Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL]

Clause 49(1) defines marine plans. Subsection (2) defines a marine plan as a document which, among other things, "““states the authority’s policies (however expressed) for and in connection with the sustainable development of the area””." The amendment would replace the words, "““the sustainable development of the area””," with the words, "““sustainable development””." This is intended be a helpful amendment. It would not to change anything substantial in the Bill or the intentions or operations that will happen after the Bill has been passed, nor is it meant to poke or probe the Government; it would simply put in the Bill words that mean what we assume the Government want the legislation to mean. Sustainable development is not something that is restricted to a particular area surrounded by a particular boundary. Clearly, if you are defining areas for the purposes of marine planning, you have to draw boundaries. To that extent, you have to have boundaries. If you are carrying out policies that involve what on land might be called land-use policies and perhaps should be called sea-use policies—I do not know—you are defining things within that area. However, if you are defining the aims and purposes of what goes on in that area, the boundaries are irrelevant. Therefore, the clause should refer to ““sustainable development”” rather than, "““the sustainable development of the area””." I have one or two examples. Marine conservation zones in the Bill will only be relevant as part of the network of marine conservations zones. Those which will be defined in the area of a particular marine plan can only be considered in terms of sustainability as part of that much larger network covering all British seas. The effects of extractive dredging or the dumping of any materials in the sea might go well beyond the boundaries of a particular marine plan area, affecting the movement of materials through currents and tides. Geomorphological processes on the seabed and the coast might go outside those areas. They are clearly aspects of sustainability. The sustainable energy contribution of each marine plan to its area must be seen within the context of an energy plan for the whole country, on both land and sea as well as in other marine planning areas. The boundaries are irrelevant. The contributions of wind or tidal energy to the country’s overall energy supply—they are clearly major energy sustainability issues—are relevant. The contribution of a particular planning area is obviously part of that, but it is not the whole story. A final example concerns what we have already discussed today, and no doubt will discuss further; namely, the integrated planning of the coast and the need for the sustainability of the marine planning area to be clearly closely related to the sustainability of the adjacent land. As regards integrated planning by the coast, you cannot refer to sustainability just within one area as it affects wider areas. It is a question of causes and effects. What happens in a marine planning area will affect what happens in surrounding areas, in the British seas as a whole and on land throughout the country. I beg to move.