Clause 45
Marine and Coastal Access Bill [Lords]
11:45 am

Andrew George (St Ives, Liberal Democrat)

I do not intend to detain the Committee long. My reading of subsections (1) and (3) is that there is a potential conflict between them. They also effectively allow the Secretary of State to overrule his compatriots in the devolved Administrations if he or she fails to come to an agreement with them when, initially at least, preparing marine policy statements. There are some important issues here, particularly regarding migratory  fauna and other species, where a devolved Administration will clearly have an interest in what the Secretary of State is capable of doing in the waters within their own jurisdiction. For that reason, I seek the Minister’s reassurance that there is an acknowledgement that the Secretary of State has, in effect, an overruling power in that regard. That is irrespective of how carefully the clause is worded, and of the fact that subsection (2) states that the Secretary of State must at least show that they have consulted “the other policy authorities” during the process of any amendment to the MPS.

The scenario I am painting is that the Secretary of State will come to an agreement with “the other policy authorities” to bring forward a plan on which there is agreement. Shortly thereafter, however, having failed to persuade those other policy authorities of his or her views on the matter, the Secretary of State will simply bring forward an alternative policy statement and ignore the consultation process.

I am grateful to you, Mr. Gale, for allowing me to raise this issue and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Marine and Natural Environment), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Ogmore, Labour)

I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance he seeks. The opening words of the clause, in subsection (1), make clear our intention that an MPS should be prepared by

“all the policy authorities, acting jointly”.

That is what we are trying to get at in the clause, and it is quite a win for the Bill. It is the approach that we and the devolved Administrations are committed to, and it will provide the best foundation for a comprehensive, joined-up and effective planning system.

However, as the hon. Gentleman rightly points out, we must acknowledge the realities of devolution, and the Bill does that. The devolved Administrations may from time to time espouse different policies from those of the UK Government regarding some of the matters being devolved to them, and it would be within their right and power to do so. Despite all the genuine good will—there is real good will on this issue, and the best of intentions—it is not possible to require in law that we must all agree. Otherwise, we risk not having any MPS at all.

For that reason, as the hon. Gentleman has pointed out, the clause enables the Secretary of State to proceed without the involvement of the three devolved Administrations and to act alone if necessary. The Secretary of State must always be involved in preparing and adopting any MPS. That reflects the importance of having an MPS in place to set out the strategic policy framework, even if it is not the joint statement we would always wish to have.

I must say that that is not our preferred position. Therefore, the clause requires that the Secretary of State formally invite “the other policy authorities” to participate before reluctantly taking any decision to proceed alone.

Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire, Liberal Democrat)

If a devolved nation decided to go down a different policy route, how would that decision interact with the Marine Management Organisation, for instance? Would the MMO take cognisance of the devolved Assembly’s policy, or would it have to react to the policy that the Secretary of State had signed off?

Huw Irranca-Davies (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Marine and Natural Environment), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Ogmore, Labour)

No, the MMO will always have cognisance of what is happening in border areas with other authorities. As the hon. Gentleman will know and as was debated in the other place, in Wales many of the MMO’s functions have been taken directly into the Welsh Assembly Government, as was their wish. However, the MMO will need to integrate fully. If there is a fundamental breakdown beyond the powers that already exist in the Bill, there is, under the Government of Wales Act 2006, recourse to the powers of the Joint Ministerial Committee, and so on.

The clause makes it clear that only one MPS can exist at any time; that is the good way forward on this issue. Therefore, when we introduce a new MPS it will replace the previous one, thus avoiding the possibility of multiple, potentially conflicting statements.

The hon. Member for St. Ives is absolutely right to say that we want to move forward together—that is the big win within the Bill—but there is the possibility for the Secretary of State to take action himself.

Andrew George (St Ives, Liberal Democrat)

I am grateful to the Minister for his response. What this debate highlights is the potential Achilles heel in clause 45 in cases where the policy authorities fail to achieve any kind of agreement. A migratory species that depends on the marine environment within the designation of one of the policy authorities could migrate into the waters of another. We can see what might happen if there is a failure to reach agreement where a potential conflict of interests exists. The clause could allow the Secretary of State to take the upper hand and dictate the terms to the devolved Administrations.

That is a matter of concern, whether the emphasis is on allowing or enabling certain economic activities that may have a detrimental impact on the waters and marine habitats of a devolved Administration, or on operating in a different manner and therefore perhaps damaging the economic prospects of a devolved Administration. I do not propose any amendments or a way forward, but the Minister might like to reflect on this issue. The fine minds and creative brains behind the Bill and those who have been engaged in the associated discussions may come up with some further thinking on this issue; nevertheless, it is an Achilles heel. Thank you, Mr. Gale for allowing me to raise it, as it remains unresolved.