Huw
Irranca-Davies:
Socialism.
Mr.
Benyon: No—it is another S-word. The RSPB produced
a very good briefing on the Bill. On the issue under discussion, it
stated:
“The
RSPB wants the MMO to be a true ‘marine
champion’”— I
underline those
words— “which
is fully and equitably engaged with all marine sectors and interests.
To this end, we believe that the MMO, as the body with a marine
overview and expertise, should have full responsibility for planning
and licensing at sea. However, as the IPC will license larger ports and
offshore renewable electricity generating stations, our focus is on
improving the MMO’s role in determining these
applications. We hope the Committee will support our position that the
IPC must actively seek, and take account of, advice from the MMO on
all applications for nationally significant infrastructure
projects (NSIPs) that take place in or are likely to impact upon the
marine environment.” It
is important that those words are put on the record, because they
clearly set out our attitude in seeking to strengthen the MMO, as well
as our concerns about its relationship with the IPC in the marine
environment. There are
all sorts of interested parties, bodies and organisations that get
involved in the planning process on land, and the IPC is a new addition
to that mix. We have doubts about its democratic accountability, which
we believe to be its main problem on land. At sea, the
organisation representing the environment and interested parties, such
as those involved in fishing interests, tourism and so on, is, has to
be, and always should be the MMO. However, sitting over it in some
circumstances, alongside it in others, and subjugated to in certain
circumstances, is the IPC, sucking power and responsibility from the
MMO. We believe that that is
wrong. Amendment
7 would add material to section 104, to which the panel or council
deciding an application must have regard, of the 2008 Act. One of the
matters listed is the local impact reports prepared by local
authorities. We believe that it would be appropriate to also mention
the advice and representations given to the IPC by the MMO, so that it
is clear that the IPC must take them into account in making its
decision. That is an important part of amendment 7. The amendment uses
examples from the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which would allow
the MMO’s advice to be considered not only in deciding whether
or not to grant consent, but also in deciding what conditions should be
attached to that consent. That would be another useful way for the IPC
to demonstrate how it had taken the MMO’s advice into
account. 3.45
pm Amendment
7 would also add to section 105 of the Planning Act 2008, which relates
to decisions made by the Secretary of State and sets out matters to be
taken into account when deciding an application. Not all the decisions
of the IPC will be made by the panel or the council. Some
will fall to the Secretary of State, so the amendment to section 105
would require the Secretary of State to take into account advice and
representations from the MMO. The amendment would also add to section
116 of the 2008 Act, which requires the IPC to prepare and publish a
statement of reasons for its decisions to grant or refuse a
consent. I
apologise to hon. Members for the complexity of this, but when talking
to amendments to adjacent legislation, one has to get important points
on record. It is appropriate to require a statement of reasons to
address how the advice received by the MMO was taken into account by
the IPC when making its decision. That provides for the final stage of
interaction between the IPC and the MMO—please bear with
me—by requiring the IPC to justify to the MMO whether it took
its advice on board and how that affected the decision. The Minister is
nodding, so I can see that he is with me.
Amendment 8
would introduce the MMO’s role as statutory adviser to the IPC
to the Bill. The current wording of clause 25 provides some power for
the MMO to advise the IPC on request, but it would be stronger and
clearer to provide a specific provision for, and reference to, the IPC.
The amendment would provide a general power for the MMO to advise and
assist the IPC when required. New clause 1 is a consequential provision
to the Planning Act 2008 to bring the MMO’s role as statutory
adviser in line with the Bill.
Huw
Irranca-Davies: Hon. Members have tabled a range of
amendments, with complex interactions, that seek in various ways to
require the MMO to advise the IPC on development consents relating to
the marine area and to require the decision maker on applications for
development consents to take the MMO’s advice into account when
making
decisions. Other
proposals relating to the IPC-MMO relationship, and similar amendments
proposed during the Joint Committee’s scrutiny and on Report in
the other place by Lord Taylor of Holbeach and Earl Cathcart, have been
debated extensively. Given the importance of the arguments made in
support of those amendments, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath undertook to take
the matter away to see whether we could come up with alternative
amendments that would reflect appropriately the MMO’s role in
relation to the IPC.
It might be
helpful to the Committee if I start with some background to this
complex issue, as I know how important it is for many hon. Members. We
are clear that the MMO, as a centre of marine expertise with
responsibility for enforcing marine licences, will have a very
important role in advising both developers and the IPC on nationally
significant infrastructure projects in the marine area, including ports
and wind farm developments. The Government brought forward an amendment
to the Bill on Third Reading in the other place to reflect that key
role, which was welcomed by Earl Cathcart and Lord
Greaves. To
reflect properly the MMO’s important role, clause 23
of the Bill now ensures that, through amendments to the Planning Act
2008, the MMO will be involved at three key stages in the Planning Act
process. First, at the pre-application stage—under section 42 of
the Planning Act 2008—the MMO must be notified when a developer
is considering applying to the IPC for consent for any nationally
significant infrastructure project that would affect, or be likely to
affect, the marine area. That will ensure that the MMO is fully engaged
right at the start of the application process. The applicant is
also required to submit a consultation report along with the
application to the IPC setting out relevant responses and the account
taken of any relevant responses. That relates to section 37(3) of the
Planning Act 2008.
Secondly, the
MMO must be notified when the IPC has accepted an application for
examination relating to section 56. Finally, the MMO will be involved
as an interested party throughout the IPC’s examination process
relating to section 102, thus giving it a key role in advising on any
necessary marine licences, which the IPC will deem as part of any
consent that it issues. Such licences will be managed and enforced by
the MMO, so when new evidence on a particular development comes to
light, the MMO will, if necessary, be able to modify licence
conditions, add new conditions or even revoke the licence.
Amendment 6
would require the IPC to invite the MMO to submit advice on the
anticipated impacts on a marine area of any nationally significant
infrastructure development. The amendment would treat the MMO’s
advice in a similar way to advice from local authorities, which are
invited, under section 60 of the 2008 Act, to submit a local impact
report that sets out the authority’s views on the likely impact
of a proposed project in its area. Section 60 was added to that Act to
give due prominence to democratically elected local councillors who
represent local people who will be affected by the proposed project.
The MMO does not, despite some people’s wishes, consist of
democratically elected members, and neither does it represent
specifically a local community, although it will have an important role
in marine planning and could, as such, be said to represent the
interests of the marine
area. Most
importantly, the amendments to the Planning Act that I have just
outlined, which we are making through clause 23, already provide for
what hon. Members seek. The clause will ensure that the MMO is aware of
and can be involved in the examination of any applications to the IPC
that are in the marine area. The MMO will, as an interested party, have
the opportunity to make appropriate representations to the IPC on those
applications, taking into consideration the likely impacts of any
proposed development in the marine area. Should the IPC disagree with
any of the MMO’s representations, it will have to explain why
and give reasons for consenting or not consenting to an application.
Simply ignoring the MMO’s representations would leave the
IPC’s decisions open to successful legal
challenge. In
the other place, we introduced an important amendment that the
Secretary of State should give guidance to the MMO on the type of
representation that it may make to the IPC. I consider that the kinds
of matters that would fall as advice submitted under amendment 6 would
be reflected in the content of the MMO’s representation to the
IPC on the impact of a proposed development on relevant marine plans
and on the relevant part of the UK marine
area. Clause 58 amends
the 2008 Act to require the IPC to have regard to the marine policy
statement and to relevant marine plans when taking its decisions. There
is a further safeguard in that clause 25 enables the MMO to provide
advice on any matter relating to any of its functions or its general
objective, either on request or on its own initiative, if it considers
that appropriate. I
shall move on to amendments 7 and 5, and new clause 1. Amendment 7
would amend the 2008 Act to require the decision maker on development
consents under the new regime to take the MMO’s advice into
account when deciding whether to grant a consent. It would also require
the IPC to include a statement of how it has taken the MMO’s
advice into account when giving its reasons for granting or refusing
development. New clause 1 would have the same effect as
amendment 7.
Amendment 5
is consequential on amendment 7 and would ensure that subsection (1) of
the clause, which sets out the subsections that amend the 2008 Act,
would refer correctly to all the new subsections that would have been
added. As I have already outlined, we made a series of amendments in
the other place that give the
MMO a clear role, in primary legislation, in the IPC development consent
process. We are
resisting the amendments for several reasons. I do not believe that the
amendment to section 116 of the 2008 Act would make a material
difference to the operation of the IPC. As Lord Hunt explained in the
other place, the MMO will be a statutory interested party as part of
the IPC’s examination of marine projects. As with advice for any
other such party, any advice that the MMO provides to the IPC will be
an important part of the IPC’s consideration.
I will now
explain why I do not think that amendment 7, which would
amend sections 104 and 105 of the 2008 Act, is appropriate.
First, as I explained regarding amendment 6, clause 58(5) of the Bill
amends section 104 so that when the IPC takes decisions
affecting the marine area, it must also have regard to the marine
policy statement and to relevant marine plans. It gives the new marine
policy framework its rightful place in the decision-making process.
Additionally, the amendment would elevate the MMO above other bodies
that are also interested parties to the IPC and have a key advisory
role, such as the Environment Agency and Natural
England. I
have already mentioned amendment 8. It would impose an absolute
obligation on the MMO to give advice to the IPC on nationally
significant infrastructure projects. What is the point of imposing an
absolute obligation on the MMO to give advice? The obligation is on the
applicant for the development to seek the advice of the MMO and the IPC
will check that that is
done. I
hope that my explanations have reassured the Committee that the
positions we now have will be effective, that amendments already made
will be effective, and that the MMO will have a full role in the IPC
decision-making process. I trust the hon. Gentleman will be content to
withdraw the
amendment.
Mr.
Benyon: The amendments in the Lords were very welcome, but
I do not believe that the balance in the relationship between the MMO
and the IPC is right. I believe that the MMO’s role should be
stronger than that of just a statutory consultee. There should be an
obligation on the IPC to make a full account of its decisions. The
advisory role for the MMO needs to be incorporated into the Bill. Our
amendment would put the MMO on very much the same footing under the
Planning Act 2008 as a local authority. It is entirely wrong in these
circumstances that the MMO has to jostle for position and to be
subjugated to the IPC in certain circumstances, particularly in the
important area of energy generation. I put on record our wish to
continue our approach—looking at the clock, I am not sure
whether we should do that now or another time—and to press the
amendments.
The
Chairman: Order. I am sorry but I am not clear about
precisely what the hon. Gentleman is asking. Amendment 5 has been
moved. Does he wish to put it to the
vote?
Mr.
Benyon indicated assent.
Question
put, That the amendment be made.
The
Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes
9.
Division
No.
4] Question
accordingly negatived.
The
Chairman: The procedural situation is that although the
amendments were debated together, they have to be taken separately. Two
of the further amendments—amendments 6 and 7—relate to
clause 23. Amendment 8 relates to clause 25, so that will be taken
later anyway, and new clause 1 will be taken at the end of our
proceedings on the Bill, when it will be open to the hon. Member for
Newbury to move it formally, if he wishes. It will also be open to him
to ask for a Division on amendment 8 when we reach clause 25, which we
shall not immediately. If he wants to press amendment 6 and/or
amendment 7, he will have to do move them separately, formally and
now. Amendment
proposed: 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.”’.—(Mr.
Benyon.) Question
put, That the amendment be made.
The
Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes
9.
| 
