| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, also raises an interesting and commendable question in Amendment 49. We will go into greater detail about the many issues we think the MMO should rightly have regard to when my noble friend the Duke of Montrose discusses Amendment 33. Climate change is obviously one of those issues, an issue which we have included in similar wording in that amendment. I will not try to anticipate what my noble friend will say on that group, but
12 Jan 2009 : Column 1091
From what the Minister has said so far in Committee, the MMO is to be the one-stop shop for managing all marine activities. With all its power, if it is still unable to have a leading rather than a contributory role in the achievement of sustainable development, I do not have great hopes of seeing a change for the better any time soon. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I must advise the Committee that if Amendment 21 is agreed to, I will be unable to call Amendments 22 to 30 inclusive owing to pre-emption.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I shall speak to my Amendments 25, 26 and 44, which are grouped with Amendment 21.
Amendment 25 returns us to the objective of the MMO. I should like to ask the Minister about the big political consensus which I think has been achieved on all sides. Did the Labour Party members who signed up to the manifesto, the RSPB, the World Wildlife Fund, wildlife trusts members and the public, including Surfers against Sewage, campaign so hard for the Marine Bill simply in order to have an organisation that could manage the bureaucracy a bit better, or did they do it to promote a healthy marine ecosystem? I strongly suggest that they were motivated by the latter. The degree of consensus between those bodies was considerable. If the Bill stays as it is, they will be disappointed. The amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, has a lot to commend it, and I am looking forward to hearing her speak to it. However, when push comes to shove, a decision will have to be made. That is why her amendment is important. Parliament should guide that decision and establish the priorities.
My Amendment 26 attempts to address what sustainable development means in this context. Consistency is probably the last thing we want. Sustainable development in a marine conservation zone should mean that the environment has priority over everything else, but in a less protected marine conservation area it will sometimes have priority so that recreation and so on can still occur. The economic factors will be far more important in a marine area outside a conservation zone which is used for a number of other purposes, such as renewable energy, dredging or perhaps a combination of uses. So consistency should not necessarily have the high priority that the Bill suggests. It would be better to consider that sustainable development may mean different things in different areas of the sea. I do not feel that that is recognised in the current wording.
Amendment 44 requires the Secretary of State to give guidance that pays attention to the primary objective of the MMO to promote a healthy marine ecosystem throughout UK marine waters. If the Secretary of State is accountable, he needs to be clear about where the priority lies.
12 Jan 2009 : Column 1092
Baroness Byford: I support my noble friend’s original amendment. The general objectives in the Bill are a little woolly, loose and not clearly defined. The words in Clause 2(1)(a),
could mean many different things to different people. Those in Clause 2(1)(b),
could mean different things to people in different parts of the country, as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said.
The MMO is faced with a difficult task. It is being asked to consider sustainable development, to accept the existing business and resource demands on the ocean and, at the same time, to protect and preserve the things that we want to preserve. Let us consider the fishing industry. We need to have fishing, but we do not want to over-fish or we will have no fishing industry. It is the same with plants and with species about which we do not know much. The amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Taylor is very specific. If the Minister is not able to accept it, I hope he will give it serious thought, as it is very important.
At Second Reading, I also raised the interplay between different departments and the MMO and what demands would be made of it by different Acts. I hope that at this stage the Minister may be able to say a little more about that. I know that he and the committee recognised that the MMO can be successful only if it is reviewed by all departments, because so many departments will cut across the work that it is required to do. It will be faced with the question of where sustainability should have economic preference. The example of Lundy Island was given earlier. What is happening there is very exciting. When we come to later debates about areas and zones, we will go into more specifics.
What worries me, and what worried me when I was on the Joint Committee, is that the Bill is a skeleton and a lot is due to come out in secondary legislation. My noble friend Lord Kingsland mentioned the question of scientific needs. I hope that he returns to that later. The Government's response to the committee’s suggestion that a subcommittee be established was, I think, that that would be left to the MMO. I respond: really? I thought that we as parliamentarians were supposed to set the ambit within which Bills work and that it is then for organisations, rather like our magistrates, to be faced with making judgments on what the law says. I fear that the Bill is very general and a little bit woolly, and I would like it to be much more clearly defined.
I hope that, if the Minister is unable to accept my noble friend’s amendments, he will at least consider them, because we need greater clarification and direction. If he says, “That is what the Government will give in guidance”, we do not have that guidance before us at the moment, so we cannot as parliamentarians make a judgment. It is up to us to insist that the Government should give us greater clarification.
I will not respond to the other amendments in this group, but I strongly support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Taylor.
12 Jan 2009 : Column 1093
Baroness Young of Old Scone: I have the terrible feeling that I am about to make a Second Reading speech, which is rather sad at this hour, but we are at the heart of what this Bill is all about, so such a speech is deserved.
I am sure that the Government have great ambition for the Marine Management Organisation. If they had not, they would not have gone to the lengths that they have to devise a hefty Bill, to go through a draft Bill stage and have pre-legislative scrutiny, and so on, but you would not guess that from the way in which the organisation’s general objective is described. I was imagining myself trying to sell that general objective to a group of disparate staff from across a wide range of organisations coming together to form the Marine Management Organisation. To be frank, the way in which the general objective is described is distinctly unthrilling. It would be very difficult to get staff fired up to it.
The basic misunderstanding was touched on by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer. For many years now, the environment and conservation movement in this country has been campaigning for a marine Bill, which it regards as its marine Bill. The marine Bill was put together to meet a real need: the increasing degradation of the marine environment and the fact that we have no instruments similar to those already used in the terrestrial environment. That is what the marine Bill was intended to be.
Somewhere along the road, we have got a bit lost and have ended up with, as the general objective shows, a loosely glued set of functions to be carried out, under paragraph (a), in a co-ordinated way and, under paragraph (b), in a way that makes some wishy-washy and indeterminate contribution towards sustainable development. That is not what the Government need or indeed the marine situation requires. Therefore, as a very minimum, given that the Bill is where it is, the amendments that would require the sustainable duty to be more positive and proactive should be supported.
9 pm
I heard with sadness what the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, said about my cherished Amendment 28A, which says that,
- “in the event of an irreconcilable conflict arising from the delivery of this objective the natural environment must take precedence”.
I shall try to justify that and see whether I can change the noble Lord’s mind, and perhaps that of other noble Lords.
The Marine Management Organisation will sit in a position of strong conflict. It will be surrounded by competing claims for the use of the sea for the natural resource extraction of both fish and marine aggregates, for coping with climate change in the form of new kinds of renewable generation, and for conservation of the marine environment. It will have a pretty difficult job and it will be more than just a referee; the Minister has already assured us of that tonight. It should have a much more positive role, first of all in the three arms of sustainable development. However, even given the sustainable development principles, we should remember that at the very genesis of the words “sustainable development” at the Rio summit there was also the
12 Jan 2009 : Column 1094
It is therefore not unreasonable to suggest that if the Marine Management Organisation, in carrying out this disparate range of grouped-together functions, concludes that one cannot achieve a truly sustainable solution to a particular question—in other words, one that delivers equally for the environment, for the economy and for social welfare—it will need to make up its mind as to which one will get pre-eminence and which other two will necessarily take a slightly less prominent place.
The natural environment is the only one that can be the default outcome for a whole variety of reasons, one being that healthy ecosystems in the marine environment are a hugely important foundation of economic and social success anyway. If we screw up the environment, it will be difficult to have marine activities that can be either economically or socially beneficial. Fishing is one prime example of that.
However, this is not just about whether we preserve marine species, because as well as seeing huge declines in some marine species—again, fisheries are an example—we are seeing increasing evidence of seabed habitat destruction by mechanical means, of water quality degradation and of the offshore eutrophication of the marine environment. There are clearly big system issues, which are demonstrating that the environment is already in trouble, as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, said. Therefore, the Marine Management Organisation needs to be able to say with some legitimacy, “We are very sorry. In this particular circumstance, this cannot be done without damage to the environment. Therefore the environment must take precedence, because it is already in trouble”. The reality is that, once we have damaged irretrievably some elements in the marine environment, they do not recover. We know that from other places in the world where that has happened. We have seen the collapse of marine ecosystems, and all the benefits that people want to gain from those systems have collapsed with them.
There is a precedent for having a kind of irretrievable breakdown of marriage clause where sustainable development is concerned, although, when it was first introduced in the case of national parks, it was not recognised as such. Those who are old enough to remember the old national parks legislation will know that it was very much about sustainable development. It was about conserving and enhancing natural beauty, promoting understanding and enjoyment, and economic and social well-being. It was about environment, economy and social principles, but in the early days of the national parks it became clear that on many occasions it could not deliver all three. Natural beauty and the conservation of the countryside had to come first because the whole point of the parks’ existence was to make sure that that resource was available for future generations.
Although that was recognised in the early 1970s, it was not until the Environment Act 1995 that the Sandford principle—the default principle that says
12 Jan 2009 : Column 1095
Perhaps I may encourage the Minister to consider this as a principle. I recognise that I may not yet have persuaded the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, but if we considered this principle we would have done something significant today for the marine environment, which was our primary objective 15 years ago when we first tried to introduce such a Bill.
Lord Greaves: I have Amendments 27, 46, 85, 89 and 180 in this group. The noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, half apologised for making what she said was a Second Reading speech. It was not that at all. It was absolutely pertinent to Clause 2, which is entitled “General objective”. As she said, this is right at the heart of the Bill. It is clear that there is a great deal of disquiet around the Committee that so far what the Government have set out is not as satisfactory as it might be. In fact, it is unsatisfactory in two ways. First, to quote the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, it is a little woolly. I shall use slightly stronger language: it is weak and feeble. No matter what the role of the MMO is thought to be, it is set out here in a weak and feeble way.
Secondly, my noble friend Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer and the noble Baroness, Lady Young, addressed more eloquently than I can the degree to which the MMO is an organisation which, when the chips are down, puts conservation first. It is clear that there are different views around the Committee, but a general view is that it needs strengthening, although there may be differences on the extent of that. I do not think that anyone will disagree that the primary purpose of the Bill is to put the seas around these islands into a much better state as regards eco-systems, biodiversity and marine environment. The general objective under Clause 2 is the main purpose for having this organisation and a new marine planning system and for bringing together all the marine licensing systems and regulations, but that is not done in a sufficiently satisfactory way.
The Joint Committee suggested that the purpose of the Marine Management Organisation as set out in the Bill is ambiguous. We cannot let the Bill leave this House in an ambiguous state. Some people will go more for development, or perhaps sustainable development, and others will go more for conservation. Whatever we think the Bill should say, it should be set out much more clearly than it is. As noble Lords have pointed out, Clause 2 as it stands—setting out the general objective—really does not fit the Bill.
No one disagrees with the fact that the functions of the MMO are clearly set out in the Bill. We might disagree about the way in which those functions are to be exercised, but we know that they cover marine
12 Jan 2009 : Column 1096
- “are so exercised that the carrying on of activities by persons in the MMO’s area is managed, regulated or controlled—
Of course it should be, but that is a managerial point, not a primary function of a body. It does not say what the MMO should be consistent and co-ordinated about. The subsection goes on to provide that the functions are exercised,
The Government point out rightly that it would be wrong to say that the objective of the organisation should be to achieve sustainable development. Putting in legislation aims that may or may not be achieved is never a good idea. They can be objectives, but to say that a body has to do something is unrealistic. Further, lots of other organisations working in the marine environment will affect whether sustainable development is achieved or the level is increased. The MMO cannot do this on its own, and that is absolutely right. But to use that excuse to say that all it has to do is make a contribution towards sustainable development is weak and, as the noble Baroness said, a little bit woolly. Other amendments in the group make the modest suggestion that the Bill should provide that the MMO will further the achievement of sustainable development by promoting it rather harder than simply making a contribution.
If this clause is weak and feeble, managerial in tone and lacking in the broader vision and purpose we talked about earlier, what should it say? It should use stronger terms than “making a contribution to”, so Amendments 27 and 46 provide other wording. Amendments 85 and 89 apply to later parts of the Bill in relation to the marine policy statement and marine plans. However, whatever wording is used, it ought to be consistent across the Bill.
We could talk for ever about the question of defining sustainable development, but the Government have provided a definition in the United Kingdom sustainable development strategy which has the advantage that it can evolve over time and is not written into legislation. However, referring to it in legislation seems to be a convenient way of pinning it down. It may be that the definitions proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, are better, and these matters can be discussed. What is absolutely clear is that the commitment to sustainable development ought to be stronger than it is here. However, on its own, sustainable development is not enough. As the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said, there are occasions when we will not want any development, full stop. What will be wanted is a fairly draconian form of conservation. As my noble friend Lady Miller said, this area covers a spectrum of circumstances. It is not a question of having one policy to fit all the seas around Britain. That could not possibly work. It is more a matter of noting the circumstances of each marine locality and implementing the policies needed for that particular place. Some places will need pretty hard-line conservation. Other areas will clearly need development, which must be as sustainable as possible.
12 Jan 2009 : Column 1097
9.15 pm
Across the whole of the British seas there is a balance to be found. The Government will say that they always try to find the right balance whenever there is a problem. That is absolutely right across the whole of the British seas. There has to be a balance between the different aims, between different kinds of commercial activity, between energy, fishing, dredging and navigation, which is not really covered at all by the Bill. There has to be a balance between those and conservation objectives. Overall, whether we like it or not, the noble Baroness, Lady Young, is right. The condition of the British seas has to improve dramatically. If it does not dramatically improve, most of the other activities—or certainly many of the other economic and commercial activities—will not be viable. That, fundamentally, is why conservation has to come first overall, but it has to be balanced.
Within each locality the policies will be quite different. You do not have to put conservation first everywhere. You do not have to put economic activities first everywhere. There is a kaleidoscope, a pattern of different activities that can take place within the seas around these shores. It is a matter of locality and scale. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that there are some places—more, perhaps, than some people would like—where conservation has to come first, no matter what the circumstances and consequences, because of the conditions in that area. There are many other areas where that is not the case at all, and you can choose. You can say that you want some conservation areas, but they might be somewhere else. There is a great role for planning in this area.
What am I saying? First, the Marine Management Organisation must have a clear leadership role, and that is not set out in the Bill at the moment. Secondly, there has to be a strength of commitment to conservation, which is not set out in the Bill at this moment. Neither of these points is set out clearly in the objectives in Clause 2. The Government have said that the Bill is a world leader. It is the first Bill of this sort anywhere in the world or, perhaps, in Europe. That is a matter for congratulations, but unless it delivers what has been promised and what is expected, there will be deep disappointment. This is not to deny the social and economic objectives; it is simply to say that the fundamental purpose of the Bill is to improve dramatically the environmental and ecological condition of the British seas and sea bed. Unless the Government can put that in the Bill, everything else may turn out to be, in the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, “just a little bit woolly”.
Lord Greenway: The Joint Committee certainly suggested that there should be a duty on the MMO to further sustainable development, and that there should be a definition of sustainable development in the Bill. In their response, the Government started by saying that they agreed that the MMO should have a duty in relation to sustainable development, but they did not like the way that we had laid it out. They felt that the language in the draft Bill, which used the word “contribution”, was right. This was partly for the reason just given by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves.
12 Jan 2009 : Column 1098
I think we have a difficulty here because it seems that the degree of sustainable development that the MMO must achieve is going to depend on the guidance set out by the Secretary of State. Whether the Government have it in mind to tighten up on these definitions and on the amount of sustainable development that should be included in those guidelines is a question that only the Minister can answer. Perhaps he does not yet know. It is difficult to discuss this in advance of knowing what the guidance on sustainable development will be.
Lord Tyler: I shall refer briefly to Amendment 28A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. I had not intended to speak on this group of amendments but I strongly endorse the point that she was making that there will be occasions where, frankly, the various objectives will be irreconcilable. It is important that in those circumstances there is some sense of priority. I speak from practical experience: I was vice-chair of the National Parks Committee in the 1960s when, although it was implicit that conservation of the natural beauty and experience of the countryside was to be our top priority, it was never explicit in the legislation. We had constant problems as a result.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |