This group of amendments follows on naturally from the discussions we had in our last day in Committee. I thank the noble Baroness for giving us the opportunity to probe this area. She is quite right that it is to be hoped that no authority would withdraw from an MPS, but that it would instead continue to operate in co-ordination with the Secretary of State and the other authorities. The requirement to publish any decision to withdraw is the minimum that one would expect from an authority taking such a drastic step. It would allow the public and other stakeholders the opportunity of identifying whether their authority was pursuing the wrong path. It is conceivable that the withdrawing authority will have a very good reason for doing so, but such a reason should be made public for a proper assessment.
Of course, even if there were a good reason for one authority to withdraw from the MPS, it would still be preferable for the MPS as a whole to be reviewed rather than for the authorities to go their separate ways. A compromise would be preferable. We therefore hope that the Minister will look carefully at Amendment 86F.
I should like to take this opportunity to probe a little more deeply the possibility of a partial withdrawal or opt-out by one country or authority. If, for example, one country agrees with the lion’s share of the MPS but cannot agree on one point or section, can it opt-out of that section only and sign up for the rest of the MPS? That section would state that all other policy authorities agreed except for ““country X””. It could then state its preferred alternative policy for that section of the MPS. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response on the efforts to be made to keep everyone on board even if they perhaps do not agree with every provision.
Finally, I should like to probe the role of the MMO in the production of the MPS. Is it to have a role in preparing, reviewing and amending all compliance with the MPS? If not, should I add it to my list of areas where the MMO has no role? That would be number 6 on my list.
Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Earl Cathcart
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 10 February 2009.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL].
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
707 c1020-1 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-16 20:48:39 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_527831
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_527831
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_527831