Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL]

No, for two reasons. First, the noble Lord will get bored with me saying that this Bill is entirely consistent with the devolution settlement. Secondly, as I have already indicated, the legislation allows for an area—it may be a marine conservation zone or a part of one—to be highly protected in the way in which he has described. Although I fully accept that the Welsh Assembly Government might have preferred a different approach, none the less I cannot see why they cannot achieve what they want to achieve within the Bill. We will be very interested to see the outcome of the work of the Welsh Assembly Government. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, wishes me to give a more precise indication of how much the sea would be protected under MCZs. I really cannot go there at the moment as more work needs to be undertaken. As I said earlier, a publication will be available at around Easter, which I hope will give some general intent relating to the issues that will need to be considered, and I understand that a more technical document will be published in the autumn. I am afraid that I cannot go further than that. However, we would not bring this legislation before your Lordships’ House were we not committed to marine conservation zones, protection of the marine area and the network. This is not a matter to be taken lightly. We fully understand why it needs to happen. Amendment A154 would insert a cross-reference to Clause 113 and the areas in which marine conservation zones can be designated. I make it clear that the purpose of Clause 119 is to place a duty on the appropriate authority to use its powers to designate marine conservation zones so as to contribute to a network of sites throughout the UK, including in Scottish and Northern Irish territorial waters. The requirement in Clause 119 to designate zones under the Bill does not extend to the Scottish and Northern Irish inshore areas, but we want appropriate authorities to bear in mind, as far as possible, the interactions of their designations with protected areas in those inshore areas and to work with the Scottish and Northern Irish Administrations to ensure that the UK as a whole fulfils its international obligations. That, we believe, is the effect of the Bill as it now stands. Amendment A154 would narrow that because, by cross-referring to Clause 113, there is a risk of narrowing the scope of the duty to designate a network to exclude the Scottish and Northern Irish inshore areas, which we think would be a missed opportunity. However, I suspect that this is a drafting issue rather than one of substance. Amendment A207 would insert a definition of "animal" into Clause 136. My advice is that there is no need for this amendment, as the ordinary and natural meaning of the word will ensure that the term applies to animals in the general sense, including their eggs and other immature stages. All flora and fauna are potential "features" which can be protected under this part of the Bill and may therefore be subject to the general offence provision in Clause 136. However, I am prepared to reflect further on this matter in the light of comments that we have received this evening. I hope that I have reassured noble Lords that I fully understand why it may well be necessary for some areas of the sea to receive complete protection. I have no doubt whatever that there will be some circumstances where that will be desirable and that the Bill currently allows us to do that.