Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL]

Not at all, my Lords. I am very glad that the Government are able to bring forward amendments on an undoubtedly important matter. The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, have already indicated why it is important that the MMO gives due consideration to these matters. The noble Baroness has already referred to the Government’s high-level marine objectives of 20 April which make it clear that people should appreciate the diversity of the marine environment, including its natural and cultural heritage. Let me make it clear that these high-level objectives underpin the development of the marine policy statement, which will then be applied in more detail in specific areas via the marine plans. So the high-level marine objective is important, which is why the references which the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, made to heritage and seascapes can be taken through the whole process that the Bill brings into play. I also make it clear that the kind of specific and comprehensive heritage protection that both noble Lords have intimated they would like to see deserves its own legislation. I know that there is disappointment that the Government have not yet been able to bring forward the heritage protection Bill in this parliamentary Session. However, we remain committed to that legislation and believe that it is the right vehicle for the comprehensive and vital protection of our historic, cultural and archaeological heritage. With that in mind, I have carefully considered our debate in Committee. We have had the opportunity to talk to colleagues in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. While we are not prepared to widen the scope of the Bill, we are clear that the provisions in the Marine and Coastal Access Bill should complement future heritage protection legislation. On reflection, while the Bill allows cultural heritage to be taken into account in decision-making, I believe that some references could be strengthened. I turn to my amendments before responding to that of the noble Lord, Lord Bridges. Amendment 82 seeks to clarify that the reference to culture in Clause 52(2)(a) includes historic and archaeological characteristics. The amendment essentially makes it clear that the historic and archaeological characteristics should be considered in the identification of marine plan areas and in the preparation and review of marine plans. Amendment 111—which I have tabled to Clause 114, in Part 5—is similarly intended to clarify that any social consequences referenced in subsection (7) include historic and archaeological consequences, so the Secretary of State may therefore take into account the historic and archaeological consequences of marine conservation’s own site designations. I understand that noble Lords want to ensure that we are not only recognising and considering heritage in marine planning licensing and nature conservation, but that management of marine conservation zones will not undermine the work of bodies such as English Heritage which are tasked with protecting wrecks and other historic features. I therefore reassure noble Lords that the Government are extremely committed to ensuring that the nature conservation provisions are compatible with the vital licensing and management work carried out by English Heritage in the preservation of historic wrecks within UK waters. I draw the attention of the House to Clause 125(5), which specifically enables the MMO to make by-laws that allow for the issuing of permits under controlled circumstances. We expect that such permits will include the licensing of activities for the preservation or investigation of wrecks as well as permitting access to such sites. The MMO will be working closely with bodies such as English Heritage to agree this process, and this relationship is likely to be formalised through a memorandum of understanding, which will clarify how these respective roles will work effectively and efficiently to recognise both nature conservation and heritage interests. The amendments that I will move make a clear commitment to recognising our vital marine cultural heritage. Let me address the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges. I was interested in his views and comments on HMS "Victory", but I was somewhat taken aback by the suggestion that we should simply not deal with those aspects of the Bill that do not relate to coastal access. After our 11 days in Committee, this House is well able to come to a view on the totality of the Bill. The amendment proposes that the objectives that the Secretary of State may set for the MMO should include the protection of items of archaeological interest on the seabed. As I have set out, in seeking to achieve its objective of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development, the MMO will be guided by the policies of the marine policy statement and, ultimately, by marine plans. This means that archaeological protection will be one of the many factors taken into account by the MMO when it is making decisions, so it is unnecessary to include this specific requirement in Clause 3. It will be a familiar argument to noble Lords that to do so would actually unbalance the MMO’s objective and imply that this factor is more important than other factors. The amendment would widen the focus of the MMO and the Bill beyond what we think is best both for the Bill and for future heritage protection legislation. Although I do not think that Part 1 is the appropriate place to reference archaeology, heritage can be considered in the drafting of marine plans, in the licensing of marine activities and in considering the social and economic consequences of marine conservation zone designations within 12 nautical miles. I stress that, under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the UK cannot make legislation for the protection of archaeological and historical objects beyond 12 nautical miles, except where naval vessels and other vessels owned or operated by a state and used only on government non-commercial service are concerned. Clause 112(2), when read with Clause 66(1)(a), clearly provides that the marine licensing authority must have regard to the protection of any site that is of historic or archaeological interest when considering applications for a marine licence. Although we will not be able to license the removal of underwater cultural heritage directly beyond 12 nautical miles—we will be using the exemptions order in Clause 72 to ensure that we are compliant with the UN convention in this regard—this will provide some significant protection to wrecks beyond 12 nautical miles from other types of licensable marine activities that could otherwise damage such sites. In line with the marine licensing provisions, and following reflection on our debate in Committee, marine planning and nature conservation powers can be strengthened in the way in which my amendments seek to do. While I suspect that the amendments do not go as far as the noble Lord would like, I think that they meet the general concerns that were expressed in Committee. I hope that this explanation at this point in our discussion will be helpful.