Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL]

I shall speak also to Amendments 89LA to 89LC, and one of my noble friends has Amendment 94ZZA in this group. These amendments concern joint planning across borders and boundaries. Amendment 89B would add a paragraph to Clause 49 to provide that there can be, "““joint plans by marine plan authorities between marine planning regions””." Again, I am grateful to the Link Coalition for this amendment. It does not need arguing any further that to ensure sustainable development one must look not at political or administrative boundaries, but follow what my noble friend on the Front Bench probably would call sensible boundaries—ecological boundaries in this case. We have had reference already, not least from my noble friend Lady Miller, about the dangers of having separate plans produced for the same area. This is an encouragement to the preparation of joint plans. I am advised that under the marine strategy framework directive member states are required to produce strategies and programmes to, "““apply an ecosystem-based approach to the management of human activities, ensuring that the collective pressure of such activities is kept within levels compatible with the achievement of good environmental status””." The amendment suggested by the Link Coalition builds on that. Amendments 89LA, LB and LC seek to amend Clause 52, which covers the need to keep matters under review and would extend those matters beyond the authority’s own region to the regions of the other marine plan authorities. They are the result of my drafting and are therefore a lot shorter than those of the coalition. Amendment 94B would add a similar provision to Clause 58. I beg to move.