Up to this point, we have quite rightly and properly been considering what form an arrangement of this level of complication requires if it is to work when all the parties are being reasonable and complying with what is required in terms of discussion, publication, notice and all the strictures that are laid down. We have even been discussing whether we can include arrangements for those who are forced to change by outside circumstances.
The question I wish to address is what is needed so that the legislation will be meaningful when the years have passed and all the parties to the agreement have changed. My amendment explores what happens when a policy authority fails to comply with a marine policy statement as opposed to announcing its wish to withdraw from it. This is one circumstance in which I do not see it as in any way appropriate that there should be a hierarchy of authority in passing judgment on whether there has been an adequate level of compliance. The Secretary of State may retain overall power in a great many areas of the Bill, but a mechanism for what one might describe as whistleblowing should be available to all parties, as compliance is vital to the integrity of the marine policy statement for everybody.
Holding a policy authority to account is not always easy. As the Minister has been at pains to explain, it will have been subject to scrutiny from its appropriate legislatures at certain stages, and the transparency provisions should go some way towards the public being aware of what can be expected. However, planning is a complex and often technical area where only similarly involved bodies will have a genuine appreciation of whether there has been a failure to comply.
As things are developing at the moment, I have had a brief discussion with one person who has had some involvement with the thinking behind the proposed body, Marine Scotland. It sounds as if the thinking is that Scotland might want to pursue policies that are much greener than those currently described in the Bill. So far, so good. But that is not to say that a succeeding Administration in any one of these disparate parts of the United Kingdom might want to do much less. The easiest way is to implement a policy of procrastination or of just ignoring previous undertakings. I should be interested to hear from the Minister how much one policy authority may be permitted to involve itself if another avoids fulfilling the terms of a marine policy statement to which they are both signed up. I beg to move.
Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Duke of Montrose
(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 c1056 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-16 20:46:06 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_527914
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_527914
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_527914