Mr.
Swire: Can the Minister reassure us that the transference
of a lot of these roles, particularly licensing roles, will not be an
excuse for some of the charges that are going to be
applied?
Ann
McKechin: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that an increase
in charges is certainly not the purpose of any part of the remit of the
Bill or of the MMO. The idea is to try to make the bureaucracy as slim
and effective as possible and to be proportionate. We see the MMO
working in partnership with local authorities and all the users of our
marine environment, including the private sector. They should be aware
that it is there to help further their work, not to hinder
them.
We have
consistently made it clear that local authority involvement is
fundamental to the success of marine planning and its integration with
management and planning mechanisms on the coast. The publication
“A strategy for promoting an integrated approach to
the management of coastal areas in England” briefly explains the
range of methods that will enable the integration of marine planning
with terrestrial planning at national, regional and local
levels.
I hope that
this explanation has reassured the Committee. The fact that we have not
added coastal local authorities to clause 16 does not mean that the MMO
will not be working closely with them. On the contrary, it is essential
that the MMO build close and productive working relationships with
local authorities as well as local communities, elected
representatives, industries, regulators and other interested people in
the preparation of each marine plan. On that basis, I ask the hon.
Gentleman to withdraw his
amendment.
Andrew
George: The Minister seemed to imply that the MMO would be
required always to delegate in every circumstance responsibilities to
local authorities. That is clearly not the case. Clause 15(1)
states: “The
MMO may, with the approval of the Secretary of State, enter into an
agreement with an eligible
body”. That
is a clear “may”—it is not a requirement. If my
amendment were accepted the MMO would not necessarily come under
pressure from local authorities to hand over some of its functions and
powers to them. Underlying the Minister’s defence is an attempt
to create the impression that that is the reality, but that is not in
any way likely. I do not see the fear in allowing the amendment to be
made. There is no fear at all. In the same way as with a harbour
authority or an inshore fisheries and conservation authority, the
amendment simply provides the MMO with an opportunity to enter into an
agreement with such bodies, with the further check and balance of the
approval of the Secretary of State. The agreement would be negotiated
between the two parties in advance; the local authority would not be
forcing an unwilling MMO to accept the removal of its powers in certain
circumstances. 3.30
pm I
do not follow the Minister’s logic; she is being unreasonable.
The amendment simply gives the Government a further opportunity to
demonstrate that they wish to work with coastal communities and not
become a remote and rather centralised body, which will always retreat
into the powers of the Bill to defend against
attack.
Ann
McKechin: I remind the hon. Gentleman that we have
included local authorities in the list. To put in additional bodies to
which we have no intention of delegating powers would be superfluous
and bad legislative practice. That would also unnecessarily raise
expectations that at some point there would be such a delegation. If we
have no intention of doing that, why would we put it in the
Bill? The
hon. Gentleman’s argument is illogical. I understand where he is
coming from, but I hope that my statements today, specifically pointing
out that we want to have the closest co-operation with local
authorities and a whole range of other organisations that work and
operate
within the marine environment, have not given the impression that we do
not regard close working as utterly
key. Andrew
George: The Minister describing my amendment as
“illogical” does not help me draw the conclusion to
withdraw
it.
Huw
Irranca-Davies: Why not, if that is
true?
Andrew
George: That would be true if the amendment were genuinely
illogical, because the two bodies that it mentions were in the list.
Paragraph (1)(c) refers
to “any
inshore fisheries and conservation
authority”, and
paragraph (1)(d) refers to “any local fisheries
committee”. Therefore the list covers the sea fisheries
committees and the harbour authorities, the boards of which may or may
not include local authority representatives. However, the list does not
cover all the other aspects and functions that I have described. I will
not list them again now, but the Minister will remember them clearly.
Local authorities are covered to an extent, but not in all those
aspects where their powers are relevant and overlap with those of the
MMO. It
would be illogical if I were saying that the Minister must not only
accept my amendment but add a further power of duress, which local
authorities could place upon the MMO to require them to always accept
the removal of its powers. That is clearly not the case. There is a
process of negotiation, and the backstop will be the Secretary of State
being able to permit, and give the necessary approval for, the
agreement—after all, it is an agreement—for such
delegation. I am afraid, therefore, that I am unable to withdraw the
amendment at this
stage. Question
put, That the amendment be
made. The
Committee divided: Ayes 2, Noes
9.
Division
No.
3] Question
accordingly negatived.
Clause 16
ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 17
to 20 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
21
Supplementary
provisions with respect to
agreements
Huw
Irranca-Davies: I beg to move amendment 21, in
clause 21, page 15, line 1, after
‘by’, insert ‘the MMO or’.
This amendment would
insert a reference to the MMO in clause 21(4) to ensure that
Schedule 15 to the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994
(restrictions on disclosure of information) applies where the MMO
authorises the performance of a function under clause 15 or clause
19(6). I
hope that amendment 21 will be less controversial—famous last
words.
Amendment 21
is a technical amendment that makes an additional provision in
relation to agreements concluded between the Secretary of State and the
MMO, and between the MMO and the eligible bodies, under
clauses 14 and 15. Subsection (4) applies schedule 15 to the
Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 to those bodies exercising
functions through an agreement. That schedule relates to the disclosure
of information and sets out how confidential information should be
handled and the situations where sharing of information between
contracting bodies is permitted.
This minor
and technical amendment is needed to ensure that schedule 15 to the
1994 Act applies in the way in which we intend. It will ensure that the
provisions on disclosure of information will apply where the MMO
authorises an eligible body to perform a function under an agreement
made under clause 15. It will also ensure that these provisions apply
to arrangements made under clause 19(6)(i), where the MMO
authorises: “a
committee, sub-committee, member, officer or employee of the body to
perform the function on its
behalf” and
to arrangements made under clause 19(6)(ii), where the MMO
forms “a
body corporate and authorise that body to perform the
function”. I
urge members of the Committee to support the amendment.
Amendment
21 agreed
to. Clause
21, as amended, ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Clause
22 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause
23MMO’s
role in relation to applications for development
consent
Mr.
Benyon: I beg to move amendment 5, in
clause 23, page 15, line 14, leave
out ‘(6)’ and insert
‘(10)’.
The
Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the
following: amendment 6, in
clause 23, page 16, line 26, at
end insert— ‘(5A) After
section 60
insert— “60A
Advice from the Marine Management
Organisation (1) Subsection (2)
applies where the
Commission— (a) has
accepted an application for an order granting development consent,
and (b) has
received— (i) a
certificate under section 58(2) in relation to the application,
and (ii) where section 59
applies, a notice under that section in relation to the application,
and (c) the development for
which the application seeks development consent would affect, or would
be likely to affect, any of the areas specified in subsection
(2).
(2) The areas
are— (a) waters in or
adjacent to England up to the seaward limits of the territorial
sea; (b) an exclusive economic
zone, except any part of an exclusive economic zone in relation to
which the Scottish Ministers have
functions; (c) a Renewable
Energy Zone, except any part of a Renewable Energy Zone in relation to
which Scottish Ministers have
functions; (d) an area
designated under section 1(7) of the Continental Shelf Act 1964, except
any part of that area which is within a part of an exclusive economic
zone or Renewable Energy Zone in relation to which the Scottish
Ministers have functions. (3)
The Commission must give notice in writing to the Marine Management
Organisation, inviting it to submit to the Commission advice on the
principal issues arising on the application which would affect, or
would be likely to affect, any of the areas specified in subsection
(2). (4) A notice under
subsection (3) must specify the deadline for receipt by the Commission
of the
advice.”’. Amendment
7, in
clause 23, page 17, line 6, at
end insert— ‘(8) In section
104 (decisions of Panel and Council) after subsection (2),
insert— “(2A) The
Panel or Council shall take any advice or representations received from
the Marine Management Organisation into
account— (a) in deciding
whether or not to make an order granting development consent,
and (b) if it does decide to do
so, in deciding what (if any) requirements are to be imposed in
connection with the development for which consent is
granted.”. (9) In
section 105 (decisions of Secretary of State) in subsection (2), after
paragraph (c)
insert— “(3) The
Secretary of State shall take any advice or representations received
from the Marine Management Organisation into
account— (a) in deciding
whether or not to make an order granting development consent,
and (b) if it does decide to do
so, in deciding what (if any) requirements are to be imposed in
connection with the development for which consent is
granted.”. (10) In
section 116 (reasons for decision to grant or refuse development
consent) after subsection (1)
insert— “(1A)
Where the Commission has received advice from the Marine Management
Organisation, the reasons for decision to grant or refuse development
consent must include a statement of how (if at all) the Commission has
taken account of the Marine Management Organisation’s
advice.”’. Amendment
8, in
clause 25, page 17, line 31, at
end insert— ‘(2A) The MMO
must advise the Infrastructure Planning Commission on all nationally
significant infrastructure projects that are in or impact upon the UK
marine area as defined in section
42.’. New
clause 1—Amendment of Planning Act
2008 ‘In section 104 of the
Planning Act 2008 (decisions of Panel and Council) at end of subsection
(2) insert— “(b)
any advice from the Marine Management Organisation on applications
which are in or are likely to impact on the UK marine
area.”’.
Mr.
Benyon: Through this group of amendments, we seek to
strengthen the role of the MMO in relation to its interaction with the
IPC through making it a statutory
adviser to the IPC on developments that impact the marine and coastal
environment within the Planning Act 2008 and the
Bill. Members
of the Committee will be aware that the Conservatives are no lovers of
the IPC, a point which we did our best to make in the debates on the
Planning Act 2008. We will probably revisit this issue in the near
future. However, we are dealing with a situation in the here and now
and therefore we must get it right for the framework of planning, as
far as the Bill is concerned and at this
time. It
is important that there is explicit accountability within the Planning
Act 2008 for advice to be sought from the MMO through the planning
process, which is what we seek to achieve in this group of amendments.
Our amendments seek to weave the role of the MMO into the 2008 Act, so
that it has defined involvement at the key stages of the process of
assessing applications for marine and coastal developments.
Part 6 of the
2008 Act deals with deciding applications, and amendment 6 would insert
a new section into chapter 1, which centres on the handling of
applications by the IPC. The new section would be inserted after
section 60, which outlines the provision for the IPC to request a local
impact report from local authorities. That is the stage at which an
application has been accepted for processing by the IPC and the
applicant has sent notice of that to all persons required, including
the MMO. That would be the opportune moment for the IPC to request
advice from the MMO on the principal issues that may affect the marine
environment before making an initial assessment of issues and
holding a preliminary meeting with relevant parties
under section
88. The
MMO is listed as a recipient of the notice to be issued by the
applicant and as an interested person. We believe that its role could
be further strengthened, specifically by allowing the IPC to request
advice at the beginning of the examination process. That is additional
and complimentary to the role of the MMO as a participant in the
examination
proceedings. In
order to clarify the issue, I was going to offer an explanation, but,
while contemplating what I was going to say earlier, I found on my desk
a useful briefing document from the RSPB, which is one of the key
interested parties. The Minister will note that I did not use the
S-word, but if I get through the Committee process without using the
lexicon of new Labour, I will have achieved something, so I will use
the term “interested
parties”.
| 
