Clause
305Area
in which functions of Natural England
exercisable Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill. Martin
Salter (Reading, West) (Lab): I rise in the hope of
teasing some response out of the Minister about the functions of
Natural England. Before I do so, I should point out that last week I
all but accused the Countryside Alliance of not lobbying us on a
cross-party basis and of being the Tory party at prayer and field. That
was monstrous of me. The Countryside Alliance did lobby me, but I
completely failed to read its e-mails. I should like to put that on the
record as a matter of good
grace. I
am worried that we could be about to over-complicate the process for
designating sites of special scientific interest or national nature
reserves. The current arrangements with Natural England being the
notifying authority have worked well for years, yet in the Bill we
are bringing in a new power for the Secretary of State to intervene and
call in these notifications in sub-tidal areas. I am confused about how
that process would work in practice. The Minister needs to explain that
to the Committee and possibly to return to it on
Report. There
are already more than 60,000 hectares of sub-tidal SSSIs, and the power
we envisage will apply only to new or renotified SSSIs. However, the
power runs the risk of confusing landowners and land managers, because
it introduces an additional stage in the decision-making process. The
Secretary of State is already a statutory consultee, which is a crucial
point. The clause appears to take little account of the existing
notification process, and we know that within its duties and functions,
Natural England has a duty to notify a site of special scientific
interest if it forms the opinion that the site is of special interest.
Special interest relates solely to scientific questions or to
biological or geological features, as laid down in the United
Kingdom’s sites of special scientific interest guidelines. Legal
precedent has confirmed that that decision can be challenged only on
the grounds of special interest, but I, Natural England and others are
unclear as to the basis on which the Secretary of State can intervene
if the grounds for the notification process are so clearly laid out. We
could end up with a slightly absurd merry-go-round of
notification, denotification as a result of the Secretary of
State’s intervention, then renotification, because whatever has
been put in the Bill does not absolve Natural England of the
responsibility to notify sites of special interest. I am not entirely
sure that the Government have thought that
through. There
is also uncertainty about how the time scale is affected. Currently,
landowners, land mangers and land users have nine months from the date
of notification to know whether an SSSI designation will be put in
place. Does the Secretary of State who is calling in the process stop
the clock, and if so, for how long? I can see a calling-in procedure
locking a process in the bowels of the Department for Environment, Food
and Rural Affairs for months, and possible years, while it is
considered. There is also the issue of what to do with the site, what
can be done with it, and how it affects land values and future usage.
The Minister was clear and helpful about marine conservation zones, and
a 12-month timetable was put on the designation process.
I do not
think that this issue can be dealt with today. It requires further
consideration and thought on Report, because we need to be assured that
there is some purpose in what the Government intend, and that they are
not effectively driving a coach and horses through a system that works
well, and that we will not build in unintended consequences purely
because the Minister wants to be a backstop in the designation of SSSIs
in tidal
areas. Another
area of confusion—and this is another reason why I do not think
that this issue can be resolved this morning—stems from the fact
that the powers apply only to SSSIs in sub-tidal areas. There are many
SSSIs that span non-tidal and tidal areas. Are we going to have one
process for designation and notification when the tide is in and
another when the tide is out? That has not been clearly thought through
but, hopefully with the Committee’s support, we have picked up a
potential
glitch in the system. I am sure that the Minister will have the good
grace to enable us to bottom out the issue and resolve it on
Report. 12
noon
Huw
Irranca-Davies: This is a good example of a Committee
really adding value to legislative scrutiny, and I thank my hon. Friend
for raising his point. He is absolutely right that it is imperative
that the Bill’s provisions provide an effective and efficient
means of delivering our shared policy
aims. It
is not clear to me whether there are any flaws in schedule 13, but I
recognise my hon. Friend’s concerns and will look at the
schedule’s provisions and engage with Natural England to ensure
that we have got it right. We all want clarity and a Bill that
functions well, and I will therefore take a further look. In light both
of my hon. Friend’s comments and of similar comments made to us
by Natural England about the clarity of the process of designating
sites of special scientific interest and marine conservation zones in a
sub-tidal area, we are currently engaged in a process called
“process mapping”—by and large, I strenuously try
to avoid jargon, and I promise that that is the one piece of jargon
that I will
use. If
I strip out the jargon, that means working with Natural England to try
to see—on the rare occasions where this may overlap in
decision-making—exactly where we can give clarity about how it
holds together. Having said that, I am happy to look at this again
between now and on Report to see whether it needs clarification or
something else.
Martin
Salter: Does the Minister agree that neither the
Government nor his Department intended to introduce two entirely
different regimes for the notification of SSSIs, depending on whether
they are above or below the tide limit? If the Minister wants to get
rid of jargon, I see no purpose in the word “sub-tidal”.
It is either tidal or it is
not.
Huw
Irranca-Davies: It may help if I expand on what we intend
this part of the Bill to do. The Secretary of State is responsible in
England for contributing to the network of marine protected areas,
which will include all relevant areas. That means, in addition to
marine conservation zones, sites of special scientific interest, among
others. We must give the Secretary of State the ability to select sites
that will form the network for which he is responsible. It would be
wrong to make him accountable for a network and then deny him the right
to designate the sites for it. There is no argument that the Secretary
of State should be responsible for selecting the other marine protected
areas in the network—marine conservation zones, special areas of
conservation, special protection areas and Ramsar sites for important
wetlands. On that basis, it would be odd to legislate for the Secretary
of State not to have that power for the marine aspects of
SSSIs.
We have to
take account of the fact that biology, ecology and the vast variety of
wildlife do not recognise those administrative boundaries. The problem
is that habitats do not always fall neatly into terrestrial or marine
areas, which is precisely what schedule 13 is about. We need to provide
clarity and an administrative way to deal with that overlap. On the
marine side, the
Secretary of State is responsible for delivery; on the land side,
Natural England is. I am a little concerned about one potential way
forward. If we were to strip out the Secretary of State’s role
so that he does not have the power of direction, a non-elected public
body would be placed higher in the pecking order of decision making in
the marine area than the elected Minister of the Crown, whom Parliament
had made responsible for delivery. Martin
Salter: I am sorry but I am struggling with the logic of
this. We have already given Natural England that power under previous
legislation on land. What is the
difference?
Huw
Irranca-Davies: This is about clarity and my willingness
to look at it to see that it actually works. I do not want to create
the impression that this power will be used at every
opportunity—we have to recognise that. We also have to recognise
that the Government and Natural England will be working extremely
closely together to create the marine network in partnership. Natural
England and the Government will be working hand in hand on the marine
aspects, while Natural England will work separately on the development
of future potential SSSI sites. Those bodies will have to engage
closely, through the necessity of the Bill and other legislation. As
Natural England is intimately involved in both the land-based and the
marine protected area regimes, I seriously doubt there will be any
places where we will not be able to agree whether an area should be a
site of special scientific interest or a marine conservation
zone.
It is also
worth noting that the Secretary of State has a duty in the Bill to
report to Parliament in 2012 on progress in designating the network. We
have to make the two processes work together. I am willing to have a
look at the provision in the light of my hon. Friend’s comments
to see what we can do. I also want to look at the process
mapping—sorry for the strange jargon—on how the provision
will work, so that we can achieve some
clarity. Question
put and agreed to.
Clause 305
accordingly ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Clauses
306 to 309 ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Schedule
21 agreed
to.
Clause
310Regulations
and
orders Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Andrew
George: Very briefly, is the Minister prepared to clarify
a question which I raised earlier on clause 301? On what date will he
make a formal announcement about the IFCA boundaries, which he set out
in Committee last Tuesday? As regards the supplementary provisions as
set out under clause 310, when will that formal announcement be made
and when will the local authorities, which are looking forward to the
outcome of the announcement, be properly informed? As I mentioned
earlier, the Council of the Isles of Scilly, which wishes to retain the
integrity of the IFCAs in its own area, and Cornwall would like to know
the outcome.
Huw
Irranca-Davies: I have not got the date to hand, but, with
due respect to the House, I can confirm that we will make the
announcement imminently, before the recess, in order to have that
certainty. Question
put and agreed
to. Clause
310 accordingly ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Clauses
311 to 315 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Schedule
22Repeals Amendment
made: 62, in
schedule 22, page 323, line 20, column
2, at beginning
insert— | ‘Section
1(4).’.—(Huw
Irranca-Davies.) |
This
amendment is consequential on amendment
57. Schedule
22, as amended, agreed
to. Clause
316 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
317Extent Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Mr.
Benyon: A very quick question for the Minister regarding
subsection (2)(a) which refers to the Marine Management Organisation.
When will the Minister bring forward details of the board and the chief
executive of this new organisation? Can he tell us how many members of
the Marine and Fisheries Agency have indicated that they are prepared
to move to the new headquarters in Tyneside? Has a building been
identified in
Tyneside?
Huw
Irranca-Davies: I have already put some clarity—as
much as I can at the moment—on the record regarding the
appointment of board members, the chief executive and the designate
chairman who is now in place. I refer the hon. Gentleman back to the
part of the debate where I put that on record.
On the
transfer of existing Marine and Fisheries Agency staff to the MMO, we
have already indicated that Tyneside will be the home of the new MMO,
but we have not yet finalised the accommodation. We are still in
discussion with MFA staff. In any significant relocation of that type,
there is always a significant loss of headquarters staff due to family
reasons and so on. I have previously made it clear that we are working
very effectively with the MFA, its unions and its staff, and we will
continue to do so. The chief executive post, as I previously mentioned,
has already been advertised. The board members will follow on behind
that. I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman, if he would like
further clarification. It is also worth saying that we are on target.
The building that will be the home of the MMO will be chosen
imminently, and we are still finalising the staff numbers to
relocate.
Mr.
Benyon: I suspect that the Minister’s contentment
in thinking that the Government are on target is a very optimistic
state of affairs indeed. The MFA has very serious morale problems. My
understanding is that very few staff have indicated thus far that they
are willing to go. My concern is not only for them, but for the
integrity of the new organisation, which must hit the ground running.
We have a short time scale, and it is important that we transfer as
much expertise as possible from the MFA to the MMO. It is a worry if we
cannot
guarantee that we can get there. Will the Minister give us more
assurances that he will engage with those people and give the ones whom
we want to transfer an incentive to join the new
organisation?
The
Chairman: Order. We are going very wide of the clause, but
the Minister may respond, if he
wishes.
Huw
Irranca-Davies: Only in short, Mr. Gale. The
level of engagement and consultation that we have had with the work
force and the representative bodies is significant, intensive and
ongoing. We have always recognised that in the relocation, there would
be those who would choose not to relocate for either family or
professional reasons. However, it is wrong for the hon. Member for
Newbury wildly to suggest that we are not adequately ensuring that the
transfer of ability and knowledge in the process through the MFA and
the other organisations that will form part of the MMO is not being
properly
addressed. Can
I give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that we are on target? Yes, I
can. Despite the time scale being one of the toughest and most
challenging for the vesting of a new organisation, we are adhering to
it. Can I assure him that the existing expertise, not only in terms of
marine science, but fisheries, is adequately addressed? Yes, I can.
That is not to say that it is not challenging. However, there could not
have been a greater level of engagement than we have had and are
continuing to have. We recognise that the existing expertise in the MFA
will need to be transferred effectively, and that new expertise will
need to be brought in. It is important to remember that the MMO is not
the MFA; it is not even the MFA-plus or a super MFA. It is a new
organisation that builds on the expertise in the MFA, and significantly
augments and expands the expertise into a range of areas. Within its
new home, the organisation will expand and reach out to all the areas
of expertise that we will need, not least in marine
science. I
understand that the hon. Gentleman wants to represent the concerns of
those who did not want to move, or did not want to move to that
location, but I urge him not to undermine what has been a strong,
concerted and thorough process to engage with the affected individuals.
Those who have chosen not to move have been at the forefront of our
concerns to ensure that their careers are looked after and that their
expertise is not lost to the wider DEFRA family or
elsewhere. Question
put and agreed to.
Clause 317
accordingly ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
| 
