Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL]

My Lords, unlike the previous list of technical government amendments, these are extremely important amendments. Like other speakers, I believe that we should be very grateful to the Government for doing a lot of hard work in bringing them forward. Some of them are not exactly as we would have phrased them. In particular, we would have gone further in having a clear bias towards conservation rather than the equivalence of the three pillars as the Government refer to sustainable development. Nevertheless, the amendments are a substantial step forward compared with the text of the Bill when first presented to the House. If this were the House of Commons considering the Bill for the first time before sending it to the Lords, we would be looking for points of division and difference at this stage and sending it away with those clear points of difference expressed through Divisions. The culture of this House is a little different. Sometimes we are more bent towards consensus where it can be achieved rather than division. A lot of noble Lords around the House will think that what we have is not ideal but it is a great deal better than what we were first presented with. The Government have clearly listened to the very long debate that we had in Committee—I think that it lasted about a day but the Minister indicates that it was longer—on this and related matters. We should be grateful for that. The Conservatives have added their names to some of the amendments. These Benches have not done that but we are certainly prepared to support them at this stage as a basis for sending this Bill to the House of Commons in a better condition. Then the House of Commons can start again and have a good thrash over it down there. These amendments are fundamental. Some of us who have been talking informally with the Government and their advisers over the past few weeks are aware that they have struggled to come up with this wording. However, the struggle has been worth while, and therefore we should thank them for doing so. The first major point here concerns science. Different points of view were put forward in Committee regarding how a stronger emphasis on the scientific basis of decisions by the MMO should be expressed. Some thought that should be done through committees while others suggested that it should be done through advisers or specific membership of the board. The Government have come up with a good proposal. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, asked a very important question, to which we shall be interested to hear the answer. This should not be a part-time, one day a month, ring up for advice when you want it sort of post. It is a fundamental post as far as the MMO is concerned. Having said that, the Government’s solution is welcome and we support it. More fundamental even than that is the Government’s substantial rewrite of Clause 2. There was great concern that there was not much in it initially and that the Government were talking only about making a consistent and co-ordinated contribution to the achievement of sustainable development. However, the Government have added the need to take account, ""of all relevant facts and matters"" and defined them in new Section (1B), which states that they have to be based on, ""scientific evidence … other evidence so available or obtainable relating to the social, economic or environmental elements of sustainable development"." It is interesting that the Government are beginning to get close to a definition of sustainable development, which they did not want to do. However, they are edging closer to that and they will inevitably have to define it. The third element of the facts and matters that need to be taken into account is really anything else that the, "MMO may consider appropriate". That is sensible and a good basis, particularly when taken together with the next section on guidance. The Government have managed to include "furthering", although not exactly in the way in which many Members of the Committee wanted. I congratulate them on their ingenuity in doing that. Government Amendment 8 refers to, ""furthering any social, economic or environmental purposes"." The Government have included three pillars of sustainable development in their Amendment 9, which must come close to being the foundation and a definition of it. That is coming very close to furthering sustainable development. I understand that is as close as the Government can get to meeting the requests that came from all around the Committee. Nevertheless, it is a great step forward. The sections on guidance are interesting. If I have understood them correctly, Government Amendments 55 to 58 are technical and tidying-up amendments as a result of government Amendments 13 to 18. First, they make the guidance that the Secretary of State has to give to the MMO in relation to its objectives much more specific and much clearer. Secondly, it has to be laid before both Houses of Parliament. Thirdly, it makes it subject to something that looks very like the negative procedure on statutory instruments. This is very unusual in relation to guidance as opposed to orders and regulations—the normal statutory instruments that we are used to—because of the fact that there is not a procedure that can be referred to. The procedure has to be set out here and it has to be 40 days and 40 nights and so on. There is the opportunity for either House to table what is, in effect, a negative resolution against the guidance that is being put forward. Very often, we take the view that the negative procedure in relation to statutory instruments is not all that important. In this House, we very rarely vote against a statutory instrument, never mind use the negative procedure, and debates are on a take-it-or-leave-it basis and are formalised. That is true. Nevertheless, statutory instruments are scrutinised through a number of different committees of both Houses. They are subject to debate and if the Government get things wrong they risk looking stupid or just being shown to be wrong. This all means that the care that is put into the drawing up of statutory instruments is all that much greater than it otherwise would be. That is going to be the case with this guidance. What either House does with the guidance when it gets it is up to the House. We in this House, if we wish, could set up a procedure during the 40 days and 40 nights to scrutinise the legislation in some way—in the way statutory instruments are scrutinised or even in a more thorough way. The opportunity is there if we wish to take it. I believe that this is a great step forward. This is very important guidance indeed, because it is going to be fundamental to what the MMO does and the way in which it works. Therefore, I very much welcome it. However, we should be clear that, in a sense, this is pushing the boundaries a little bit of the powers and activities of Parliament and the powers and activities of this House. I am not complaining about that; I am all in favour of it. We should be aware that we are doing that and, if it is not new ground, it is unusual ground. On that basis, the Government should be congratulated on being a little bit innovative in the way in which they are approaching this. They are being innovative in a way that puts more power and influence in the hands of Parliament and of this House in particular. Having said that, we welcome the amendments and we are prepared to support them today.