Huw
Irranca-Davies: That is why I think that there is a way
forward, although it does not necessarily involve including a time in
the Bill. One drawback of putting something in the Bill is that the
tendency might be to find the longest time limit to take account of the
most complex projects in the most complex environments. We need an
intelligent and flexible way forward that gives industry more certainty
about the consideration of applications and that allows the proper
analysis of the various factors in
projects. Several
other issues arise at a practical level. Many applications received by
the Marine and Fisheries Agency do not contain sufficient detail,
supporting information or a full consideration of the facts. Having an
arbitrary time in the Bill is therefore a
difficulty. In
some instances, the licensing authority has to go back to the applicant
to request further information. What do we do in those situations? Do
we stop the clock? In other instances, the authority has to commission
further evidence from scientific advisers such as the Centre for
Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science. In the odd case, the
evidence may be collectible only at certain times of the year, because
of the seasonal nature of the
environment. What
will happen if the time frame is missed? Should the licensing authority
be obliged to grant the licence? If that is done, say, before evidence
is gathered, we risk possible infraction of a number of European
directives, which will require appropriate analysis. Those are tricky
issues.
Such details
should be decided in conjunction with the bodies that I have mentioned
and put in the secondary legislation that governs the applications
process. To that end, I am pleased to say that we will publish a
consultation paper on 1 July that includes a suggestion for target time
frames, and all Committee members will receive a
copy of that paper. The licensing authority will come to an informed
view about the nature of the application right at the front of the
process and give the developer target time scales for the various
stages of the process, recognising that different applications have
different
complexities. The
suggestion in the consultation is that we state at the outset what the
time scale should be. We think that that is a way of building
flexibility into the process in an intelligent and tailored way to give
applicants the increased certainty that they are looking for, without
being unrealistic about some of the complex demands in our marine
environment. 12.30
pm
Mr.
Jones: Will the Minister say what sanctions against
failure to determine are in an applicant’s hands in such a
case?
Huw
Irranca-Davies: In response to the intervention from the
hon. Member for East Devon, there is an appeals procedure in clause 73,
which the Secretary of State is required to use, so that facility is
there already.
Consultation
is the correct way to get this right. There can be a full debate over
the summer and we welcome contributions from all stakeholders. We will
discuss the details in depth with industry, scientific advisers and
other consultees, all of whom have important inputs and contributions
to
make.
Mr.
Williams: Under clause 73, which is titled “Appeals
against licensing decisions”, the appeal power is against the
decision, not against non-determination. The Minister might like to
consider
that.
The
Chairman: Order. I shall allow debate on clause
73, in so far as it is relevant to this clause, because the two are
clearly intermingled. However, if the Minister is happy with this, that
will be on the understanding that when we get to clause 73, we will not
debate it
again.
Huw
Irranca-Davies: In that case, Mr. Gale, it
might be worth my while to reflect on clause 73, which obliges all
licensing authorities to establish appeals mechanisms against their
licensing decisions. The appealable decisions are listed in clause
71(1), namely refusing to grant the licence or to grant it subject to
conditions. The
reasons why the appeals mechanism is open only to applicants, not third
parties, are twofold. First, clause 68 requires the licensing authority
to publish notice of a marine application or to require the applicant
to publish notice of it in a manner calculated to bring it to the
attention of any persons likely to be interested. The licensing
authority is obliged under clause 69(3)
to “have
regard to...representations which it receives from any person
having an interest in the outcome of the
application.” Clause
70 allows the licensing authority
to “cause
an inquiry to be
held”, for
example when there are particularly controversial or complex cases.
Therefore, there is sufficient opportunity during the application
process for third parties to get their views factored into any
decision.
Secondly, it
is important that marine developments are not held up unnecessarily by
a large number of appeals lodged by third parties who simply disagree
with the licensing authority’s decision. Appeals can be costly
in terms of time and resources, not only for the applicant, but also
for the regulator. If we want this improved, expedited licensing
system, we cannot afford for it be clogged up by handling appeal after
appeal.
Clause 73(3)
lists the types of provisions that will be made by order that will
establish an appeals mechanism and the procedure that must be followed
in conducting an appeal. We do not want to prescribe the procedural
detail in the Bill as we consider the appeals mechanism to be integral
to the marine licensing decision-making process, which is itself to be
prescribed by regulation. We want to consider stakeholders and the
public in that process, including what they think to be appropriate
procedures, time scales and grounds for
appeal. The
appellant body may be different in each devolved territory to that used
for MMO licensing decisions. Enabling such detailed provisions to be
made in subsequent regulations allows each Administration to tailor the
process to complement and reflect its decision-making procedures. I can
give assurances that the UK Government will enable appeals against MMO
decisions to be heard by an independent body. The order will be subject
to the affirmative procedure.
On
non-determination, as the licensing function is to be delegated to the
MMO, the Secretary of State has the power under clause 100 to direct
it, and there is also scope for judicial review. Therefore, there are
opportunities to challenge the body for not delivering in the
time
scale. The
consultation will commence tomorrow. It is a good opportunity for
industry, Committee members, stakeholders and the wider public to
engage properly in the debate. The intention behind the debate is
right. We want to give certainty and clarity through proper dialogue
with stakeholders, including industry. The secondary legislation will
reflect the outcome of those discussions and I will welcome Committee
members’ views on the subject. With this reassurance, I urge the
hon. Member for Newbury to withdraw the
amendment.
Andrew
George: With regard to clauses 71 and 73, I seek
reassurances about when a licensing activity clearly impinges on the
coast itself and the local authority. I am concerned that some
activities—whether offshore wind development when cables are
coming onshore, or activities at sea where service vessels need to be
brought onshore—clearly require planning permission from a local
authority as well. There must be some joint operation and consultation
between the coastal authority and the MMO when licensing the activity.
It concerns me that there appears to be no provision for that, and nor
has the co-ordination of the licensing and the appeals process been
envisaged.
Huw
Irranca-Davies: I refer the hon. Gentleman to clause 68,
which deals with notice of applications and those bodies and persons
that need to be consulted in the process. There is no way in which
local authorities or others—those in not only the marine
environment, but the adjoining terrestrial environment—could not
be engaged, particularly, as the hon. Gentleman quite rightly says,
when applications are relevant to them, such as pipeline or grid
connectors.
With that
reassurance, I say to the hon. Member for Newbury that we are
sympathetic to what he says. We are bringing forward the consultation
tomorrow to allow stakeholders to get engaged and to give some
certainty about time frames. I hope he will feel assured enough to
withdraw the
amendment.
Mr.
Benyon: I am grateful for the Minister’s
clarification. As he rightly points out, there is a wide variety of
applications in the marine environment but, as hon. Members have said,
there is also a wide variety of applications on land—everything
from a loft extension to a nuclear power station. We have methods that
allow a time limit in such
circumstances. I
am grateful to you, Mr. Gale, for reminding me about clause
73. It was in my subconscious mind and you brought it to my conscious
mind. I notice that there is no reference in that clause to a time
limit on appeals. That is a very important point. Given that the
Minister has announced a consultation, it would be wrong to press the
amendment at this stage, but I hope to return to the matter on Report.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 71
ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Clauses
72 to 74 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
75Exemptions
for certain dredging etc
activities
Mr.
Benyon: I beg to move amendment 11, in clause 75,
page 51, line 11, at end insert
‘or (c) that the activity is
maintenance
dredging.’.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss
amendment 12, in
clause 75, page 51, line 24, at
end add
‘“maintenance
dredging” means the removal of accumulated sediments from
harbour channels and berths undertaken on behalf of or by harbour
authorities, marinas, yacht clubs and port facilities to ensure a safe
depth of water for navigational purposes and the removal of sediment to
restore adequate flow of water to mitigate risk of flooding or protect
a sensitive
habitat.’.
Mr.
Benyon: Clause 75(2) lists the conditions under which a
marine licence is not needed for dredging or spoil
disposal: “that
the activity is undertaken by or on behalf of a harbour authority,
and...that the activity is authorised by, and carried out in
accordance with, any legislation falling within subsection
(3).” We
wish to insert a new
condition: “that
the activity is maintenance
dredging.” The
amendment would ensure that low-risk maintenance dredging was exempted
from the licensing system. The explanatory notes to the draft Marine
Bill stated that low-risk dredging activities, such as maintenance
dredging, would become exempt under the new Bill. However, there is no
specific commitment to that in this Bill, as amended in the other
place. The Government have committed to consult on exempting
maintenance dredging beyond the context of activities carried out by,
or on behalf of, harbour authorities, thus ignoring the vital
maintenance dredging carried out by marina and port operators. Harbour
authorities are not always best placed
to carry out maintenance dredging and offering them a specific licensing
exemption appears to give them an unfair advantage in a competitive
market. For example, many harbour authorities have recreational
moorings as a source of income. The harbour authority would be exempt
from obtaining a maintenance dredging licence, but a marina in that
harbour would be required to gain the appropriate licence, which would
force it to raise mooring fees to cover the
cost. Exempting
all forms of maintenance dredging would reduce costly bureaucracy at a
local level and ensure a level playing field for coastal communities.
Maintenance dredging does not involve the removal of river or sea beds,
but the removal of accumulated sediment blocking navigation channels,
and any environmental impact is therefore minimal. Amendment 12 would
add a definition of maintenance dredging to the list of definitions in
subsection
(4)(a).
Andrew
George: I wish to make a few remarks about clause 75 and
the amendments. Although I have some sympathy with the purpose and
sentiments behind the amendments, my experience of working with coastal
local authorities when dredging to maintain a safe and navigable
channel is required is that one cannot undertake that work without
considering the consequences for the wider hydrological system of tidal
flows and other water courses that serve the estuary or the harbour
that is being dredged for the safety of vessels using it. In such
circumstances, as I have had the opportunity to look into them, it is
appropriate to consult Trinity House, which has a range of important
expertise, on navigable safety. Matters pertaining to Natural England
also come into play, particularly if the estuary or harbour in question
is a designated site of special scientific interest, or has another
designation because the environment must be protected or
considered. At
the level of the local authorities that, in many instances, provide the
required dredging licences, there is the question of what happens to
the dredged material. It is important to consider where, for example,
sand or sediment that is excavated on to a dredging barge is deposited.
It might be placed temporarily on land and then deposited elsewhere
within the hydrological system to replace sand that will be lost from
another area in the vicinity of the area being dredged. The
consequences of dredging one area has a knock-on effect, particularly
in a sandy environment such as on the dunes—the towans, as we
know them—and sometimes in areas a number of miles
away. 12.45
pm
Mr.
Swire: The hon. Gentleman is perhaps referring to his home
town and the Hayle estuary, which has to be dredged regularly, thereby
affecting the towns around it. Is he saying that hoops would have to be
gone through every time the Hayle estuary was dredged? If the marina
development there ever goes ahead, it will no doubt need to be dredged
more than it is at the
moment.
Andrew
George: Hayle harbour authority is responsible for
maintaining a safe, navigable channel for harbour users, but that is
not the only instance in which dredging takes place for such a purpose.
A time-limited licence applies. A licence is not needed every time a
boat goes
out to dredge the channel, but it applies for a period during which
dredging activity may take place. That dredging clearly has an impact
on the wider marine environment, not just on the area being
dredged. It
is important that the Minister be aware that allowing a laissez-faire
approach in some harbours and estuaries would mean that, where the
harbour authority responsible for maintaining the safe, navigable
channel goes ahead with its dredging activities without consideration
of the consequences in the area around it, that would result in
denuding sand and sediment from other areas, because it would be
dredging those things from its own channel. That would also have
knock-on consequences for the marine wildlife. In some
circumstances—for example, when dredging a harbour or estuary
that may have historical and archaeological remains in
it—heritage bodies may need to be consulted as
well. Although
I understand the purposes of the amendment, we need to press forward on
this issue with some
caution.
| 
