Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL]

As I was saying, I will not respond on Heathrow at all; that is way above my pay grade. No doubt we will come back to discuss it in due course. Indeed, given the Bill’s progress, it is quite possible we will have a decision on Heathrow before we come to the end of deliberations in your Lordships’ House. The fact is that the judgment that must be made on sustainable development should be the prime consideration. Of course the MMO will need to make each decision that it is called upon to make based on the available evidence, but that will be in line with its general objective and polices set out in the marine policy statement. As Members of the Committee have suggested, the weight that different policies are given may change over time as our understanding of human natural processes and needs, and their effect on us and each other, increases. The MMO will need to be flexible and adapt to difficult circumstances as they arise. Of course, determining where environmental consideration should take priority, or where social or economic matters should take precedence, must take place. Ultimately, however, a Government, accountable to Parliament, should make that decision. Part 3 of the Bill provides for a marine policy statement and a series of marine plans. These documents will determine what our priorities and objectives should be for any area of the sea at any given time. The use of the term, "““the promotion of sustainable development of the marine environment””," implies a new function for the MMO: pressing others to ensure that they carry out their functions in line with sustainable development principles. This takes us back to our debate on the first group of amendments. Of course, the MMO will be a highly responsible organisation. It will, as I have said, work on the basis of the best evidence available and have access to the best scientific advice it can get through its advisory board, staff it employs and my own department’s scientific resources as well as others. As the Bill says, we think that it is reasonable, appropriate and proportionate to say that the MMO’s role is to make a contribution in this regard. The definition of sustainable development is highly relevant to this issue. Noble Lords seek to define that term. The noble Lords, Lord Greaves and Lord Tyler, seek to insert in the Bill a reference to the UK’s sustainable development strategy. My answer to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, and the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, is that which the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, gave; namely, that our understanding of the concept of sustainable development has evolved over time and continues to evolve. We think that it would be unwise to attempt to define this term in primary legislation where it could remain fixed for many years to come. That is why we have taken a conscious decision not to define sustainable development in other UK legislation. Although I prayed in aid the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, in arguing against the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, that the same argument applies to his amendment. However brilliant the UK sustainable development strategy is, it is likely that the Marine and Coastal Access Act will outlive it. Who is to say that there will always be a policy document with that name? If the terminology changes, the reference could be confusing or become redundant. For that reason we are not keen on either of the amendments. The noble Lords, Lord Greaves and Lord Tyler, wish to require the MMO to have regard to the desirability of mitigating and adapting to climate change. I am entirely sympathetic with what they are seeking to do. I reassure them that the desirability of mitigating and adapting to climate change and the other issues listed in the amendment are among a large number of factors that will be taken into account in drawing up the marine policy statement. Noble Lords who enjoyed taking part in deliberations on the then Planning Bill will know that the Planning Act 2008 places certain duties on Ministers in relation to climate change when drawing up and designating national policy statements. Noble Lords will also be aware that the Climate Change Act 2008 sets legally binding targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the UK. To meet those targets the Government have to ensure that if a policy results in greenhouse gas emissions going up in one area, they must go down in another. We have to assess all new policies for their potential carbon impacts. Under the Act the Government are required to publish policies and proposals that will enable them to meet their five-year carbon budgets. During the passage of the Climate Change Bill we argued that the global nature of the challenge makes it hard to see how a general mitigation duty on a public body could be meaningfully applied. Therefore, we believe that within the context of this Bill and other legislation recently passed there is sufficient provision to understand and take account of the climate change issues the noble Lord raised. This is a very important debate. It is almost a Second Reading debate because it goes to the heart of what the Bill is about and the role of the Marine Management Organisation. I understand the points noble Lords are making about the critical nature of the environment, but we have to be aware of the difficulties and tensions inherent in taking decisions on the use of our seas. We think that the reference to contributing to sustainable development places the Marine Management Organisation in the proper place to make its decisions within the overall context of guidance by the Secretary of State and the marine policy statement.