HL Deb 19 February 1987 vol 484 cc1229-35

4.48 p.m.

House again in Committee.

Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.

Clause 4 [Short title, commencement and extent]:

Lord Campbell of Croy moved Amendment No. 3: Page 3, line 37, leave out from ("on") to end of line 39 and insert ("1st January 1988").

The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment. The Committee will recall that I mentioned this point on Second Reading. In the comprehensive reply that my noble friend Lady Young gave to that debate she did not have time, in response, to say when the Government intend that the Bill, if enacted, should come into force.

As far as I can see, the Bill should pass through Parliament without delay. I should be surprised if it is not enacted before the Summer Recess. Under Clause 4 the Bill can be brought into effect at any time after that on the advice of Ministers. I understand—and my noble friend mentioned this in her Second Reading speeches—that there is some urgency with regard to the Channel Tunnel and that the Government think it would be convenient that the territorial sea should be extended to 12 miles in good time. However, should there be some unforeseen delay over the Channel Tunnel—I shall not raise all those points—will the Government nonetheless still be wanting to bring the Act into force at an early date? I should be grateful to hear from my noble friend what the Government's intentions are.

If one looks at Clause 4, it is drafted so that different parts of the Bill can be brought into force on different dates, again on the advice of Ministers. I should be grateful if my noble friend, when she replies, could also indicate why that should be necessary and what parts of the Bill the Government think would need to be brought in at different times. This is a probing amendment to enable the Government, having been given notice of some days, to tell us what their intentions are about bringing the Bill into force after it has been enacted.

Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos

I have a little sympathy with the purposes of the amendment moved by the noble Lord. I would be interested to hear from the noble Baroness why a date for the initial Order in Council putting the Bill into effect cannot be included in the Bill itself.

I wonder whether the noble Baroness can also clarify another point in connection with Clause 4(2). Does it mean that orders under Clause 3(2) do not have to be made at the same time as the initial order putting the Bill into effect? If that is the case, then it is understandable that flexibility in making orders is necessary.

Baroness Young

May I say at once to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy that I share entirely the aim which lies behind the amendment that he has moved. I should like to give him, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, the assurance that our intention is to bring the whole Act into force at the same time subject to the making of any necessary secondary legislation to deal with technical matters. In practice, I am advised that this is likely to take place some two months after Royal Assent. I would therefore hope that it would be well before January 1988. That is the point that both my noble friend Lord Campbell and the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, wanted to hear. I hope very much that that will be the case. It is not in any event dependent upon what might happen over the Channel Tunnel. The Bill stands on its own. I can give that assurance.

On the other specific point that the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, raised—I shall write to him if I am not correct on this point—flexibility is often written into a Bill because it may be affected by the subordinate legislation. However, our intention is that the whole of this will come in as soon as possible after Royal Assent.

Lord Campbell of Croy

I am grateful for the interest and support of the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn and also for the very clear reply which my noble friend has given. She and other members of the Government will know that I have been urging the Government over several years to introduce a Bill of this kind. It is very good news to know that despite what may happen to the Channel Tunnel or other matters, it is their firm intention to make sure that the Bill comes into force as soon as is reasonably practical after it has been enacted. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4 agreed to.

Schedule 1 [Minor and consequential amendments]:

Baroness White moved Amendment No. 4: Page 5, line 23, leave out ("three") and insert ("twelve").

The noble Baroness said: This is a very modest little amendment. It is simply to extend to designated nature reserves the possibility, without having to go through an Order in Council, of being within the 12-mile limit instead of within the three-mile limit.

As I explained on Second Reading and as I have had confirmed in correspondence with the Nature Conservancy Council, there is no immediate prospect of designating nature reserves outside the existing three-mile limit. On the other hand, I hope that we are legislating for some time to come, and if there are innovations, as I have suggested, in diving techniques and so forth, there is at least a possibility that later it might be desirable for designations to take place beyond the three-mile but within a 12-mile nautical limit.

I should perhaps explain to any Member of the Committee who is not aware of it that a marine nature reserve is not simply constituted by a decision of the Nature Conservancy Council. Any such reserve has to be designated by the appropriate Secretary of State—for the Environment, for Wales or for Scotland, as the case may be. There is therefore no risk of some unsuitable area being designated. It is perfectly adequately controlled.

The Nature Conservancy Council itself says that it is not aware of the Government's reasons for this provision and that in its view, while nothing immediate is likely to impede any designation, the Order in Council route "seems to be a complication". I am asking the noble Baroness to agree that we bring this matter within the ambit of the Bill as a whole and do not place an unnecessary restriction, as it appears to me, in legislation if we do not need it. I beg to move.

Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos

The question of why marine reserves were not to extend to 12 miles along with the extension of the territorial sea limit raised a number of comments during the Second Reading of the Bill. My noble friend Lady White, the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, and myself mentioned this issue when we spoke at that time. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, was sympathetic in her response. She explained that there was not sufficient data to say whether a 12-mile limit would be necessary and that if it were found to be so, then an Order in Council could be used to extend the limit. Clearly, not all Members of the Committee were entirely satisfied by the answer of the noble Baroness. Indeed, while there is some apparent merit in the argument, it is still not absolutely clear why there should not be such an extension.

In order not to detain the Committee I shall put the following short questions to the noble Baroness. First, what would be the effect of extending the limit in this context? Secondly, when does the noble Baroness envisage there being sufficient scientific data if it is possible to make a calculation of that kind at this stage? Thirdly, what programmes exist to allow the acquisition of all this necessary data? Finally, if the noble Baroness is to delay the extension of the limit, then the Committee must be assured that every effort is being made to see that the delay will be no longer than is absolutely necessary.

5 p.m.

Baroness Young

May I say in response to the amendment that has been moved by the noble Baroness, Lady White, that I am very glad of the opportunity to make clear that the proposed power by Order in Council to extend the area for marine nature reserves is not intended to be restrictive. Of course in preparation for this Committee stage I did look again at what the noble Baroness, Lady White, had said at Second Reading, as well as my noble friend Lord Cranbrook and the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, and I understand their concern. What I believe the noble Baroness said in moving her amendment—I did make a note of her words—is that she did not think that at the present time there was any immediate prospect of designating nature reserves outside the three-mile limit. Indeed, my understanding is that the Nature Conservancy Council itself is not pressing for the immediate extension proposed in the amendment. The fact is that, as she herself said, an extension may be needed later on, and we share the noble Baroness's quite justifiable concern for conservation, But we believe that it is prudent to await more information on the three-to 12-mile area before extending the limits.

The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, asked me a number of detailed questions about what may be happening. I believe—and I trespass here in a world that I am conscious many are much more familiar with than I am—that there is still, as I said at Second Reading, considerable discussion about the nature reserves within the three-mile limit. I believe one has been designated at Lundy, and others are under discussion. The reason why they are under discussion is not that there is unwillingness about this, but because, as is so often the case in these matters, there are various views which have to be taken into account before a decision can be reached. As far as I know, there is not a set date by which there will be sufficient scientific data concerning the extension from three to 12 miles, nor is there any particular programme in existence. My understanding of the position is that a number of nature reserves within the three-mile limit are currently being considered. When those are agreed, or not, as the case may be—and more need to be considered—then the way the Bill would operate is that there would be an Order in Council to extend the territorial sea in order to meet this consideration.

So I hope very much—for we are all agreed about the importance of this, and we believe that we have the necessary mechanism—that the noble Baroness, Lady White, will see that there is no difference in principle; it is really a question of timing. The fact is that the Nature Conservancy Council has not been able to make a great deal of progress on its marine conservation review, and it will be some years yet before we can determine the nature and characteristics of arrangements for deeper waters.

If I may sum up, we do not rule out an extension, and certainly intend to look at any proposals. The Bill in its present form makes prudent provision for action at the appropriate time. I hope therefore that with that explanation the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

The Earl of Cranbrook

Before she sits down, may I ask my noble friend whether she knows of any real scientific objections to allowing full freedom to establish marine nature reserves within the 12-mile limit?

Baroness Young

The noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, will know I am sure far better than I do myself, because he is very familiar with the detail of this, that there has been much discussion on the nature reserves within the three-mile limit. There are many matters that need to be considered. I do not in any way wish to make some excruciating pun about going into difficult waters, but I believe fishing is one of the issues that need to be considered in relation to this. One therefore has to get agreement from a number of people before a nature reserve can be established. We have not yet got agreement within the three-mile limit. When it is thought suitable—when at least an area is identified for a nature reserve in the three- to 12-mile limit —then of course we can look at that but we have not yet reached that position.

Baroness White

All I can say is that I am deeply disappointed in the noble Baroness; I thought she had more common sense. What conceivable harm could be done by accepting this amendment? I fail entirely to see why she needs to resist it. As I tried briefly to explain, there is no possibility of any nature reserve, at whatever distance legitimately from the shore, being designated without the full consultation by the appropriate Secretary of State and the various interests which the noble Baroness has very properly referred to. Therefore what conceivable harm would be done to anyone by allowing this extension, forthwith to the legislation which is before us?

The use of the permission to move a little further out in consonance with the general purposes of this Bill is very carefully guarded by the necessary consensus which the Nature Conservancy Council would have to obtain. The noble Baroness must know as well as I do what happens in the Civil Service if somebody who does not particularly like what is being proposed is able to say: "Ah, yes, but that would involve an Order in Council". It would act as a possible deterrent to somebody who was perhaps eager to suggest an exercise of conservation in an area which had not been attempted before because we did not have adequate scientific or technological expertise. I cannot see—and I am sure this is an unintentional insult to our intelligence—why the noble Baroness cannot accept in this legislation the suggestion that we add to the Bill, whose purpose as a whole is to extend the 12-mile limit, the possibility—no more than that—that at some time a nature reserve may be established within the 12-mile limit instead of the three-mile limit.

I quite agree with the noble Baroness that consultations have to take place. It was rightly mentioned that within the shallow littoral areas that we are working in now these consultations take an interminable time. But that in itself is no reason why we should not exercise good sense and not discriminate unnecessarily in a restrictive way in the legislation which is before us and which we hope will be effective for many years to come. I am afraid I do not feel disposed to withdraw my amendment.

Baroness Young

Perhaps I may add further to what I said earlier on. The fact is that the Wildlife and Countryside Act of 1981 was drafted with inshore and coastal waters in mind. The machinery which was developed to consider the proposals for marine nature reserves may not be appropriate for areas lying in the wider limit. I hope that the noble Baroness will understand that there may be serious complications, both in shipping and in fishing, to resolve in administering reserves in the more distant areas—issues which we have not really considered fully. As she will know, in consideration of marine nature reserves, it is necessary to balance all the interests—the needs of conservation, but also the rights of access of Community fishermen between six and 12 miles, and the right of unimpeded innocent passage of foreign vessels, which are more likely to make use of deeper waters.

None of these matters is insuperable, but each does need to be considered a step at a time. As we have not already completed our negotiations up to the three-mile limit, it seems better to leave the legislation as it stands with the quite proper provision that, if we want to extend, the machinery is there to do so.

Baroness White

The machinery is there in any case. All that is needed is for the Secretary of State concerned to inform the Nature Conservancy Council —being sensible enough no doubt to consult in advance—and say, "I am very sorry, but you will appreciate that this is not a situation in which I feel able to designate."

Lord Campbell of Croy

Before the noble Baroness concludes her remarks, I should point out that over the years, she and I have been trying to get a Bill such as this introduced into Parliament. Now we have it. As regards the last amendment my noble friend gave us the excellent news that it is the Government's intention that the Bill, which will go through Parliament quite quickly, will be brought into effect as soon as possible after its passage. The noble Baroness and I, and many others in your Lordships' Committee, are extremely pleased that that is happening.

I understand the point that the noble Baroness makes. I heard her speak about it at Second Reading and she has done so again today. However, if there are problems which the Government think should be looked into—for example, problems associated with fisheries, shipping and so on—I ask the noble Baroness to accept the great bonus of the Bill and the fact that it will be enacted soon rather than cause the Bill to be held up through the Government having to consider problems which they have put aside to deal with later.

Lord Monkswell

It appears to me that the constraints under which a marine nature reserve would be set up under the three-mile limit must include provision for shipping and fisheries. Shipping does not suddenly occur outside three miles; it occurs inside that distance. Therefore, provision must exist already for shipping and fisheries to be taken into account when determining the area of a marine nature reserve. Surely the same constraints as apply within three miles would automatically apply within 12 miles.

Our concern on the subject is that effectively a great deal of civil service, administrative and government time will be consumed in trying to determine at some later stage whether to go from three miles to 12 miles with regard to marine nature reserves, whereas if we were to accept the amendment, the criterion for judging whether a marine nature reserve should extend between three and 12 miles could be considered under the Wildlife and Countryside Act.

Baroness Young

I very much hope that I have made the position plain. I am most grateful once again for the intervention by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy. The fact is that the arrangements in the schedule apply within the three miles, but the position is not quite the same between three miles and 12 miles. For example, the water is deeper, there are more ships and there are more fishermen. The situation is different outside and, therefore, there would be different machinery. Other pieces of legislation come into play. At the risk of being thought not to have any common sense and bearing in mind that we all want the Bill, perhaps I may suggest that what the noble Baroness, Lady White, would like is possible. I hope that she will accept that.

Baroness White

I certainly do not want to hold up a Bill for which, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, has rightly said, both of us have been waiting for quite some time. I am still unhappy about the reply which I have received, but I do not wish to press the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Remaining schedule agreed to.

House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.