Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL]

My Lords, we are all for elegance, particularly when it is achieved in under one minute. In Committee I tabled amendments on the relationship between the marine policy statement and the national policy statements under the Planning Act. It was explained to me that the subsection that I had attempted to amend had the purpose of promoting internal consistency within the marine policy statement. I did understand that. I am sorry that I did not make it clear that I understood not only that but that my own amendments would have taken the matter of consistency into a different area. So I say at the start that I am concerned not about internal consistency within the marine policy statement—I am concerned about it, but not for the purposes of this amendment—but about how we can be assured that the marine policy statement and the potentially large number of national policy statements are consistent, not as a matter of intention or aspiration but through the process provided by the legislation. That is not quite as easy or obvious as it might appear, because more than one Administration are involved in the marine policy statement. At the last stage, the Minister said: ""If, as we intend, all four Administrations agree".—[Official Report, 28/01/2009; col. 331.]" I read that phrase to my noble friend Lord Alderdice, who, with his background in one of the Administrations, laughed for quite a long time. These amendments seek a greater understanding of the process provided for by the legislation. Amendments 60 and 61 would deal with the marine policy statement covered in Clause 42. Grouped with them, as they are on similar points, are Amendments 76 and 77 to Clause 49, which is about marine plans, and Amendments 89 and 90 to Clause 56, which is about authorisation and the enforcement of decisions. I beg to move.