Marine and Coastal Access Bill [Lords]

Yes, indeed I can. I cannot give my hon. Friend a date, but I can tell her that we have actively been working on the guidelines for some time to finesse them and make sure that they are the right criteria. I intend to bring them forward a lot sooner than that, but I cannot give her a date today. I am very tempted, bearing in mind some of the remarks that have been made, to discuss reform of the common fisheries policy and how the UK is leading the agenda, long-term sustainability and maximum sustainable yields, regionalisation and ownership of fisheries management at a regional level, and bringing marine and fisheries together, which much of this debate is about. However, I will not try your patience, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I will go straight to the amendments. First, let me deal with new clause 8 and amendment 44. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) for tabling those provisions, the first of which would require Ministers to""take all reasonable steps to manage and mitigate the impact on fishing and other existing activities resulting from the designation and management of an MCZ."" Amendment 44 is broadly similar in its aim, but is linked to the reporting duty in clause 124. There has been much debate during the passage of the Bill on whether Ministers should have a power or a duty to take account of social and economic implications when deciding whether to designate a MCZ. These provisions are slightly different, because they would place a legal duty on Ministers to manage and mitigate the social and economic impacts that follow designation. The impacts of designation will be wide-ranging: they are likely to vary in scale; many different sectors and stakeholders might be affected; and there may be both direct and indirect impacts. These provisions would require Ministers first to identify and then to implement whatever steps are reasonable to manage and mitigate all the impacts. I am not saying that Ministers, and the other public authorities with a role in MCZs, should not have regard to the social and economic impacts of the decisions that they take—in fact, we have had a lot of debate on that—or that they should not keep those impacts under review and seek to manage and mitigate those impacts whenever they reasonably can. I expect that to happen, but I do not want to place a specific legal duty on Ministers for a number reasons. First, such a duty would be an extremely difficult and onerous obligation to meet, because of the range and variety of impacts to which I have just referred, and because measures to mitigate the impact on one type of activity, for example, fishing, might have a greater adverse impact on other types of activity, for example, diving, recreational activities and so on. In fact, a broad duty to mitigate the impacts on a number of activities, which are not necessarily always compatible, would be impossible to fulfil. Secondly, a range of public bodies will be involved in managing MCZs. Ministers will take the final decisions on designation, but MCZs will be managed by a number of public authorities, including the Marine Management Organisation, the inshore fisheries and conservation authorities and other public bodies that carry out functions in the marine environment. Thirdly, I am concerned that under these proposals anyone who disagreed with the Minister's decision would challenge it through judicial review. For example, Ministers could face a legal challenge on their interpretation—I could be challenged on my interpretation—of what would be reasonable steps to take, as well as on their assessment of the scale of impacts, and on whether the measures undertaken were sufficient. MCZ measures are not, in any event, set in stone. In appropriate cases, designation orders could be varied and byelaws amended. The Bill has been drafted so as to ensure that all those carrying out activities in the marine area—including fishermen—have a chance to be heard and to help form our policy, be it the marine policy statement, marine plans, MCZ designations or byelaws. I also have technical concerns about the drafting of the provision, which does not tie in with the terminology in the Bill. I hope that, in view of the considerable burden that the proposal would impose and the risks involved, my hon. Friend will withdraw the new clause. Let me move on to amendment 18, which stands in the name of the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) and seeks to require Ministers carrying out their reporting functions to include information in the reports on the extent to which, in their opinion, MCZs have""an impact upon the marine economy in general and…commercial and recreational fishing…in particular."" The purpose of the reporting duty in clause 124 is to require Ministers to report to the relevant legislature with information on progress being made. The amendment would considerably extend the scope of the reporting duty to include an assessment of the economic consequences of the actions that have been taken. Social and economic implications may be taken into account in deciding whether to designate an MCZ and also in the subsequent management of the site. We will take decisions on which areas to designate on the very best scientific evidence available to us, and we are keen to involve—I hope that I have made this clear—all relevant interests in identifying and selecting those sites. We also want stakeholders to help us gather the evidence on which to base these assessments, which will identify management scenarios, and the associated costs and benefits of the proposed sites. The impact assessments will inform the Secretary of State's final decision on whether to designate sites. The designation of a network of MCZs is likely to have an impact across a wide range of economic sectors and individuals, and that impact could be both direct and indirect and vary in size. I am concerned that placing a legal duty on Ministers to report on the impact that MCZs have on the marine economy in general, and on commercial and recreational fishing interests in particular, could be difficult and costly to comply with in any meaningful way. Although the high-level or generic assessment of such impacts might not present great difficulties, that could be of very little value when we are considering local and regionalised issues. That is not to say that the economic impact of designations will be ignored once the sites have been designated. MCZs have been designed to provide protection that is proportionate and able to change over time and that takes into account the wider needs of society. That means that the costs and benefits of any management measures that are introduced following designation should be reviewed by the appropriate authorities so that, if necessary, they can be adjusted and fine-tuned in the light of new information or changes in conditions.