Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL]

My Lords, I wanted to delay speaking on this group until I had heard the speeches on the two Conservative amendments so that I could understand the reasoning behind them. Having heard them, it seems to me that Amendment 113ZA in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, while probably not strictly necessary under the sort of argument that the Government usually use—that it is covered anyway—nevertheless would be useful because it would, in particular, underline the conservation basis of marine conservation zones, as opposed to their social and economic aspects. For that reason, if no other, I think it would be a useful amendment. I do not quite understand the purpose of Amendment 112, from the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach. Already, under Clause 116, there are substantial requirements for consultation and public advertisement on proposals for MCZs. The noble Lord’s amendment seems to refer specifically to organisations or bodies which have had functions delegated to them by the MMO, and not to others. I am not sure what the justification for that was. He may say that, earlier and under a different context, I said that local authorities should have a special status in consultation, but I explained that that was because local authorities are very different organisations from others, being democratically elected, representative bodies. It seems inconceivable that bodies that had delegated functions in relation to MCZs would not be consulted about their designation. I suspect, although it is normal for opposition parties generally to want more in Bills rather than less, that the Government are trying to be minimalist about what is in it. Nevertheless, I am not sure why the Conservative amendment is necessary. The amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone is important and substantive. She said there was not general support here, but I think the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, said that there was lots of sympathy—or perhaps it was the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland; it was. That is true, and the noble Baroness will ask what the use of tea and sympathy is when she wants noble Lords to join her in the Lobbies. There is a great deal to be said for the noble Baroness’s amendment in relation to some marine conservation zones. We were not able to persuade the Government that there should be high-level marine conservation zones, where activities other than those related to conservation were effectively banned, as was proposed by my noble friend Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, but in relation to those particular zones the noble Baroness is 100 per cent right. Under those circumstances, social and economic factors are irrelevant. It has to be based on the facts on the ground, or under the sea, and on the science. We hope that lots of marine conservation zones will be set up. I suppose I should not refer to the bottom of the scale, especially in relation to the sea; however, as you go along the spectrum, there will be MCZs that increasingly depend on fewer important aspects, in relation to that site, where there is a choice. I have said how grateful I was, and have praised these documents which we have had recently. Note one of the draft guidance on selection and designation, which people have poked fun at, is a very important document, but I do not think it is yet 100 per cent right. Indeed, it is a draft for discussion and consultation, and it is right that that should happen. In Section 4, the principles for design of the marine protected area network are important, because one of the important principles, and the first listed, is representation. It may be—it almost certainly will—that some of the areas where it will be necessary to declare MCZs for representative reasons are areas where, in the real world, there will be a choice between different sites. In the highly protected ones, however we describe them, there will not be, but in many there will. Where there is a choice, it is unrealistic to say that social and economic factors should not come into the equation in making the decision. On the other hand, the draft guidance, in section 5, sets out the principles for the identification and selection of MCZs, and it sounds pretty high-level. It talks about: ""The range of marine biodiversity … Rare or threatened habitats … Globally or regionally significant areas for geographically restricted habitats or species … Important aggregations or communities of marine species"," and so forth. Reading this, there is no sense of the kind of gradation or hierarchy which the Government talked about previously. I am not sure that the document has completely got to grips with that. The part of it that comes under the heading "Taking account of social and economic factors in site selection" contains a lot of on-the-one-hand/on-the-other-hand type of arguments. However, I do not think that it has really got to grips with the factors that will result in the decision being made. For example, referring to what we would call high-level sites, it states: ""The existence of socio-economic interests will not preclude consideration of an area for designation of an MCZ, nor compromise the setting of appropriate conservation objectives"." I do not think that you can have both of those. It says that such interests will not preclude consideration of an area, but they will not compromise the setting of appropriate conservation objectives. There are going to be compromises, not in what we would call the high-level ones, perhaps, but there will be compromises and the guidance does not set out how they will be resolved. I will not read out any more of this section because I would be detaining the House, but paragraphs 5.13, 5.14 and 5.15 provide an interesting and important discussion of the issues we are trying to grapple with here. However, I do not think that it is the end of the road; I think that it is the beginning of getting to grips with those issues. So I would like to support the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone. I cannot support it as it stands, but I very much support it in relation to the high-end, high-level MCZs, however we describe them, that we hope to see established. The compromises and the way in which the choices will be made on those which are not high level and are being chosen particularly because they are representative is one of the fundamental, interesting questions here. The final comment I make is in referring back to a discussion we had in Committee when I was debating with the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham. I was saying that when the 1949 Act was passed, there was a clear vision for national parks, and the pattern and system that we would have, based on the Hobhouse reports and the wide-ranging public consensus that existed. I was complaining that the Government did not have that sort of vision when it came to marine conservation zones. Well, I think that the documents that the Government are producing are evidence of the fact that they are beginning to develop a kind of vision of the system and network they want. I do not believe that they, or we, are there yet, but I believe that the work is now taking place. I think that if that continues to take place, with the kind of commitment set out in these documents, we might well get there.