The
Chairman: The Committee will note that throughout the
selection list there are a number of clauses that do not have
amendments. I propose to call those clauses by number and rattle
through them. If any Member wishes to speak to any of those clauses,
please indicate and I will then stop. Otherwise, I shall move them en
bloc.
Clause
45Preparation
and coming into effect of
statement Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Andrew
George: I do not intend to detain the Committee long. My
reading of subsections (1) and (3) is that there is a potential
conflict between them. They also effectively allow the Secretary of
State to overrule his compatriots in the devolved Administrations if he
or she fails to come to an agreement with them when, initially at
least, preparing marine policy statements. There are some important
issues here, particularly regarding migratory
fauna and other species, where a devolved Administration will clearly
have an interest in what the Secretary of State is capable of doing in
the waters within their own jurisdiction. For that reason, I seek the
Minister’s reassurance that there is an acknowledgement that the
Secretary of State has, in effect, an overruling power in that regard.
That is irrespective of how carefully the clause is worded, and of the
fact that subsection (2) states that the Secretary of State must at
least show that they have consulted “the other policy
authorities” during the process of any amendment to the
MPS. The
scenario I am painting is that the Secretary of State will come to an
agreement with “the other policy authorities” to bring
forward a plan on which there is agreement. Shortly thereafter,
however, having failed to persuade those other policy authorities of
his or her views on the matter, the Secretary of State will simply
bring forward an alternative policy statement and ignore the
consultation process.
I am grateful
to you, Mr. Gale, for allowing me to raise this issue and I
look forward to hearing the Minister’s
response.
Huw
Irranca-Davies: I can give the hon. Gentleman the
assurance he seeks. The opening words of the clause, in subsection (1),
make clear our intention that an MPS should be prepared
by “all
the policy authorities, acting
jointly”. That
is what we are trying to get at in the clause, and it is quite a win
for the Bill. It is the approach that we and the devolved
Administrations are committed to, and it will provide the best
foundation for a comprehensive, joined-up and effective planning
system.
However, as
the hon. Gentleman rightly points out, we must acknowledge the
realities of devolution, and the Bill does that. The devolved
Administrations may from time to time espouse different policies from
those of the UK Government regarding some of the matters being devolved
to them, and it would be within their right and power to do so. Despite
all the genuine good will—there is real good will on this issue,
and the best of intentions—it is not possible to require in law
that we must all agree. Otherwise, we risk not having any MPS at
all.
For that
reason, as the hon. Gentleman has pointed out, the clause enables the
Secretary of State to proceed without the involvement of the three
devolved Administrations and to act alone if necessary. The Secretary
of State must always be involved in preparing and adopting any MPS.
That reflects the importance of having an MPS in place to set out the
strategic policy framework, even if it is not the joint statement we
would always wish to have.
I must say
that that is not our preferred position. Therefore, the clause requires
that the Secretary of State formally invite “the other policy
authorities” to participate before reluctantly taking any
decision to proceed alone.
Mr.
Williams: If a devolved nation decided to go down a
different policy route, how would that decision interact with the
Marine Management Organisation, for instance? Would the MMO take
cognisance of the devolved Assembly’s policy, or would it have
to react to the policy that the Secretary of State had signed
off?
Huw
Irranca-Davies: No, the MMO will always have cognisance of
what is happening in border areas with other authorities. As the hon.
Gentleman will know and as was debated in the other place, in Wales
many of the MMO’s functions have been taken directly into the
Welsh Assembly Government, as was their wish. However, the MMO will
need to integrate fully. If there is a fundamental breakdown beyond the
powers that already exist in the Bill, there is, under the Government
of Wales Act 2006, recourse to the powers of the Joint Ministerial
Committee, and so
on. The
clause makes it clear that only one MPS can exist at any time; that is
the good way forward on this issue. Therefore, when we introduce a new
MPS it will replace the previous one, thus avoiding the possibility of
multiple, potentially conflicting statements.
The hon.
Member for St. Ives is absolutely right to say that we want to move
forward together—that is the big win within the Bill—but
there is the possibility for the Secretary of State to take action
himself.
Andrew
George: I am grateful to the Minister for his response.
What this debate highlights is the potential Achilles heel in clause 45
in cases where the policy authorities fail to achieve any kind of
agreement. A migratory species that depends on the marine environment
within the designation of one of the policy authorities could migrate
into the waters of another. We can see what might happen if there is a
failure to reach agreement where a potential conflict of interests
exists. The clause could allow the Secretary of State to take the upper
hand and dictate the terms to the devolved Administrations.
That is a
matter of concern, whether the emphasis is on allowing or enabling
certain economic activities that may have a detrimental impact on the
waters and marine habitats of a devolved Administration, or on
operating in a different manner and therefore perhaps damaging the
economic prospects of a devolved Administration. I do not propose any
amendments or a way forward, but the Minister might like to reflect on
this issue. The fine minds and creative brains behind the Bill and
those who have been engaged in the associated discussions may come up
with some further thinking on this issue; nevertheless, it is an
Achilles heel. Thank you, Mr. Gale for allowing me to raise
it, as it remains
unresolved. Question
put and agreed
to. Clause
45 accordingly ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Clauses
46 and 47 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Schedule
5Preparation
of an MPS or of amendments of an
MPS
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Ann
McKechin): I beg to move amendment 23, in
schedule 5, page 239, line 12, at
end insert ‘(including
the carrying out of the sustainability appraisal under paragraph
7)’. The purpose of
this amendment is to ensure consistency with paragraph 6(2)(a) of
Schedule 6, which contains similar requirements for the statement of
public participation (SPP) in respect of marine plans and states that
the SPP timetable must include time for the carrying out of a
sustainability appraisal.
Following the
widely welcomed concession given on Report in the other place to place
in the Bill a requirement to carry out a sustainability appraisal of
the marine policy statement, this minor and technical amendment makes
it clear that the timetable set out in the statement of public
participation for an MPS should also include time to carry out the
appraisal of sustainability alongside the preparation of the
consultation draft. This brings paragraph 5(2) of schedule 5 in line
with the equivalent paragraph in schedule 6 in relation to the SPP
marine plans. I hope the Committee will support the minor
addition.
Mr.
Benyon: I support the change. It is to the advantage of
the
Bill.
Dr.
Whitehead: I seek clarification about the status of the
amendment in respect of devolved Administrations. Have devolved
Administrations already discussed the amendment and how it affects the
Bill? If not, and if my hon. Friend were minded to have such
discussions and, as a result of them, decided that other amendments to
the schedule might be tabled, would she think that a wise course of
action?
Ann
McKechin: I assure my hon. Friend that we have discussed
this issue with the devolved Administrations and reached agreement
about it. His other comments are not relevant to the schedule. I do not
propose to enter into such a general and hypothetical
debate. Amendment
23 agreed to.
Schedule
5, as amended, agreed
to. Clauses
48 to 50 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
51Marine
plans for marine plan
areas
Ann
McKechin: I beg to move amendment 24, in clause 51,
page 29, line 34, leave out subsection (2)
and insert— ‘(2) Where an
MPS governs marine planning for a marine planning region, the marine
plan authority for the region must seek to ensure that every part of
the region is within an area for which a marine plan is in
effect.’. The
effect of this amendment would be to revise subsection (2) to make it
clearer that each marine plan authority must seek to ensure that one or
more marine plans are in effect which, between them, cover the whole of
the authority’s
region.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following: amendment 31, in
clause 51, page 29, line 36, at
end insert— ‘(2A)
Sub-regions of a marine plan area may be defined at any
time.’. Amendment
32, in
clause 51, page 30, line 4, at
end insert— ‘(d) has regard
to all other plans and strategies that relate to the adjacent land
area.’.
12
noon
Ann
McKechin: The Government amendment is a minor technical
amendment that will ensure that the requirement placed on the marine
plan authorities by the other place to seek to plan for all areas works
as intended. Lobby groups are concerned that we maintain that provision
in the Bill. I am pleased to report that having listened to the views
that they and other interested parties expressed in the other place, we
and the devolved Administrations have concluded that we fully support
the principle behind the amendment. I have tabled this minor amendment
to slightly redraft and clarify the original provision without changing
its intended effect, and I hope that the Committee supports
it.
Andrew
George: My two amendments are probing, primarily to pursue
a theme that applies throughout the Bill. That theme is the extent to
which Government quangos, whether they are the MMO or other Government
agencies, can determine the activities within any local authority or
sub-regional area without sufficient or adequate consultation with the
terrestrial local authority in the coastal area concerned. The purpose
of the two amendments—particularly amendment 32—is to
ensure that the Government have cognisance of the existence of local
authorities and that those authorities have local strategic plans that
apply to the coastal areas. Each local authority on the coast
establishes policies that have, or seek to have, an impact on the local
economy, whether in the furtherance of tourism and the holiday trade,
in the furtherance of the maintenance of local industries, such as
fishing, diving or marine exploration, or in the furtherance of other
activities that relate to either a local industry or tourism. What
happens beyond the control of the local authority has an impact on the
local authority
itself. The
purpose of the amendments is simply to raise issues that I hope the
Minister is prepared to reflect on. I do not intend to press the
amendments, but I am interested in the Minister’s response,
particularly regarding the broader theme of seeking to ensure that
democratically elected local authorities in particular, which have a
clear interest in the future of the marine resource on their coastline,
have a say in decision taking under the
clause.
Mr.
Benyon: Amendment 24 is a welcome redrafting of an
Opposition amendment tabled in the other place, creating a requirement
to seek to ensure plan coverage throughout the United Kingdom waters,
where a marine plan statement is in effect. I am pleased to support the
amendment. I
also support the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for St. Ives,
because they have been backed by a number of organisations that have
spoken to me as well, particularly the British Marine Federation. That
body argues that there is a need for an integrated relationship between
marine and land use planning in order to reduce the loss of land sites
that are important for access or boating facilities—for example,
recreational harbours or slipways and associated parking and boat
storage. This is, therefore, a good probing
amendment.
Ann
McKechin: I thank the hon. Members for St. Ives and for
Newbury. I understand that amendments 31 and 32 replicate an amendment
tabled by Baroness
Miller of Chilthorne Domer and Lord Greaves in Committee in the other
place, but as my noble Friend Lord Davies of Oldham explained at the
time, there is no need for specific provision in the Bill enabling the
creation of sub-regional marine plans or marine plan areas. We entirely
agree that planning authorities must be able to plan in the most
appropriate way for any given area. Clause 51 already enables the
marine plan authority to divide its marine planning region into marine
plan areas however it sees fit. Those plans, however, are not set in
stone, so the authority may prepare new plans at any time, either to
divide the region differently or even to prepare additional plans for
smaller areas within existing marine plan
areas. Amendment
32 would place within the definition of a marine plan the requirement
that it must have regard to all other plans and strategies on the
coast. Hon. Members will be aware that paragraph 9(2)(h) of
schedule 6 already contains a requirement that marine plan
authorities, when preparing a marine pan, must have regard to
“any
plan...prepared by a public or local authority in connection with
the management or use of the sea or the coast, or of marine or coastal
resources.” That
will include local development plans, shoreline management plans, river
basin management plans and, when prepared by a local authority, estuary
management plans. I believe that that provision is clearer than the one
set out in the amendment, which does not limit the other plans or
strategies to which the marine plan must have regard to those with some
relevance to the marine
environment.
| 
