Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL]

Amendment 13 13: Schedule 1, page 216, line 6, leave out sub-paragraph (3) Amendment 13 stands all alone and lonely in a little group on its own. It may be that no one wants to be associated with the number 13; I do not know, but there we are. It is on slightly more down-to-earth and practical matters, and refers to paragraph 20 on page 216, which is about the delegation of functions by the MMO. I am using that abbreviation now, so there we go. Paragraph 20 says: "““The MMO may authorise a committee, sub-committee, member or employee … to exercise any of the MMO’s functions””." This is a fairly normal procedure for any organisation that says to a group of its members, to another group of people or to someone whom it employs that they can have a delegated power to exercise its functions. So far, so good. However, I said earlier that I had an idealistic view that legislation should write down what will happen. I also have a perhaps naive view that I should be able to understand legislation before I am prepared to see it go through the House. I do not understand sub-paragraph (3). I understand what the words mean, but I do not understand how the sub-paragraph will work in practice. It says: "““No authorisation under sub-paragraph (1)””—" that is, a delegation to these various bodies— "““prevents … (a) the MMO from exercising the function itself; (b) a member or employee of the MMO from exercising the function; (c) the MMO from authorising a different committee, sub-committee, member or employee to carry out the function””." At a very simple level, it may simply be saying that it can revoke the previous delegation and delegate to someone else. However, it does not say that. It says that you can delegate the function to a committee, but a member can then exercise it. It is not clear at all what it means in practice. I think it means that having delegated the function to a committee, to a member of the board or whomever, the MMO can decide to delegate it to someone else who can then carry it out. That is obviously sensible; it is the normal world and how things work. One assumes that sub-paragraph (1) would include that anyhow. The real danger with sub-paragraph (3) is that, if it means what it appears to mean on paper, two or perhaps five different lots of people could be delegated the same function and there could be total chaos. What does it mean? Does it mean revocation or that there could be massive duplication and confusion? The Minister will say, ““Of course it will not mean that in the real world. That is not what we will do””. I say that what we are going to do is what it says we are going to do. I beg to move.