---

Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL]

I support my noble friend Lady Miller on this issue. As the Minister may recall, ever since Second Reading I have been particularly concerned about the extent to which local coastal communities want to and feel they should have a sense of ownership of the plans that are going to develop under the new regime. I, of course, am well aware of such communities, having represented them. If there is no proper and sensible relationship between the terrestrial planning process and the marine planning process, that sense of ownership simply will not exist. Moreover, there is a feeling that the well established and mature regimes that already operate on land will not interrelate effectively with the new regime, which is untried and therefore needs to be tested carefully in terms of public communication, ownership and involvement. The whole of this new planning hierarchy may be at risk if the relationship is not made explicit at the outset. I agree with my noble friend that the reference in Schedule 6 is insufficient in that respect. A great many coastal communities will feel that this crucial relationship is not sufficiently well expressed on the face of the Bill. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will be sympathetic to the objective behind the amendment and, if he is not prepared to accept it at this stage, that he will think about this point, which is crucial to the success of this legislation.