Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL]

Perhaps I should just get on with it. Amendment 89ZC uses the same language as Amendment 90ZC and is grouped with Amendments 89A and 90A. It deals with ““relevant considerations””. Taking just one of the provisions, I was surprised to see that the Bill states: "““A marine plan must be in conformity with any MPS””," for the area, "““unless relevant considerations indicate otherwise””." I searched unsuccessfully for a definition of ““relevant considerations””. The two long amendments are not my drafting—I would not have had the imagination to do more than delete the phrase—but they suggest the circumstances in which relevant considerations might apply, and those are listed. I shall not take your Lordships’ time by reading the four, and in the other case six, circumstances. I may be told otherwise but I do not believe that the term has achieved an understanding in the way that in terrestrial planning ““material consideration”” has. I understand that the Government rejected the use of that term on the basis that we are looking at a new type of planning regime, perhaps a new type of planning and, as referred to by my noble friend Lady Miller, new planners, who do not yet exist—at least, they exist but they do not have the qualifications; they are to come. I think that it is dangerous to have such a wide, undefined and uncircumscribed clause. To my mind, the term ““relevant”” is wider and looser than ““material””, which I accept has case law behind it. It certainly does not mean as much as ““significant””. A matter can be relevant but at the same time unimportant, yet, if it were unimportant but relevant, it would still appear to detract from the obligation for a marine plan to be in conformity with an MPS. The Government may defend the wording by saying that we will have guidance, but that is the least that we should have. If we are to have guidance, I hope that they have begun to work on it and can share with your Lordships what it might say before we proceed too much further through the Bill. It seems to me that this matter needs to be pinned down far more than is the case at the moment. We cannot leave it to the good will of various authorities; it is too open to challenge. I beg to move.