Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL]

I am introducing Amendments 89AZA, 89AZB, 89CB, 89FZB and 89HB to improve the clarity of the Bill in relation to the Secretary of State and retained functions. They are minor and technical amendments. At various stages of the planning process, certain requirements apply if the proposed plan makes provision in relation to ““retained functions””; that is, functions which have not been devolved. ““Retained functions”” is a concept which only has relevance in relation to devolved marine planning regions. There are no devolved functions in the English inshore or offshore regions, so there are no ““retained functions””. These requirements should therefore not apply to plans prepared by the Secretary of State for those regions. Amendment 89AZA ensures that the requirement to state whether a marine plan makes provision in relation to retained functions does not apply to plans prepared by the Secretary of State. These are followed by consequential amendments to Schedule 6— Amendments 89CB, 89FZB and 89HB—which make it clear that the Secretary of State’s agreement is not needed for publishing his own statement of public participation or a revised SPP or his consultation draft. Finally, Amendment 89AZB to Clause 49 introduces a signpost to the definition of ““retained functions””, which appears later, in Clause 57, for purposes of clarity. I beg to move. Amendment 89AZA agreed.