Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL]

My Lords, this amendment takes us to the clause about marine plans for marine plan areas. It must be the time of night, but when I read that a moment ago I wondered where else they would be for. In Committee, your Lordships rejected a requirement that marine plans must be in place by 2012. We thought that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, who moved the amendment in Committee, was right about the requirement for plans but that 2012 was over ambitious. My Amendment 71 changes "may" to "must". One day I will understand why "may" meaning "must" is the right term. I have not yet. The linchpin of the Bill seems to be marine plans. It is counterintuitive, at any rate to me, that Clause 49 is permissive and not mandatory. We see plans not simply as restrictive but as establishing what can be done where, taking into account the sometimes competing or incompatible potential activities. It is important that there are plans, not least to establish the extent, if there is any extent, of an activity to which some people may object and object very strongly—for example, wind farms. It is all a matter of balance, which we discussed at the previous stage. It is not obvious to me how there can be a balance if there are gaps in the patchwork of plans. We have not included a long-stop date. However, to anticipate a possible argument from the Government, we do not regard that as making the amendment meaningless because there must come a point, which probably depends on circumstances, at which a marine plan authority, which has dragged its feet for so long in not producing a plan, is in breach. I believe that a court would see it that way. I suppose that is the test that one must always have in mind. Amendment 73, which states that, ""A marine authority must create a marine plan or plans for the whole of its marine planning region"," is a little stronger than Amendment 72 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, who uses the words "seek to ensure". It is not an absolute obligation. Amendment 73 goes further. A moment ago I referred to a patchwork and this would ensure blanket coverage. Amendments 71 and 73 go hand in hand. At the previous stage, in response to my noble friends Lord Greaves and Lady Miller, who had been chipping in on this debate, the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, said: ""Until we start to create plans we cannot be sure how extensive the coverage will need to be, so it is better not to prejudge the issue in legislation by requiring total coverage"." My noble friend Lord Greaves quite rightly came back with the comment that, ""the plans deal with the issues to a greater or lesser degree of detail according to the circumstances in their area. That is not to argue against having a plan for an area; it is just that there is not as much in that plan".—[Official Report, 10/2/09; cols. 1074-75.]" My noble friend was absolutely right. I hope that the Government will not resort to that argument again. I beg to move.