Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL]

In speaking to this group, in particular I shall speak to the three amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness. First, I give apologies from my noble friend that he is not able to be in London today. Therefore, I perhaps have to act as a surrogate Scot for the occasion. I can sing ““Flower of Scotland”” with the best of them, and at rugby matches I probably would do. I had better not pursue that much further, before I am set upon. In this group, we have Amendments 86FA, 86GB and 89M. I shall speak first to the first two of those, which are on a slightly separate topic relating to when a relevant public authority withdraws from an MPS. The purpose of the amendments is to give a locus to the appropriate legislative body to be involved before a relevant public authority withdraws from an MPS. A ““relevant public authority”” is the Secretary of State, Scottish Ministers, Welsh Ministers or, in the case of the Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Assembly. The scheme for approval of an MPS is set out in Schedule 5. Paragraph 9 provides for the consultation draft to be laid before the appropriate legislature before a final text is adopted. Paragraph 9(3) defines the appropriate legislatures, and is replicated in Amendment 86GB. In Paragraph 9(4) an appropriate legislative body or committee thereof can make a resolution or recommendation in respect of the draft to which the public authority must respond. Given the involvement of legislatures in the adoption of an MPS, these amendments are intended to facilitate involvement prior to withdrawal; indeed they give the relevant legislatures the right to veto withdrawal, thus enhancing parliamentary oversight, which is arguably lacking in the Bill, although we would not entirely go along with the arguments put by the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart. Amendment 89M covers the ground of the noble Earl’s amendments. It is a question of parliamentary scrutiny or, possibly in the noble Earl’s case, of giving the various Parliaments and legislatures the ability to approve or disapprove a marine policy statement by affirmative resolution. Our amendment is intended to address the parliamentary deficit in the current proposals, although I notice that in the Government’s response to the Joint Scrutiny Committee report on the draft Bill, they promise that they will bring forward legislation to put in the Bill the same system that applies to national policy statements in the Planning Act. It would be very helpful if the Minister told us more about this and, in particular, gave us an assurance that those government amendments will come before the Bill leaves this House. This is an important matter for this House, as the noble Earl said. It is not just a matter of legislation, but a matter of the involvement, powers and influence of this House. We want to see that legislation before it goes to the other place, otherwise the Minister might find that we write it for him, and perhaps he will then have to change it again when it goes to the other end. It would be far better if the Government could bring those amendments here. The marine plan authorities are all UK or devolved government bodies, but the involvement of the Houses of Parliament, devolved Parliaments and Assemblies in overseeing the exercise of the powers in relation to the development of marine plans is lacking in the Bill. Schedule 6 makes provision for public, not parliamentary, consultation. Our amendment does not require parliamentary scrutiny, but makes it permissive. In other words, if the Scottish Parliament, for example—I speak in my role as an honorary Scot—wishes to make standing orders or devise procedures which would require Scottish Ministers to present a marine plan to Parliament for scrutiny prior to adoption, it will not vitiate the procedure set out in the Bill, nor the validity of the plan. We are saying: give each of the legislatures the ability to scrutinise this legislation, and to do it properly, but leave it to each legislature to devise the means of scrutiny through their own standing orders, or whatever. That would seem to be in the spirit of devolution. On that basis, and on the basis of our detailed discussions on the then Planning Bill, we cannot support the proposals put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, that the marine policy statement should be subject to an affirmative resolution of this House and the House of Commons. These are complicated matters and they may be evolving. They concern the nature of government and Parliament at the UK level. They are to do with the functions of government and of Parliament. Our view is that on matters such as this it is indeed the job of Parliament to legislate, it is the job of government to decide policy, and it is then the job of Parliament to scrutinise that policy. In recent times, the balance of power between the Executive and the legislature—between the Government and Parliament—may have been shifting too far to the Government and too far away from Parliament. On the other hand, the scrutinising procedures of this House and the House of Commons have certainly developed, improved and been extended in recent years. In a number of instances, they have been proved to be more effective now than they used to be, not least in the pre-legislative scrutiny of this Bill. Therefore, these matters are evolving and they may evolve in future, but our view is that it is certainly not for this House to try to rewrite the rules on the basis of a single Bill, whether it is the then Planning Bill or this one. There are certainly major issues and principles here which at the moment mean that we cannot support the Conservative amendment.