---

Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL]

The two amendments in this group cover the relationship between the MMO and eligible bodies. The first amendment is intended to probe whether the MMO will always be on the front foot. I suggest that the words ““vice versa”” would give the other eligible bodies the chance to enter into an agreement with the MMO. In other words, they might be proactive. The Bill as drafted suggests that the MMO is always the proactive body, leaving the other eligible bodies in the position of reacting to it. I would like the Minister to comment on whether he envisages an equal relationship between these various agencies, bodies and organisations, or whether the MMO will always be in the more proactive position, as Clause 15 suggests. I have tabled Amendment 65A because I would like the Minister’s reassurance that the Environment Agency will remain the competent authority for the water framework directive. This is because of the issue of water quality in estuaries and just off the coast. This is obviously the jurisdiction of the MMO but, as the Bill is drafted, it is the jurisdiction of the MMO up to the highest high tide inland, which could be 16 or 20 miles inland. I want to know that the EA will remain the competent body because the water in those places is so affected by what happens on land that the run-off from land into rivers, estuaries and the sea should obviously stay within the competence of the Environment Agency. I would not like there to be any confusion on that. Even when it affects something that either the MMO or IFCAs may have responsibility for, it should be unequivocally the agency that remains responsible for water quality. I give one example that might be useful. I recently visited IGER in North Wyke, where some interesting work was being done on water quality, as affected by cattle dung on fields and the small organisms in it which then run off into freshwater—such as streams and rivers—and go downriver into the area where shellfish are raised. Obviously shellfish will not be under the EA’s jurisdiction but the water quality should be. The effect that could be implemented by farming those fields differently, perhaps by creating bigger borders between the river bank and the farmed area of the field, will make a difference. It is, in some ways, quite a leap of imagination for people to think that practising a different agricultural regime 20 miles inland will affect shellfish beds, but that is the case. Much work is already under way in this area. We have had previous debates on the water framework directive, one of which I memorably introduced. There was so little interest that there were, I think, three speakers altogether. I am not expecting a lot more interest today, but water quality and the way in which the water framework directive enables this country to up its game is an important issue. As I have explained through the shellfish example, the knock-on effects are enormous, both environmentally and economically—and, indeed, socially, as anyone who bathes in estuary areas or off the coast can tell you. It is an important issue. I look forward to the time when our water everywhere is of excellent quality. That is the reason I have raised the issue. I beg to move.