Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL]

I intervene for the first time on the Bill. I had intended to speak at Second Reading but had to withdraw due to the timetabling of that debate. If I had spoken, I would have focused my remarks almost entirely on the coastal aspect part of the Bill, which we have still to get to. Perhaps one day we will get there. Indeed, it was only when I read the notable contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, that I became aware of the issues we are discussing and their importance. That was rather myopic on my part, perhaps inadequately excused by my past chairmanship of the National Trust which, for the most part, is not terribly concerned with the marine environment. We are quintessentially a marine nation with a huge marine heritage, which is as important as our terrestrial heritage. The marine heritage must include, and be concerned with, the issues covered by this group of amendments. It is, indeed, curious that the Bill is virtually silent in this area, perhaps because the issues were expected to be dealt with in the heritage Bill, which has never seen the light of day. Be that as it may, I congratulate the noble Baroness on seeking to remedy that deficiency with this group of amendments, and I am thankful that they have been included in a single group, which makes it much easier and more logical. They hang together as they are all of a kind, although they relate to various parts of the Bill. I shall not go over the amendments in detail as this has already been done, particularly in the notable intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Howarth. As always, he speaks with knowledge and great authority. For example, the word ““cultural”” which has been used in Clause 52 is surely too imprecise. It is all very well for people to say, ““Well, everybody knows it includes the sort of things that we are talking about””, but as noble Lords have said, civil servants and others can forget at times. It is rather a vogue word today, which I always find rather disturbing. So in this important area of marine history and archaeology the wording needs to be more specific and we need Amendment 89L. Similarly, in Clause 114, which deals with the grounds for MCZ designation, the word ““social”” needs to be buttressed in the same way—hence Amendment 107A. In addition, it is surely important to refer at the two related points to the statutory consultees to ensure, as has been said by previous speakers that we are reminded that English Heritage, for example, has a statutory role, as it is very important that we give proper weight to its views and responsibilities—hence Amendments 10BZAA and 107D. The two remaining amendments refer to seascape. The point was well expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, so I need not go over it again. I hope that the Government can find a way to include these amendments in the Bill, or something like them, when we get to the next stage.