Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL]

My Lords, I do not think there is any disagreement between myself and the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. It is a matter of how this is best expressed in legislation. He mentioned the habitats directive and I refer him to the Environmental Damage (Prevention and Remediation) Regulations 2009, with which I am sure he is also very familiar. In those regulations, there is reference to what is called compensatory remediation. Perhaps I can give an example. If the offender has damaged a wetland breeding habitat for sea birds, we might want to specify as primary remediation that the offender takes certain steps to restore the site which is damaged. However, that may take some time to achieve and, in the mean time, the damaged site will not be available to bird life. The Environmental Damage (Prevention and Remediation) Regulations 2009 require compensatory remediation to recognise that loss. Therefore, we might also require that while the primary remediation is taking place, the offender takes steps to create a breeding habitat elsewhere for the sea birds. An example of what the 2009 regulations term "complementary remediation" is that, if an offender has damaged an area altering the conditions so as to render it unsuitable for animals and plants that used to live there, the authority might require him to create an artificial habitat such as a reef elsewhere. That is why I do not think that there is any disagreement between myself and the noble Lord. On resources, the point is that there may be a case—it is always risky giving examples—where the damage is slight but the expense is great. In those circumstances, I argue that there needs to be flexibility. I do not think that there is a reason for us to disagree. If the noble Lord is still not satisfied, I am content, without commitment, to consider the matter further before Third Reading, although I am not sure that is entirely necessary.