Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL]

I shall refer briefly to Amendment 28A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. I had not intended to speak on this group of amendments but I strongly endorse the point that she was making that there will be occasions where, frankly, the various objectives will be irreconcilable. It is important that in those circumstances there is some sense of priority. I speak from practical experience: I was vice-chair of the National Parks Committee in the 1960s when, although it was implicit that conservation of the natural beauty and experience of the countryside was to be our top priority, it was never explicit in the legislation. We had constant problems as a result. Between then and the 1980s, however, when I was a consultant to the Countryside Commission on national park policy, that changed. The National Parks Board in the 1980s and since has had a clearer hierarchy of priorities. It is critical that the MMO has that sense of priority, because no one else will. There will be plenty of other people fighting for causes that we are all aware of; there are competing claims, such as the fishing industry or the extractive industries, and other people will be able to fight the good fight on their behalf. However, only the MMO will have that sense of clear guidance—if it is in the Bill. Unless Clause 2 is specific, in the way that noble Lords on all sides of the Committee have been indicating in this debate, it will be difficult to have that sense of guidance. Also, the expectations of the many organisations that have campaigned for this legislation for many years now will not be met unless that sense of priority is built into the Bill. I strongly support the noble Baroness’s amendment.