Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL]

I move this amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach. We now come to the topic that my noble friends Lord Eden of Winton and Lady Carnegy have been dying to get their teeth into. The Committee has touched on this matter before. When we discussed Part 2, I raised the question of what powers we would have to protect the marine environment outside the six-nautical-mile limit. I do not know if, this evening, there is any way that I can persuade the Minister to discuss this in a little more depth because time is getting on. We have just had an interesting and useful debate on the levels of protection that a marine conservation zone might be able to offer various aspects of a marine environment. Along with my noble friend Lord Taylor, I welcome the Government’s intention to establish a network of zones that will make a meaningful impact on marine ecosystems. I was interested to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, in the debate on the previous group of amendments, mention flora and animals. I notice that in Clause 114 stipulates "flora or fauna". I wonder if it would be a little more comprehensive to use "flora and fauna". From my limited understanding of science, I believe that when you get down to the level of diatoms and plankton it is a little difficult to determine exactly which is which. However, the question remains of what power there will be to establish marine conservation zones outside the six or 12-mile limit. If they extend out there, to what level will they be effective? The Government’s marine programme plan notes yearly tranches of special areas of conservation, to be proposed to the European Commission. Defra’s website notes the five sites that have already been submitted. I look forward to hearing how these sites are to fit into the ecologically coherent network that this Bill seeks to establish. Are they to be considered separately at the moment, consulted on and considered in isolation from the marine conservation zones; or are they to be integrated, year by year, into other parts of the network? Surely it would be simpler and more effective for there to be one system of conservation. As we have discussed, the Bill’s provisions allow for a great deal of flexibility in the objectives of the marine conservation zones. There is equal flexibility in the restrictions and—in inshore areas—by-laws that can be imposed on them. What need is there for multiple and separate zones? Do the Government have any intention initially to make designations within the six-mile limit, and then to start extending and overlapping into the area of the 12-mile limit, where we know that we have a realistic chance of being able to implement whatever regulations we put in place? The real question then becomes: are the Government prepared to suggest their intentions in the UK offshore area, and do they think that they would get any support from the operators from other countries in the absence of EU regulation? Can they expect backing from EU regulations before this magic date of 2012 that people talk about? How does the Minister intend to proceed if the recommendation process leads to suggested sites in offshore waters? What objectives will he be able to approve in these areas? How do the Government intend to further the objectives of a marine conservation zone when only a small fraction of the ships with access will have regard to them? I beg to move.