is absolutely clear is that the commitment to sustainable development ought to be stronger than it is here. However, on its own, sustainable development is not enough. As the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said, there are occasions when we will not want any development, full stop. What will be wanted is a fairly draconian form of conservation. As my noble friend Lady Miller said, this area covers a spectrum of circumstances. It is not a question of having one policy to fit all the seas around Britain. That could not possibly work. It is more a matter of noting the circumstances of each marine locality and implementing the policies needed for that particular place. Some places will need pretty hard-line conservation. Other areas will clearly need development, which must be as sustainable as possible. Across the whole of the British seas there is a balance to be found. The Government will say that they always try to find the right balance whenever there is a problem. That is absolutely right across the whole of the British seas. There has to be a balance between the different aims, between different kinds of commercial activity, between energy, fishing, dredging and navigation, which is not really covered at all by the Bill. There has to be a balance between those and conservation objectives. Overall, whether we like it or not, the noble Baroness, Lady Young, is right. The condition of the British seas has to improve dramatically. If it does not dramatically improve, most of the other activities—or certainly many of the other economic and commercial activities—will not be viable. That, fundamentally, is why conservation has to come first overall, but it has to be balanced. Within each locality the policies will be quite different. You do not have to put conservation first everywhere. You do not have to put economic activities first everywhere. There is a kaleidoscope, a pattern of different activities that can take place within the seas around these shores. It is a matter of locality and scale. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that there are some places—more, perhaps, than some people would like—where conservation has to come first, no matter what the circumstances and consequences, because of the conditions in that area. There are many other areas where that is not the case at all, and you can choose. You can say that you want some conservation areas, but they might be somewhere else. There is a great role for planning in this area. What am I saying? First, the Marine Management Organisation must have a clear leadership role, and that is not set out in the Bill at the moment. Secondly, there has to be a strength of commitment to conservation, which is not set out in the Bill at this moment. Neither of these points is set out clearly in these objectives in Clause 2. The Government have said that the Bill is a world leader. It is the first Bill of this sort anywhere in the world or, perhaps, in Europe. That is a matter for congratulations, but unless it delivers what has been promised and what is expected, there will be deep disappointment. This is not to deny the social and economic objectives; it is simply to say that the fundamental purpose of the Bill is to improve dramatically the environmental and ecological condition of the British seas and sea bed. Unless the Government can put that in the Bill, everything else may turn out to be, in the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, ““just a little bit woolly””.