Mr.
Swire: I declare an interest as a member of the governing
council of the Royal National Lifeboat Institution. I wonder whether
the RNLI has been consulted in any of
that.
Ann
McKechin: That obviously relates to plans that are to come
in the future, but we certainly envisage that there should be the
widest possible consultation in any planning structure, and in the Bill
we have made it clear that we do not seek to limit the consultations
that are to be held and want to ensure that, when we devise marine
plans and marine plan strategies, there is the widest possible public
consultation. Clearly, the RNLI will be a relevant body in many
cases. Amendment
32 would place an unnecessary additional burden on the resources
available to marine plan authorities. Furthermore, paragraph (3) of
schedule 6 goes beyond the requirement set out in paragraph (9)(2)(h)
to have regard to other terrestrial plans and strategies by requiring
the marine plan authorities to
“take all
reasonable steps to secure that the plan is compatible
with”
plans developed as part
of the terrestrial planning system. Clearly, that goes beyond
a requirement merely to have regard to such plans. Provisions in clause
62 will enable a marine plan to be challenged before
the courts if a marine plan authority failed to
comply with that compatibility requirement or to have regard
to the other plans mentioned in paragraph (9)(2)(h)
of schedule 6.
I will take
this opportunity to reassure members of the Committee that the
integration of marine and terrestrial planning at the coast has been of
fundamental importance to the development of our proposals from the
very beginning. The land and sea, as the hon. Member for St. Ives has
pointed out, are inextricably linked. Many actions on the land have an
impact on the sea and vice versa. For that reason, it is important that
the planning and management of both areas is as integrated as possible,
with both systems working effectively together to enable seamless and
holistic management of the area. To that end, we have worked
extensively with the Local Government Association’s coastal
issues special interest group, the Royal Town Planning Institute and
numerous key stakeholders to understand how best to enable the
integration of marine planning with what happens on land and to
identify the most appropriate mechanism to involve local authorities in
that process.
Local
authorities already lead in the planning and management of the
terrestrial components of the coast and in the development of the
previously mentioned local development plans and shoreline management
plans, and invariably they are instrumental in the partnership
development of estuary management plans. Local authorities contain a
wealth of specialised and knowledgeable skills and expertise, which the
MMO will need fully to incorporate, utilise and build on throughout its
marine planning process and beyond into the majority of its functions.
Importantly, local authorities also represent the interests of their
communities and implement the will of the locally and democratically
elected representatives. Therefore, I assure hon. Members that full
local authority involvement in the marine planning process will be key
to the successful implementation of marine planning from the early
stages of development through to implementation, monitoring and review.
The provisions within the Bill will support and encourage the
integration of planning systems at the coast and will go
further than is proposed in amendment
32. Amendment
31 is not necessary, too, as the result that it seeks is already
achievable under the current drafting and could therefore cast doubt on
how existing provisions should be interpreted. In light of those
reassurances, I hope that hon. Members will withdraw their amendments,
as they indicated that they
would.
The
Chairman: Order. There is no need to withdraw them, as
they have not been
moved.
Andrew
George: Thank you for reminding me that I have not moved
my amendment, Mr. Gale. My intention was to probe this
issue, which we might come back to on Report. I do not know what I need
to do next, under the rules, so I seek your guidance, Mr.
Gale. Must I move the amendments to entitle myself to seek to do
something on
Report?
The
Chairman: It is worth clarifying the position for the
benefit of all members of the Committee, one or two of whom have
indicated to me that their knowledge of procedure is a little rusty.
That probably goes for the Chair as well. We move only the lead
amendment, and it is open to any other Member to seek to move any other
amendment that is grouped with the lead amendment, but the Chair
requires notice and will then decide whether to take that. Any
amendment that is moved in Committee is unlikely to be
selected for debate on
Report, so the fundamental principle is that if you wish to come back to
something, you should not push it in Committee and should then take a
further look at it on Report. I hope that that clarifies the
position.
Andrew
George: I am very grateful to you for that explanation,
Mr. Gale. Perhaps by accident, I have managed to pursue the
right strategy on this occasion. Of course, I do not wish to move the
amendments because, having listened to the Minister’s response,
I might like to come back to the issue on Report.
A theme that
runs through the Bill is that we are quango-ising decision taking with
regard to the intertidal zone and the marine resource. I am troubled by
the issue of democratic accountability for decisions that are taken in
areas reasonably adjacent to the coastline in relation to what the
Minister has referred to as the seamless provision in the Bill
regarding what one might argue is the intertidal zone itself. I remain
unconvinced that the Government have quite got the balance
right. The
Minister said that amendment 32 would place an unreasonable burden on
resources—I think that that was the terminology that she
used—but democracy places a burden on resources. That is the
nature of democracy, as we know from the cost to the taxpayer of
maintaining the House of Commons and ensuring that we have a
democratically accountable body to take decisions. Equally, the
terrestrial authorities—the local authorities—have a
clear interest in future development on the coastline and in
maintaining the integrity of local development plans and the frameworks
in which they operate, and the Bill should take cognisance
of
that. Finally,
by failing to acknowledge further the role and importance of locally
democratically elected local authorities, the Bill appears to
contradict a number of the Government’s other stated intentions
and aims to ensure that there is local democracy as set out in the
Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill, which is
currently going through
Parliament. 12.15
pm
Ann
McKechin: I assure the hon. Gentleman and other members of
the Committee that we fully intend to involve the local community and
local authorities, as well as business people and other people with an
interest in the marine environment, in the preparation of each marine
plan. The proposal will require a full public consultation on the draft
plan that is created. There will be no lack of engagement. We are very
clear that we want a rigorous consultation process and for the MMO to
have full regard to it when preparing its final plan. As I said
earlier, that is why we believe that local authorities are very
important. We believe that local authorities are a key partner not only
in the consultation process, but in the actual implementation of the
plan that follows
it.
Andrew
George: I am grateful to the Minister for her
intervention. However, that, of course, does not preclude the
conclusion of that consultation and consideration ignoring and
overruling the interests of the local authority. On behalf of those
local authorities with an interest in the coast and in the intertidal
zone in particular, that is the concern that I want to articulate to
the Minister. While the processes described in the Bill would allow the
marine authorities to go through the motions, the local authorities
could be ignored in that process. Having said that, I have had the
opportunity to air the issue.
The lack of democratic accountability, in some respects, is a theme that
runs through the Bill. We may well come back to the issue, if not later
in Committee then on Report.
Amendment
24 agreed
to. Clause
51, as amended, ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Schedule
6 agreed
to. Clauses
52 to 70 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
71Licences
Mr.
Benyon: I beg to move amendment 10, in
clause 71, page 48, line 30, at
end insert— ‘(1A) This
decision shall be made within 16 weeks of the
application.’. Assessments
must be considered and a decision reached within three months. There is
a requirement that onshore planning applications are considered within
16
weeks. Subsection
(1) outlines the conditions for granting licences. Our amendment
requires that assessments must be considered and a decision reached
within 16 weeks. As the Bill stands, there is no time limit on the
consideration of marine licence applications. Without committing marine
licensing authorities to a certain time scale—I am happy to say
at this stage that I am relatively flexible on what that time scale
should be—we are leaving the system open to massive backlogs and
delays. Considering the potential lists of activities that will require
a licence, it is important that we do not open up small businesses, in
particular, to a potential loss of earnings through the lack of a
licensing time
scale. The
amendment also considers the renewable energy industry. Time is of the
essence for marine developers. They may be funded by venture capital,
and delays cost money. Unless we insist on some sort of defined time
scale, it is conceivable that important developments that will play a
great part in dealing with our renewable energy commitments will be
affected.
Mr.
Williams: I have some sympathy with the hon.
Gentleman’s amendment to put a time limit on dealing with
licence applications. The explanatory statement mentions onshore
planning applications, but does the same requirement apply to onshore
licence applications? There is a slight difference between planning
applications and licence
applications.
Mr.
Benyon: I am seeking to develop a degree of consistency. I
am not entirely certain what the requirements are on the whole range of
onshore licensing, but we certainly have a well developed and accepted
system of time limits in relation to planning. I do not see why we
should not impose that on marine licence applications. Other countries
do that as
well.
Mr.
Swire: My hon. Friend is making a point with which I have
some sympathy. There also seems to be nothing in the clause about an
appeals process. Given that, as my hon. Friend has said, many of the
applications will be funded by the private sector and that time costs
money, should the Bill not also contain something about an appeals
process if, for whatever reason, the initial application is
refused?
Mr.
Benyon: My hon. Friend makes a good point, and this may be
an opportunity to tease out of the Minister whether we can expand the
amendment to include that sort of requirement. Other countries seem to
manage in terms of marine management licensing. I was interested to
read that South Africa has a legal framework that requires
environmental impact assessments to be considered and a decision
reached within three months. I therefore hope that the Minister will
look favourably on imposing some sort of time
limit.
The
Chairman: Before we go down that road, may I draw hon.
Members’ attention to clause 73, which may cover part of the
issue that has just been raised? I do not want to have the debate
twice; if you have it now, that is fine by
me.
Mr.
Williams: I have a certain amount of interest in the
issue, and I have sympathy for the amendment. My interest arises out of
onshore licensing by Government authorities and the way in which that
must be done to a standard in order to ensure that the environment is
safeguarded. Imposing a specific time limit should in some way reflect
the complexity of the application, because my experience is that the
conditions that are put on a licence must be both practicable and
enforceable. On a large pipeline that went through Wales, for example,
there should have been a statement at each stage of the crossing of
various streams in relation to how adverse effects on those streams
could be mitigated, but such statements were not included as conditions
in the
licence. While
I have some sympathy with the suggestion of the hon. Member for
Newbury, certain minor applications should be dealt with on a shorter
time scale than larger ones, which needs to be reflected in the scale
and complexity of the application. That would help in our future
deliberations, because we will later discuss clauses on enforcement.
Does the licensing authority have the necessary capacity to ensure that
it can enforce the conditions? It is one thing to put a condition on a
licence, but it is another to enforce it when a rather large
organisation that is pushing ahead with a development has more of an
eye on completing that development than on complying with the
conditions. The
hon. Gentleman has raised a good issue, and I look forward to the
Minister’s response, but the issue involves an option of
proportionality that depends upon the size and complexity of the
applications.
Huw
Irranca-Davies: Let me say first that we agree with the
sentiment behind the amendment. In fact, one criticism of the current
licensing system is that applicants are uncertain about when their
applications for a licence will be determined, and we are certainly
looking to improve that in the Bill. To pick up the points made by the
hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire, however, an arbitrary time
limit in the Bill is not the way to proceed, and I will explain why in
a moment. None the less, I think that we can do something about the
issue. As
has been said, the activities and developments that the marine
licensing regime has to encompass are incredibly varied in scale and
nature. They include everything from jetties built at the bottom of
people’s gardens to pilot offshore energy schemes,
aggregate
dredging, harbour developments, laying submarine cables and pipelines,
and the creation of artificial reefs, which is something that we are
hearing more about. The varied
nature of such projects is matched only by their size and complexity
and sometimes by the controversy over what they involve, which can go
from the insertion of a few piles to the construction of a huge marina.
Projects also take place in a wide variety of environments, which can
be miles out to sea, in intertidal areas, in marine conservation zones
or in sites that are protected under European legislation.
For each
application, the licensing authority will have regard to the need to
protect the environment and human health and to prevent interference
with other uses of the sea. It will also factor in marine plans,
socio-economic issues and anything else that it considers relevant. All
those factors will be unique to every application and will need to be
given the due consideration that they deserve and which is required
under law.
Mr.
David Jones (Clwyd, West) (Con): I take the
Minister’s point, but do not similar considerations apply to
onshore planning applications? Is it not the case that a sensible
developer will understand that the statutory time limit for such
planning applications frequently cannot be adhered to and will allow
the determining authority more time? The difficulty here is that no
time is stipulated, so it is not possible to have such a
negotiation.
| 
