Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL]

My observations are sympathetic to those already made by my noble friend Lord Cathcart and the noble Lord, Lord Tyler. I shall focus in particular on subsections (8) and (9). Subsection (8) states: ""In subsection (7)(b) and (c), ‘remedial steps’ means steps taken (or to be taken)—""(a) in consequence of the carrying on of the activity in respect of which the notice is issued,""(b) for any of the purposes mentioned in subsection (9)"." Subsection (9) states: ""The purposes are—""(a) protecting the environment;""(b) protecting human health;""(c) preventing interference with legitimate uses of the sea"." Plainly, subsections (8) and (9) suggest that action must be taken to protect the environment, but not to restore it. Yet remediation must mean restoration. Clause 88 does not seem to address the need for a mechanism to enforce restoration, let alone to determine what level or type of restoration is acceptable and in what time frame. In that context, it is well to observe that European legislation demands either restoration at the damaged or destroyed site or compensation in the form of the provision, at an adjacent site, of an equivalent habitat. A similar criticism can be made of Clause 103, entitled "Power to take remedial action". In reality, remedial action, either by restoration or providing a similar habitat, is very difficult to achieve in the marine environment. That is why regular and careful monitoring of the effect of licensed activities on biodiversity is so critical. I make one final observation in this context. Subsection (9) mentions the purpose of protecting the environment, but does that mean protecting what is left of the environment after the damage is done?