Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL]

Again, this continues our discussion of marine policy statements. Perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that in the debate just before the break I outlined some of the points she raised. I understand the problems that she and the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, have had, so I will just briefly set out for them that, essentially, the marine planning system is a two-stage approach: first a UK marine policy statement and then a series of marine plans to apply the policies in the policy statement to particular geographical areas. Decisions on licensing and consents in the marine area will then have to be taken in accordance with the marine policy statement and the plans. The marine policy statement is to be agreed by the UK Government and the devolved Administrations, to which the noble Earl referred. I will come to the question of one policy statement in a moment. The UK Government and the devolved Administrations are called the policy authorities in the Bill. They comprise the Secretary of State, Scottish Ministers, Welsh Ministers and the Department of Environment in Northern Ireland. The Bill does not change the devolution settlement, but it provides for a form of executive devolution, which will allow the devolved Administrations to produce comprehensive plans with the agreement of the Secretary of State. I reiterate that the marine policy statement will cover the whole of the UK marine area. If, as we intend, all four Administrations agree the marine policy statement, there is no question that we will deliver consistency throughout the United Kingdom. Significant incentives are built into the system to encourage co-operation between us, but it is a fact of devolution that we cannot require other Administrations to agree with us. Therefore, we have to provide for devolved Administrations to opt out of the marine policy statement and for the Secretary of State to work alone if that is necessary. Clearly, that would be a matter of great regret and would diminish very much what we hope to achieve through the legislation. The purpose of the noble Baroness’s amendments is to ensure that, should there be a conflict between the policies laid down in the MPS and another MPS or with any national policy statement, the policy in the MPS always takes precedence. Partly, the noble Baroness is debating the MPS, but she is also taking us back to a significant debate we had last week about the relationship between the MMO and the IPC. However, that is to misunderstand the purpose of the subsection, which is to promote internal consistency within the marine policy statement and to specify what should take precedence if there is an apparent conflict within the statement, rather than dealing with conflicts between the MPS and external documents. Turning to Amendment 85AA, and in response to the noble Earl, it is important to emphasise that there will only ever be one marine policy statement at any one time, anywhere in the UK marine area. Clause 43(3) makes clear that a later MPS will always replace an earlier one, so that it is not possible to have two at the same time. This is to ensure clarity for decision makers. An MPS either exists and guides decision making in the region that has adopted it, or it does not. Amendments 85AB and 89AA take us into familiar territory, and concern the need for consistency, and the relative importance of the MPS, marine plans and national policy statements in the marine area. This falls outside the scope of the two subsections that are the target of these amendments. Clauses 42(3) and 49(6) are about internal consistency within the MPS or plan, not about consistency and conflict resolution with other expressions of policy. I have said a number of times that we are fully committed to ensuring consistency between the marine policy statement and the national policy statement. I hope that I have clarified the position for the noble Baroness and that she might consider withdrawing her amendment.