Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for moving the amendment. Those of us who were at the helpful devolution briefing and who have looked at the maps will understand that the more we delve into the issue of devolution and different authorities, the more complex the question becomes. A quick look at the map shows that for the UK part of the Irish Sea at least four separate plans could be applicable. The issue of joint planning, therefore, is important—or is ““planning jointly”” a better phrase? The Government’s consultation document, Our Seas—A Shared Resource, states clearly that the marine objectives are in line with the, "““integrated approach that Administrations are proposing to take through new legislation””." The objectives are designed to promote the action of the UK Government, the Northern Ireland Executive and the Welsh Assembly Government in a ““coherent and consistent way””. The sea is a volatile beast and decisions made in one area may affect another. It is difficult to draw precise boundaries and define where the impact of the action of one authority will end and another begin, so it is vital that joined-up planning takes place across boundaries. It is not difficult therefore to see the reasoning behind the Government’s emphasis on the integrated and consistent approach. I think I am right in saying that they would sympathise with the sentiment behind Amendment 89B—namely, that nothing should stop marine planning authorities making joint marine statements—but they have not wanted to highlight it or encourage it specifically.