Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL]

The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, was quite right to probe the question of funding, but I am less than enthusiastic about allowing IFCAs to borrow money. Each IFCA will prepare a budget and will receive sufficient funds to discharge its commitments from local authorities and from its share of the £5 million to be given by Defra. If the MMO, the Environment Agency, Natural England or another body delegates any additional functions to IFCA, no doubt funds will follow. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, mentioned capital commitments. Capital commitments are not made up on the spur of the moment, so there will be time for the next budget to be prepared for those capital commitments to be included and voted on accordingly, I should have thought. Amendment A240B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, addresses an interesting part of Clause 171, which refers to "any circumstances whatsoever". That is an all-embracing, sweeping statement. It could mean anything. I, too, would like to probe the Minister on that. What is the rationale behind it? Will the same method be used as is used with the sea fisheries committees? What will be the norm? Will it be based on the number of the electorate or the number of miles of seashore for each area? How will it be done? What will be those other circumstances? That brings us to the question of who has the deciding vote on financial matters. We certainly subscribe to the principle that the body providing the funding—the councils—should have the final say. Those who have to account for the spending of public money to taxpayers should be able, by use of the veto, to maintain control over that money.