---

Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL]

I, too, support Amendments 74 and 76 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness. It is appropriate to make it absolutely clear in the Bill that there are areas where the Secretary of State, in issuing guidance, should consult bodies and institutions such as those that the Scottish Ministers represent in these matters. I say to the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose—although I stand to be corrected by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace—that the reason why references are made to the Scottish inshore region, although that area is devolved to the Scottish Parliament, is that it has been recognised in earlier debates that, although the MMO may not have authority over the Scottish inshore region, it will have to take it into account in anything that it does outwith those waters. It therefore seems appropriate to include that area within the areas to which directions may apply. Another matter to which I draw the Committee’s attention is that the Scottish Parliament is bound to recognise, for instance, the effect of EU treaties, just as much as it recognises those international agreements to which the United Kingdom is a party for the time being. There again, it would be appropriate for the Secretary of State, in looking to both the Scottish offshore region and the Scottish inshore region, over which the Scottish Parliament has responsibility, to consult Scottish Ministers to be sure that they are at one on the proper interpretation. That might be important in relation to whether under subsection (4) there truly is an emergency, in the sense that the emergency may evolve from the Scottish inshore region and affect the Scottish offshore region, for which of course the MMO would have immediate responsibility. For those reasons, I generally support these two amendments. I take no particular issue with Amendment 78, which seems to be perfectly sensible, but I have a small comment on the drafting of Amendment 74. Clause 35(3) says that, "““the Secretary of State must consult””." It would be unfortunate if, as in the amendment, ““shall”” was used instead of ““must””. In this regard, we use words of direction slightly differently in various parts of the Bill. We have ““may”” and ““must””, and we have introduced ““is to””. I have asked before whether ““is to”” is a ““must”” or a ““may””. That was exemplified in the debate that we have just had on Clause 23. Subsection (1) of that clause says ““may”” and subsection (2) says ““is to””. I would have thought that ““must”” was more appropriate. I simply suggest that we look carefully at how we use words of direction and that we use the well known parliamentary language of either ““may”” or ““must””, unless, in the particular area in which the words are being used, neither ““may”” nor ““must”” is appropriate.