Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL]

My Lords, I am relieved that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, has not strayed from the path of righteousness on this amendment. Having listened with great attention to this debate, I feel that there is no disagreement in principle between us. The Government fully understand the intent of the noble Baroness’s amendment, but are concerned that it could have perverse consequences. I generally plead with the House to be very cautious about going down the two-tier route and causing confusion and difficulties in putting the legislation into practice. That, I think, is the argument between us. I am glad that the benefit of the draft strategy, Delivering Marine Conservation Zones and European Marine Sites, has been acknowledged. I hope that it is helpful in highlighting the Government’s aims and commitment to marine nature conservation. As I have said, I do not believe that there is disagreement between us on the principles. We believe that the powers in the Bill are broad enough in appropriate cases to protect marine conservation zones from all damaging human activities. I can assure the House that the Bill allows for this. We have heard mentioned a number of times the marine nature reserves at Lundy and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, suggested, they are highly protected by anyone’s standards. However, I cannot see how the Bill as it is currently drafted would in any way cause a reduction in those standards of protection. Clause 113(1) states that the appropriate authority—for England, this is the Secretary of State—may designate marine conservation zones. It applies no restrictions on the power of the appropriate authority to set stringent restrictions. Clause 120(2)(c) refers to the requirement to report to Parliament and talks specifically of areas where licensable or extractive activities are prohibited. Licensing conditions can be set under Clause 68(3). They can be as stringent as necessary and they will come under the duty of public authorities in Clause 121 to best further or least hinder the conservation objectives of each marine conservation zone. I accept, as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said, that there is much scientific knowledge that we need to seek and understand in the years ahead. It is therefore very important that the flexibility exists for the restrictions to change over time. We accept that the levels of restriction required to achieve conservation objectives can change over time, and the Bill, as drafted, allows us to change the conditions. If because of the science it is necessary for further conditions to be set, there is nothing in the Bill to prevent it. I come to the two-tier approach. As I have said, we have deliberately designed the marine conservation zones as a flexible mechanism that can be tailored to deliver the precise level of protection needed by the features of each individual site. We think that a two-tier approach is not only unnecessary but could undermine the flexibility which is fundamental to our vision for marine conservation zones. As I have said already, we have debated on many occasions the complexity of the marine environment, how our understanding of it is still developing and how our seas are changing in the face of climate change and other factors. Each new scientific study reveals more of the complexities of the living environment in our seas. The dynamic nature of the marine environment means that the levels of protection for individual sites will need to change over time. We therefore need flexibility. Noble Lords should not be concerned that such flexibility will mean that, where we need high protection and very stringent conditions, those conditions will not be applied, because they can be and will be. The problem with the two-tier approach is, first, bureaucracy, where the level of protection for marine conservation needs to change in the light of new information. A two-tier approach would require all kinds of processes to enable a zone to be designated in the way that the noble Baroness’s amendment envisages, as opposed to what might be called an "ordinary" marine conservation zone. Moreover, the two-tier approach does not fit comfortably with the fact that there may need to be different levels of protection within the same site, either at different times of the year or in different parts of the site. The noble Baroness said that if one had a highly protected zone, as in her amendment, it would make it clear to potential applicants for licences that they would have very little chance of success, thereby creating greater certainty. However, I come back to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, that it could also cause a lot of confusion. There is a risk of the lower designation of marine conservation zone being taken to imply that the zone has less conservation value. That is not the case: these zones will be as vital to our network as zones with the highest level of protection. There is a real danger that ordinary marine conservation zones—or lower marine conservation zones, as I describe them—would receive a lower level of legal protection. That would be a problem. I feel very strongly about this and I know that the noble Baroness does, too. I assure her that nothing in the Bill prevents an MCZ being designated with the kind of conditions that she wishes to see. It is a genuine concern that her well meant amendment could lead to perverse incentives. Again, the disagreement is not on principle, but simply on the impact that her amendment would have.