Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL]

We are all grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, for this group of amendments and for the powerful way in which she presented them to us. She asked, as did the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, before supper, whether we wanted this core of the Bill to be strong or weak. Let me say again that we intend that this part of the Bill will be very strong indeed. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Eden, that he is right to say that this legislation is likely to be on the statute book for a long time: legislation in the marine area does not come too often. When we started our debate a few weeks or months ago—I suspect that we did so months ago; we had our Second Reading debate in December—one of the criticisms made was that, although there are 300 clauses, this is described as a framework Bill. That is because we believe that we have to have some flexibility, as this needs to stand the test of time. We are going back and forth on this. Noble Lords at some times want flexibility and at other times want to be more precise; that is an entirely understandable debate. I also say that, in terms of being strong, we want the MMO to be a very effective regulator, if I can put it that way, and to have all the techniques available to it to ensure that it is able to act. In our earlier debates about enforcement of licensing decisions, I very much agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, that we want regulators to be proactive and to intervene at as early a stage as possible so that any possible damage is prevented, rather than the MMO having to pick up the pieces when the damage has been done. We will discuss these matters within Europe. I hesitate to mention the common fisheries policy—in fact, I know that I should not have mentioned it—but it, too, comes into play. I very much take the point that we want consistency across Europe as much as possible and that we particularly need to work as effectively as possible with the Irish Government. As is the case with the devolved Administrations, my understanding is that working relationships are very good and very close indeed. Everyone recognises that to make this work we need consistency of approach between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations. We also need as far as possible consistency of approach with our European neighbours and allies. I entirely understand what the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said on the question of groupings. It is clearly difficult to get a coherent grouping. However, degrouping has an impact: 10 groups were degrouped from today’s list, which, by my reckoning, adds three-quarters of a day to our debate. The best that we have done so far is 14 groups a day. I recognise that if you have a huge group it is very difficult to do justice to the amendments but, in many cases, once you start degrouping, you lengthen the debate. There is a bit of a trade-off. Amendment A140 would require the network to be based on the ecosystem-based approach. I have no argument whatever with the principle of what the noble Baroness seeks to achieve in that area. That is what the Government intend to do in putting the network together. We see the ecosystem-based approach as underpinning the regional projects that the Government have asked Natural England to set up to identify possible marine conservation zones. It will be a very important element of the guidance that we intend to issue to support those projects. Clause 119 already requires Ministers to consider how a network of sites will be representative of the ecosystem as a whole. The success of designating a network of sites relies on the Government considering the conservation objectives of the ecosystem as a whole. The ecosystem-based approach also includes the concept of connectivity between zones that is encapsulated in the first part of Amendment A158. It is part of our understanding of what the phrase "ecologically coherent network"—that is what we want to create—means. Indeed, this is already recognised in the Bill. Clause 119(3)(c) specifically says, ""that the designation of sites … in the network reflects the fact that the conservation of a feature may require the designation of more than one site"." I do not think that there is any disagreement in principle on this matter. However, we question the wisdom of setting this down in legislation. As I said, while we fully intend to use the ecosystem-based approach in constructing our network, I am not at all sure that we should tie it to a definition in EU legislation that has yet to be elucidated. I have no doubt that the network will contribute to our work to achieve good environmental status in our seas. Indeed, I say on behalf of the Government that we fully intend that it should do so. However, we must be clear that we are creating national legislation for our own reasons. It is not normal practice to use primary legislation to implement EU requirements for all the well rehearsed reasons of which the Committee is only too well aware. The second major aspect of this group of amendments ties the creation of a network of marine conservation zones to the designation of at least some zones with a high level of protection. I am well aware that many people would like to see a requirement in law for there to be highly protected marine conservation zones. I have listened with great interest to the arguments made in relation to that. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, referred to the importance of recognising the science and to what she believes is the need for highly protected zones to be created in their own right, as she put it. However, she recognised that we can do that under the Bill, although she does not like the relevant provision. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, put his finger on it when he warned of the risks of having a two-tier approach to designation. At the risk of repeating what I said earlier, we do not think that there is a need for specific provision for highly protected marine reserves or zones because we believe that we are able to provide the protection that noble Lords require within the designation of marine conservation zones and the network, and that the—