Mr.
Benyon: The phrase “foremost in mind” may
apply, but climate change is not foremost in the Bill. That is an
omission, and it does not sit comfortably with other legislation
recently passed by this House, such as the Planning Act 2008. We have
many more important discussions to come, but there can be no more
important issue than climate change. Tempted as I am to press the
amendment to a Division, I will withdraw it. However, I look forward to
the resolution of the issue raised by the hon. Member for Southampton,
Test, and I will work with the Minister to try to achieve that. I beg
to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn. Clause
2 ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Clauses
3 to 6 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
7Regulations
supplementary to sections 4 and
4A
Ann
McKechin: I beg to move amendment 20, in
clause 7, page 6, line 6, leave
out from ‘read,’ to ‘under’ in line 7 and
insert ‘in relation to
the exercise by the MMO of
functions’. The effect
of this amendment would be that, in certain regulations, references to
(or which include a reference to) the Secretary of State would be read,
in relation to the exercise of functions anywhere by the MMO, as
references to, or as including a reference to, the MMO
instead. Clause
7 is supplementary to clauses 4 and 6, which transfer to the MMO the
Secretary of State’s functions of granting licences for fishing
boats under the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967. It follows
accordingly that when regulations have been made under the 1967 Act
setting out the procedures for granting fishing boat licences, any
references to the Secretary of State in those regulations are to be
treated as references to the MMO. That is to ensure that the
newly-created MMO has all the legal powers to carry out functions
previously undertaken by the Secretary of State through the MFA. Clause
7 currently provides for any reference to the Secretary of State in
those regulations to be read as references to the MMO, specifically
where the MMO exercises functions under the 1967 Act. That is not quite
correct, because the point here is the exercise of functions by the
MMO, rather than the area where it exercises functions. The MMO may,
for example, exercise functions in relation to English fishing boats
wherever they may be. This minor and technical amendment accordingly
makes it clear that references to the MMO should be specifically linked
to the exercise of its functions rather than to geographical areas. I
urge the Committee to support the
amendment. Amendment
20 agreed
to. Clause
7, as amended, ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Clauses
8 to 15 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
16Eligible
bodies
Andrew
George: I beg to move amendment 27, in
clause 16, page 11, line 30, at
end insert— ‘(f) any coastal
local authority; (g) the
council of the Isles of Scilly.’.
I am sure
that the amendment’s purpose is self-evident: to ensure that the
eligible bodies that are set out in the Bill are not just Government
agencies, as is the case now with the agencies listed in paragraphs (a)
to (d) of subsection (1). Harbour authorities are also listed under
paragraph (e)—I will come on to them in a moment. Coastal local
authorities should also be listed, including the council of the Isles
of Scilly—I am pleased to say that the Isles of Scilly are part
of my constituency. The council must be specifically named and listed
because it is not considered in all legislation as equivalent to other
coastal local authorities. By the way, the council of the Isles of
Scilly is a unitary authority, and was so before unitary authorities
were created. I
listened to what both Ministers said in previous debates in which we
attempted to attach a further body to a list of bodies. Perhaps they
will refer to subsection (2), which grants the Secretary of
State the power
to: “amend
subsection (1) so as to...(a) add any body or description of body
to the list, or...(b) remove any
body”. With
regard to paragraph (a), the Ministers might well say that the
Secretary of State could add to that list of eligible bodies coastal
local authorities, or indeed named coastal local
authorities. To
save time, and in anticipation that a future Secretary of State might
be minded to do that by using the provision, the case for including
coastal local authorities now is, in fact, very sound. Coastal local
authorities should be added to the list of eligible bodies with which
the MMO may enter into an agreement so that they are
authorised to perform any function of the MMO, because they already
undertake a large number of functions that are relevant to the
operation of the MMO. There will be a multitudinous interface between
coastal local authorities and the
MMO. As
I said, the current list of eligible bodies includes harbour
authorities. Members such as me with coastline and harbour authorities
in their constituencies will know that most of those harbour
authorities—most of which will have an Act of Parliament
referring to both their functions and powers—are either local
authorities themselves, or have local authority representatives on
them. Such authorities may also be constituent parts of local
authorities when it manages a municipal port.
However, the
list in the clause excludes those local authorities that do not manage
a port, although they may still have a clear maritime function. I will
list some, but not all, of the functions that are relevant to the
interface between the role of a coastal local authority and the MMO.
The provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, through
planning policy formulation and the exercise of development and control
as far as the mean low water mark, involve overlaps between local
authorities and the MMO. The construction and maintenance of coastal
protection installations—sea defences along the
coast—involves overlap with the MMO, and certainly with the
Environment Agency. A further function is emergency planning powers,
which can also involve planning within the marine context, and another
is responsibility towards sea fisheries committees, which are already
very clear and well-established and also overlap with the future IFCAs
set out in the Bill. In addition, overlap is involved in byelaw-making
powers relating to the use of the inshore zone, and the management of
beaches.
Indeed, those
two functions also overlap. A number of byelaws relate to beaches,
particularly in the intertidal zone, such as regarding the access of
dogs to the coastline, and to beaches’ management and use.
Kite-surfing is an increasingly popular sport in my area. That sport,
jet-skiing and various other activities are affected by byelaws through
which local authorities have influence or powers regarding what can be
taken on to beaches, and therefore on to coastal waters.
Many local
authorities are also involved in economic tourism and development
functions, including regeneration of the coastal area. For example,
they support the local fishing industry by investing in future market
development. That is integral to marine management. Local authorities
are also involved in broader issues of community well-being, which can
include maritime matters.
Given the
recognised interdependence of land and sea environments and the
reliance of local communities on both, local authorities have a clear
interest in decisions that might affect the health and well-being of
those environments and hence the communities that depend on them. Under
land use and marine plans, local authorities are responsible for
delivering the local development framework in all its constituent
parts, including for the intertidal area down to the low water mark.
That area is part of the English inshore region, as defined in the
Bill, so local authorities are already performing a clear function when
considering developments in that part of the marine
environment.
3.15
pm The
MMO is likely to be the best place to undertake marine planning on a
larger scale than many coastal local authorities can manage
independently. However, that might not be the case for the inshore
area. For example, a marine plan for a complex inshore area with a
multiplicity of users may be more effectively dealt with by a local
authority or group of local authorities acting together with the MMO.
It would be appropriate in those circumstances to incorporate coastal
local authorities as eligible bodies, along with the Government quangos
listed under clause 16(1). There is also a need to integrate land-use
and marine plans with community ownership. It is imperative to ensure
that the spatial plans for both the terrestrial and marine environments
are consistent in their approach to the
shoreline.
There is a
genuine concern among many coastal authorities that, if local
authorities are not included as eligible bodies in the Bill, the
integration that is clearly necessary between terrestrial and maritime
planning may become inconsistent over time. Including coastal local
authorities would benefit the MMO and what the Government are trying to
achieve. Given the expertise available in local authorities, there are
clear advantages in delegating to them plans for estuaries and high-use
or sensitive areas. It would ensure that the issues were well managed
by those closest to them—those who can engage development
stakeholders and secure local ownership at a local level. The two plan
systems—terrestrial and maritime—could thereby be
reconciled. The transparency of decision making and the ability of
local communities to influence decisions that affect them are strong
reasons for ensuring that local authorities are explicitly included in
the manner proposed in the amendment.
Local
authorities also have a number of other marine functions. In
conjunction with the Environment Agency, they deliver coastal defence
functions, and they have expertise in preparing shoreline management
plans and in delivering
schemes.
Ann
McKechin: The functions that the hon. Gentleman is listing
are not functions of the MMO. They are functions that currently exist
under statute in respect of the local authority and the Environment
Agency. The purpose of the amendment is a delegation by the MMO of its
functions to a local authority, so we are discussing something quite
different.
Andrew
George: I disagree with the Minister. As I understand it,
we are talking about the capacity to work with local authorities, not
the question of whether the sole purpose is to delegate functions to
them. In any case, where it is appropriate for local authorities to
take on some functions or to work with the MMO in the delivery of its
plan and functions, having that capacity in the Bill would allow the
MMO a great deal more flexibility than at present. It would certainly
be able to take advantage of the expertise available in many coastal
local authorities thanks to the experience and talents in their officer
structures. They have expertise in working in many of these areas.
Local authorities also exercise powers within the marine environment to
mitigate shoreline pollution. That is certainly a maritime role, and
the hon. Member for East Devon will know about recent incidents such as
those involving MCS Napoli, the Ice
Prince and RMS Mulheim, the latter of which ran aground in my
constituency at Sennen. Those incidents demonstrate the need for clear
knowledge of the marine environment within local authorities.
Local
authorities undertake a range of additional functions that are maritime
in nature, including the management of beaches and the regeneration of
coastal towns. The Government already ask local authorities to engage
in the market and coastal towns initiative, which the Government
clearly want them to drive forward in their own areas. Local
authorities have a general duty towards the sustainable management of
the environment under the habitats and birds directives, the water
framework directive and the Natural Environment and Rural Communities
Act 2006, for example. A key advantage of allowing local authorities to
be eligible to work with the MMO, in the same way as the Environment
Agency and Natural England, is their public profile and their
recognition among coastal communities, as that would bring ownership to
marine plans.
I hope that
the Minister will reflect on the fact that that in no way undermines
the powers of the MMO. Allowing local authorities to be eligible bodies
would permit their talents and resources to be employed in the delivery
of what the MMO is trying to
achieve.
Ann
McKechin: As I said in my earlier intervention, the clause
is about the delegation of powers by the MMO. It is not intended in any
way to detract from the need for the closest co-operation with coastal
local authorities or from the value of their work, capacity and
resources. Nor is it intended to amend any of their numerous existing
powers set out in statute or exercised by the Environment Agency.
Nothing in the clause, or in the Bill, takes that away.
The
amendments are similar to those tabled in the other place, which sought
to add any local authority to the list of eligible bodies to which the
MMO may delegate functions. Lord Davies of Oldham made it clear at the
time that bodies should only be added to the list if it is intended
that the MMO will delegate functions to them. It would not be good
practice to add additional bodies to that list if we have no intention
of delegating powers to them. For that reason, we have included some
specific local authorities: those that are members of the new inshore
fisheries and conservation authorities; and those that are members of
the current sea fisheries committees. We have also included those local
authorities that are also harbour authorities—a point mentioned
earlier by the hon. Member for St. Ives. We cannot think of anything
further that the MMO would need to delegate to other coastal local
authorities.
We are of
course aware that the main reason why local authorities wish to be
added as eligible bodies is that they would like the MMO to delegate
marine planning to them. Members of the Committee will note that the
designated marine plan authorities for each part of the UK, under part
3 of the Bill, are: the Secretary of State in England, the Scottish
Ministers in Scotland, the Welsh Ministers in Wales and the Department
of the Environment in Northern Ireland. Those marine plan authorities
may delegate the majority of their marine planning functions to any
public body with that public body’s consent. In England, it is
the intention of the Secretary of State to ask the MMO to exercise the
marine planning function on his behalf, and other arrangements will be
made and apply in the other Administrations. Although the
marine planning and marine licensing functions in England will be
exercised by the MMO on the Secretary of State’s behalf, the
formal responsibility still remains with the Secretary of State. The
MMO cannot ask other bodies to exercise the function on its behalf. It
may only do so in respect of its own functions—those directly
conferred upon it under the Bill or in secondary legislation. We
largely expect the MMO to carry out its own functions, but there will
be some limited circumstances in which it makes more sense for reasons
of specific expertise or geographical remit for it to ask another body
to exercise one of its functions on its behalf. That is the context in
which the list of bodies in clause 16 was drawn
up. Perhaps
it would be helpful if I gave members of the Committee a specific
example. Natural England, one of the bodies on the list, currently has
the power, should it prove necessary, to issue licences to kill or take
seals under the Conservation of Seals Act 1970. As the majority of
these licences are issued in the marine area it made sense for the
function to be transferred to the MMO, and provision has therefore been
made for this under clause 9. However, should such a licence need to be
issued on the rare occasions when a seal ventures upriver into fresh
waters, that would be beyond the MMO’s remit as it does not
operate beyond the high water mark. The MMO would therefore need to ask
Natural England to exercise this function on its
behalf. Returning
now to marine planning, we are of course aware how vital it will be to
secure the involvement of coastal local authorities throughout the
planning process. Marine plans in coastal areas will overlap slightly
with the area of jurisdiction of local authorities, which runs down to
low water mark. We believe that this overlap, as well as statutory
duties on marine planning authorities to do all that is reasonable to
secure compatibility with terrestrial plans, will further encourage
integrated
working. We
have been working with the Local Government Association’s
coastal issues special interest group for some three years now to help
us understand the issues associated with local authority involvement.
We recently held a marine planning workshop for local authorities in
partnership with that group, which had the aim of establishing how best
we can provide for local authorities to be fully involved throughout
the process from the early stages of development through to monitoring
and review. That work is ongoing and we will be running a similar
workshop in Leeds later next month.
| 
