Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL]

I am very grateful to the Minister. No doubt, we will take up the challenge of reading it to see whether we think that it proves what the Minister thinks it proves. At the moment, we do not think that. There was considerable discussion about the need for research, science and decisions on designation to depend on the science. I do not think that any of us disagree with that, which was put very eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Eden. But there are two stages to a decision based on research and science. There can be research and science, and different policies can be applied to that research and science with different outcomes. The policies do not come from objective investigation; they come from Governments, politicians and other people who are engaging in the debate. We want the science in order to know what is there and in order for the people designated by the Secretary of State to make sensible decisions. We also want to know the policies that would be applied to that science. This is the area of debate. This is not just a technical matter; it is also a policy matter. The Minister referred to being guided by the science and balance, which is fine, but what criteria will be used to guide and what are the criteria for where the balance lies? Perhaps I may throw one further thing into the pot which I think will be helpful. Before this Bill is passed by Parliament, more clarity will be needed on what the outcomes are likely to be. I do not think that we expect to see a map with a designation of marine conservation zones or anything like that, but we want a much clearer idea of what the system will look like on a broad scale. Scale is very important here. Taking the British seas as a whole, I believe that the Government can give a much clearer idea of the expected outcome, not in detail—say, 30 or 35 per cent or whatever—but on a broad scale. When it comes to detail, every site has to be looked at on its own merits, and it may well be, on the basis of the science, that one site is more valuable than a second site. The second site might be chosen above the first site because of other factors. If the first site is needed for commercial purposes and there seems to be no alternative, that may be the answer. However, if that is the case and it is being heavily used for commercial purposes now, the odds are that it will in any case be pretty degraded. Even so, there may well be sites of equal value and, at a detailed level, one will be chosen and another will not. However, that does not stop the Government trying to give us a better picture, or vision, of what the system will look like at the end of the process. Finally, I come back to my amendment on the timetable. I listened carefully to what the Minister said and I will read it all very carefully. In a sense, we are back to the old problem that we always have with legislation—that is, on the one hand, what the words say in the Bill and, on the other, what the Government’s intentions are. When we look at legislation, we are always being asked to believe that the Government have good intentions, that everything in the world is wonderful and that the legislation is going to work. One of our jobs is to ensure that it will happen, even if there is a change of Government. I must be careful what I say, given possible changes of Government, but who knows? Governments, Secretaries of State, policies and circumstances can change, and when the Bill leaves this House, particularly when it leaves Parliament, we have to ensure that it works and that we have a jolly good system at the end of it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment A114 withdrawn. Amendments A115 to A117 not moved. House resumed.