Clause
118Further
provision as to orders designating
MCZs Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill. Mr.
David Jones (Clwyd, West) (Con): I am sure that the
Minister can assist the Committee on a practical point about clause
118(1), which
provides: “An
order under section 116 must identify the boundaries of the area
designated” as
a marine conservation zone. Presumably, the designation, so far as the
order is concerned, will be by means of a map or plan attached to the
order. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury pointed out earlier,
MCZs might be enormous areas of sea, and it would be helpful if the
Minister were to indicate how those areas will be designated and
defined, if at all, on the water.
This matter is
of some importance given that MCZs will, in many cases, be contiguous,
and it may be of further importance given that, in some cases, they may
be designated by different designating authorities. I have in mind the
Dee estuary, where the authority would be Welsh Ministers on one side
but not on the other, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for
Broxbourne would make a similar, forceful point regarding the Severn
estuary. It would be helpful if the Minister explained how that
practical issue of designation will be tackled once the Bill has been
enacted.
Nick
Ainger: Following on from that point, I tabled an
amendment to an earlier clause, which we have passed now. My amendment
was not selected because I was too late, and I assure you that I am not
going back to that debate, Mr. Pope. Following on from the
point of the hon. Member for Clwyd, West about estuaries that have
different authorities, particularly around the Welsh border, such as
the Dee and Severn estuaries, I should like to know whether the
different planning authorities will be required to produce a joint
plan. I know that the Government have tabled a relevant amendment. It
is pointless to have different regulation in estuaries such as the Dee,
although we have had that problem in the past, particularly in relation
to cockle fisheries. I would be grateful if the Minister commented on
that in his
response.
Mr.
Swire: I want to return to something that we discussed
earlier, which also relates to this clause—places of refuge.
Designating and identifying them, as my hon. Friend the Member for
Clwyd, West said, is one thing, particularly if they are areas the size
of Devon, but the Committee also needs to know what priorities there
are within them. In the United Kingdom system, the Marine Safety Act
2003 provides powers of intervention and direction to the Secretary of
State’s representative for
maritime salvage and intervention, working with the Maritime and
Coastguard Agency’s counter-pollution and response branch. The
SOSREP directs vessels to places of refuge when he judges it
appropriate. Anywhere around the UK's coast could be a place of refuge,
and we consider it unwise pre-emptively to rule anywhere in or
out. The
Minister knows that EU member coastal states should be required to take
measures to receive ships in distress in ports of refuge. That has been
raised through the Erika II package and through the Castor and Prestige
incidents, for example. How will that fit in with marine policy
statements or marine conservation zones, particularly as most MCZs are
likely to be designated before marine planning takes place? Will the
need to find a place of refuge always overrule anything in this
legislation? In other words, should it have been possible to beach the
Napoli at a world heritage site or adjacent to one, or would that
simply have defeated the purpose of the Bill? The marine planning
system must be used to clearly identify places of refuge around our
coast for ships in distress. That could help to avoid stricken ships
being taken to environmentally sensitive
areas.
Huw
Irranca-Davies: I will try to deal with three different
issues, two of which overlap slightly. In another part of the Bill,
when we look at marine plans, we will deal in detail with joint or
cross-border work in, for example, the Severn, Deeside and Solway firth
areas. In the marine planning environment, the Bill provides a number
of obligations and incentives to ensure that marine plan authorities
co-operate and work together seamlessly. We are actively considering
other mechanisms. My hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen, West and
South Pembrokeshire will know from his time as a Wales Office Minister
that much of the work that was done between Westminster and Wales was
underpinned by concordats and memorandums of understanding, and I fully
anticipate that those are probably the sort of mechanisms that will
underpin the working relationship between the different
Administrations. With
marine conservation zones—a slightly different area to marine
planning—there is an obligation on the different areas bringing
forward cross-border zones to work together. There cannot be an
ecologically coherent network of marine conservation zones in which one
area impacts negatively on another. Proposals cannot be introduced in
one area that lead to the displacement of activity into another, for
example, proposals for the south-west that are to the great benefit of
that area but to the great detriment of Cardigan bay, or vice versa.
The areas have to work together and the MMO has a role in overseeing,
as the projects bringing the marine conservation zones forward are
introduced, that they synchronise properly. That is important, and it
has to work around the UK. One of the big benefits of the Bill is that
it is a UK-wide approach. Even if individual areas introduce marine
conservation zones, what we do in Cornwall and Devon has to relate to
what is going on in Wales. What we are doing on Deeside and in the
north-west has to relate to what we are doing in north Wales, and so
on, all around the
coast. I
am not sure whether the hon. Member for Clwyd, West was referring to
the marking of zones on the
water.
Huw
Irranca-Davies: That is possible; if necessary they can be
marked. To be honest, it will not always be necessary to show movement
from one zone to another, but when it is important, it can, and I am
sure that it will, be
done.
Mr.
Swire: Will the Minister agree to consult the RNLI should
he decide to go down the road of marking out designated
areas?
Huw
Irranca-Davies: Indeed. It would certainly not be me who
decided that an area needed physical markers on the sea, but, if that
were the case, I would absolutely expect it to happen and I would
expect to engage with stakeholders. One of the fascinating aspects of
this role is the technology that is now seen onboard vessels and the
extensive science base that shows the mapping of the sea bed. It is
quite astonishing to see how that can be used to prevent vessels from
going into certain
areas. The
hon. Member for East Devon talked about places of refuse. When it comes
to saving vessels or human lives, there is an issue of priority but
wherever possible we would seek to avoid sensitive areas. This is part
of the balance that we are talking about. There are some very difficult
decisions. The essence of the Bill is to ensure that, where there are
compatible uses we can do that, but where there are not we try to work
around it and find alternative locations.
Question
put and agreed
to. Clause
118 accordingly ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
119Consultation
before
designation Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Andrew
George: I seek the Minister’s reassurance on an
issue here that is also relevant to clause 121. It comes back to a
theme that I have mentioned before regarding consultation, particularly
the requirement for consultation with coastal local authorities, which
I do not think is emphasised sufficiently in the Bill, and the extent
to which the encouraging words in the Bill can be made more robust or
be tested.
Subsection (2)
reads: “The
appropriate authority must publish notice of its proposal to make the
order.” I
can see no reason why the Minister is not prepared to go further and
state that it must publish notice and one of those locations where the
notice must be published is within those coastal local authorities that
are adjacent to the site designated in the order.
Subsection (3)
reads: “The
notice under subsection (2) must... be published in such manner as
the appropriate authority thinks is most likely to bring the proposal
to the attention of any persons who are likely to be affected by the
making of the
order”. How
does one test the extent to which the appropriate authority has made
sure that it has been brought to the attention of any persons? Are they
fully aware of the kind of persons and organisations, be they bodies
interested in industry, resource recovery, or marine science, such
as a dolphin-watching group, that might be appropriate and which perhaps
should have been consulted at that stage? The same
question arises on subsection (4), which
states: “The
appropriate authority must consult any persons who the appropriate
authority thinks are likely to be interested in, or affected by, the
making of the
order.” How
does one test the extent to which the appropriate authority has
fulfilled its job? There is no mechanism here to ensure that it has. If
someone who believes that they should have been consulted wishes to
complain or appeal against the manner in which the authority has
discharged its duty here, there is no mechanism for them to raise any
objection.
I do not want
to stray into a debate on clause 121, but the principle applies to its
subsections too. I simply want to draw that to the Minister’s
attention, rather than having a separate debate on that clause.
Clause 121(2)
states: “The
authority may, before making that decision, give to any person the
opportunity of... appearing”—
and so on. There is no
reassurance. There is no means of testing or appealing against this.
There is no requirement on the authority to go through any robust
method of ensuring that its consultation methods are sufficiently
comprehensive and
robust. 6.
15
pm
Huw
Irranca-Davies: I want to assure the hon. Member for St.
Ives that that is the effect of the clause. There is a duty in clause
119(1) for the appropriate
authority “to
comply with subsections (2) to
(9)”. That
includes, in subsection (2),
to “publish
notice of its proposal to make the
order.” Under
subsection (3) it must
“(a) be published
in such a manner as the appropriate authority thinks is most likely to
bring the proposal to the attention of any persons who are likely to be
affected by the making of the
order; (b)
contain a statement of the terms of the proposed
order.” That
is the effect of the clause. It has flexibility but places that duty on
the appropriate authority. Failure to publish and comply with those
requirements will be a failure of that duty. I would not want to have
an additional tier of monitoring and double-checking. Anybody not
properly consulted—who has not been subject to the publication
and distribution of the proposals and so on—has the right to
take action. A duty to involve all interested persons is clearly
stated.
Andrew
George: The Minister has said that there is an opportunity
for an aggrieved interested party, who finds out that the order has
been made but who has not been consulted, to take action. I can see
nowhere in the Bill where action can be taken by an aggrieved party who
finds out at the eleventh hour that something is going forward that
might damage their interests or an interest they have in marine
matters. It would be reassuring to know what action they can take, as
it is not clear here.
Huw
Irranca-Davies: The ultimate default position, if these
duties have not been complied with, is under subsection (10) which
says: “If
the appropriate authority fails to make the order before the end of the
period...anything done by the appropriate authority for the
purposes of complying with subsections (2) to (9)...is to be treated as
not having been
done.” If
the appropriate authority fails to engage properly with all the
relevant persons who could be affected, subsection (10) says it has not
complied with its duty and that proposal does not stand. There is also
the option of judicial review. So there are safeguards. The essence of
these MCZs, as we described earlier, is based on early engagement, the
science being put in front of people, and a wide variety of proper
stakeholders. If there is no proper publication,
distribution and consultation, there are failsafes within the clause to
say that the process
falls.
Andrew
George: I apologise to hon. Members for becoming rather
pedantic. My reading of subsection (10) is that it simply puts a
timetable on the process, but the Minister has said that the fall-back
position for anyone who feels aggrieved is to pursue the matter through
law. All subsection (10) does is put a 12-month deadline for the
fulfilment of all the other subsections up to subsection
(9).
Huw
Irranca-Davies: I can confirm what I just said—the
hon. Gentleman can look back and read through Hansard. I also
draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention to clause 122,
which relates to the amendment, revocation and review of orders
designating MCZs, where, if the process has not been properly followed,
we can look at either revisiting the amendment process, or at
rehearsing the proposal again. That is an important fall-back
provision, because it puts the onus on those who bring the MCZs forward
to engage all stakeholders properly and not leave anybody out. I hope
that that reassures the hon.
Gentleman. Question
put and agreed to.
Clause 119
accordingly ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
120Publication
of orders designating
MCZs
Mr.
Benyon: I beg to move amendment 17, in
clause 120, page 81, line 23, at
end add— ‘(6) The
appropriate authority must inform any national representative body of
sea users of the publication of orders designating
MCZs.’. I
do not wish to be flippant, but, just for clarity, during the clause
stand part debate a moment ago, the Minister referred to areas of
refuse, as opposed to areas of refuge; he might wish to correct the
record, because I hope that the Bill will avoid areas of
refuse. The
amendment seeks to include a sixth subsection to the clause. By placing
a duty on appropriate authorities to inform national representative
bodies of MCZ designations, the amendment would allow sea users, via
bodies such as the British Marine Federation and the Royal Yachting
Association, to comment and give feedback on the proposed zones in a
timely fashion.
The RYA is a
national body for all forms of recreational and competitive boating. It
represents dinghy and yacht racing, motor and sail cruising, rigid
inflatable boats and sports boats, as well as powerboat racing,
windsurfing, inland cruising and personal watercraft. The RYA manages
the British sailing team and Great Britain was the top sailing nation
in the 2000, 2004 and 2008 Olympic games. The RYA and the BMF are
recognised by all Government offices as the negotiating bodies for the
activities that they represent. The RYA has over 100,000 personal
members, the majority of whom choose to go afloat for purely
recreational, non-competitive pleasure on coastal and inland waters. An
estimated further 500,000 boat-owners nationwide are members of over
1,500 RYA-affiliated clubs and class associations. That gives an
indication of the importance of organisations such as the RYA and why
they must be
consulted. As
we heard during the previous clause stand part debate, there is
unlikely to be any physical designation of MCZs in the sea itself
through the use of buoys and such like. National representative bodies
need to mark such areas on charts and communicate the locations of MCZs
to their members and to local sea users. I should be grateful if the
Minister could clarify whether such bodies will be properly consulted,
and whether the amendment, which would require them to be consulted, is
needed.
| 
