Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL]

It will surprise and delight the Committee to hear that my noble friend Lord Greaves is not sufficiently indisposed to prevent him doing some very important research on this issue, and so I am fully briefed. He obviously has access to his copious library and to the internet, which is even more copious. However, there is a serious point here and I hope that, having given the Minister due warning of this issue, his officials will have found precedents for the use of this curious phrase. If something is necessary, it surely is unnecessary to add ““or expedient””; either it is necessary or it is not. What is the point of adding ““expedient”” unless it is just expediency? ““Expedient”” has two different meanings. One is fairly benign—in that circumstance perhaps there is a case for including it here—the other is loaded with a deprecatory meaning. I want to examine that briefly with the benefit of my noble friend’s research. The Oxford English Dictionary defines ““expedient”” as, "““conducive to advantage in general or to a definite purpose; fit, proper or suitable to the circumstances of the case””," and, "““in depreciative sense, ‘useful’ or ‘politic’ as opposed to ‘just’ or ‘right’””." I am sure that the Committee is in favour of things that are just and right but is it also in favour of things that are merely useful and politic? That is only one definition. The first definition in the Concise Oxford Dictionary 1991 is, "““advantageous, advisable on practical rather than moral grounds””." At this time of night, I hope that we do not need to explore whether we want to have something that will be immoral; surely we are not in that business. The second definition is, ““suitable, appropriate””. Collins Cobuild Essential English Dictionary 1998 states: "““An expedient is an action or a plan that achieves a particular purpose, but that may not be morally acceptable””." The Committee is not full to the rafters with Members, but if it was I am sure they would not be terribly keen on something that was not morally acceptable. My noble friend discovered a further definition in Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary. It states: "““Expedient usually implies what is immediately advantageous without regard for ethics or consistent principles””." I await with bated breath to hear what the Minister will say to justify something that has no regard for ethics or consistent principles. Finally, no Liberal or Liberal Democrat can go into the business of definition without quoting John Stuart Mill. He said: "““The expedient, in the sense in which it is opposed to the right, generally means that which is expedient for the particular interest of the state itself””." This is a very small amendment based on the concept that ““necessary”” is quite enough; nothing else is necessary and it simply is not expedient. I speak also to Amendment No. 101ZB, which seeks to leave out ““or expedient”” at line 40 of page 36. I submit that ““necessary”” is quite sufficient, and that nothing else is expedient. I beg to move.