Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL]

My Lords, we know all about treacherous waters, don’t we? Let me say to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that I have little to add to what the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, said. Clause 48 sets out the marine plan authorities, and it does not include a marine plan authority for the Scottish inshore region because the Marine (Scotland) Bill, now being considered by the Scottish Parliament, covers planning for the Scottish inshore region. As there is no marine plan authority under this Bill for the Scottish inshore region, we cannot place obligations on something that does not exist. The valid point made by noble Lords will need to be considered in the context of that Bill when the Scottish Parliament is considering it, and we will of course draw its attention to the issues raised today. But this is very much a matter for that Bill and its consideration, and without grievously affecting the devolution arrangements we could not in this Bill legislate in that context for Scotland. That is why we do not propose to do so, and therefore I hope that the noble Baroness will regard her Amendment 78 as a probing one and will feel that she has received a satisfactory answer. Amendment 79 is different. It would remove the wording relating to "reasonable steps"; in effect, that would make full compatibility mandatory and take away any reference to what is reasonable in the circumstances. Let me begin by reiterating that compatibility between terrestrial plans is extremely important. We want to see a seamless, integrated approach at the coast—not least on the Solway Firth, which the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, identified. We included paragraph 3 in the Bill to acknowledge the Joint Committee’s recommendation that we needed to make that very clear. Yet ensuring absolute compatibility—rather than working towards as much compatibility as we can achieve—is not something that we can guarantee without disproportionate cost. The resources required by a maritime plan authority under an absolute duty to ensure compatibility with any related terrestrial plans, not just those adjoining or adjacent to the marine plan area in question, would be absolutely enormous. Beyond doing everything reasonable to ensure that plans are compatible, it could require the marine planners to imagine and work through every possible combination of potential development, location and circumstances to identify any situation in which the two plans might conflict. In our earlier debates on the need for consistency between the marine policy statement and national policy statements, the noble Baroness herself acknowledged the near impossibility of eliminating all potential conflict, particularly between "two sets of statements" that may have, ""developed at different times, with slightly different considerations". —[Official Report, 5/5/09; col. 509.]" That is how she expressed the problem. She also described the absence of any conflict as, ""the best of all worlds".—[Official Report, 28/1/09; col. 330.]" That burden of ensuring total compatibility would not and could not fall only on the marine plan authority, which would necessarily need to work closely with the terrestrial plan authorities to ensure a shared understanding of how terrestrial planning policies were expected to be interpreted and how they would relate to marine policies. With no limit of what is reasonable, this process could go on indefinitely, delaying the implementation of any marine planning and increasing the cost of the exercise for both terrestrial and marine authorities. That would obviously make it difficult to achieve our goal of preparing effective and, as far as we can obtain them, compatible plans for the whole inshore region in reasonable time. For the reasons that I have identified, an absolute duty is, as I am sure that all those in the House would recognise, an obligation that we could not put into the Bill. We have drafted an equal arrangement, which we think will assist planning authorities both on land and at sea to reach meaningful agreement on how their plans should work together. We cannot ask the marine plan authorities to do more than is reasonable or to throw unlimited resources at what might be a well-nigh impossible goal of eliminating any potential for conflict. We will strive for full compatibility; that is the philosophy behind the Bill. Compatibility is in everyone’s interests, but it has to be within the bounds of what is reasonable and practical, both in terms of resources and time. There are safeguards in place. Both the marine and terrestrial plans are subject to extensive public scrutiny, providing as many eyes and minds as possible to help identify and eliminate any potential incompatibilities. This is not about picking and choosing whether to be compatible with terrestrial plans, but the duty is clear: to do everything reasonable to ensure that marine plans are compatible with them. If plans were incompatible without good reason they would, of course, be open to challenge. Every time marine or terrestrial plans are updated, each always having regard to the other, they will become more closely and effectively integrated. In reality, we think the potential for significant conflict is low, but to imagine that it could be taken out altogether is not sensible. As we said last week, planners are expert at integrating and reconciling government policies when making their decisions, and we should acknowledge that level of expertise. I am confident that the mechanism we have proposed, by which marine planning authorities must take all reasonable steps to ensure compatibility with terrestrial plans and, in return, terrestrial planning authorities will have regard to national policies, including the MPS and marine plans, is the right balance. It is not the function of this legislation to set an impossible task for the marine planning authorities, as I hope the noble Baroness will recognise. Decision-makers may always take into account other relevant matters, such as contradictory plans. Of course, it is a decision-maker’s job to be good at resolving such situations. We should trust them to do so within the framework of the legislation which, clearly, indicates that compatibility should be striven for, but not to the point where it becomes an absolute goal which is unrealisable. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, that I struggled with the Solway Firth. He will have to give me a little more time to think about that issue. He will appreciate fully that we await the progress of the Scottish Bill for the arrangements which will be made for Scotland. I am all too well aware that in all legislation of this kind the issue with regard to a boundary is always of importance and the boundary which involves a fluctuating ecosystem is particularly difficult. I shall write to the noble Lord on that point as I do not have an answer with that level of detail. I hope that he will accept that the framework of the Bill, in the context of the areas that it covers as far as England and Wales are concerned, strives to assert that there will be the necessary reconciliation of interest. That will apply as much to England and Scotland as to other parts.