Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL]

That was a very interesting debate. I agree with my noble friend Lord Tyler that judicial review is a very difficult process, because it deals with how a decision was arrived at, and cannot look at the issues in the same way. It will help if the Minister writes to us, because, like the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, I am still confused about who will face sanctions under the scheme of delegation. The Minister prays in aid Clause 124, but it is a pretty feeble stipulation that, ""on a request the authority can provide an explanation in writing"." That does not constitute naming and shaming. Even if it did, naming and shaming a quango is not the same as naming and shaming a council that is subject to election every four years, where the sanction may have some effect. We are giving immense power to the MMO and ought to think seriously about the sanctions that will be applied when it fails: when it has not pursued its duty as it should, or when it has delegated a duty that has fallen between two public authorities. That is an issue that this debate has opened up—the fact that there may be a hole down which important duties may fall in some circumstances. I look forward to receiving the Minister’s letter giving more detail on that matter. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment A176 withdrawn. Clause 123: Advice and guidance by conservation bodies Amendments A177 to A183 not moved. Clause 123 agreed. Clause 124: Failure to comply with duties etc Amendments A183A and A183B not moved. Clause 124 agreed.