---

I merely wish to raise a minor point with the Committee. I assume that this is a probing amendment but if it is not—I thought that the previous amendment was probing until we went to a Division—I wish to point out one thing about it; namely, it would have absolutely no practical effect if it were agreed. It would remove part of the provision whereby a local authority exercising the power of a harbour authority may use various usual powers of internal delegation—whether full council or executive, as applicable—to perform a particular function, as specified in regulations made under Section 13 of the Local Government Act 2000.

Clause 20(3) makes it clear that the persons to whom functions may be delegated are a,

“committee, sub-committee, member, officer or employee of the local authority”.

Deleting subsection (4) would not change that.

Lord Greaves: I have been arguing about “trivial local government matters”, as some would say, all afternoon, so I shall continue now. If what the Minister says is correct, why is this clause in the Bill anyway if including or not including it makes no difference?

Lord Davies of Oldham: I was coming to that. In my comments about local authorities, I was not suggesting for one moment that there was anything trivial about

21 Jan 2009 : Column 1758

this situation; nor did I think that the noble Lord’s long absence from the Chamber while he was engaged elsewhere was due to trivial matters—far from it. However, I am seeking to defend the position in the Bill. I stress that that wording is in the Bill because we wish to emphasise that we are talking about one authority, which is a harbour authority. The noble Baroness introduced the concept of estuary authorities, which I do not deny are very important, but they are not harbour authorities and therefore do not relate to the situation that we seek to confront here.

As we discussed earlier, Clause 15 enables the MMO, with the approval of the Secretary of State, to make agreements with the eligible bodies listed in Clause 16 to carry out functions on the MMO’s behalf. I hasten to add the obvious point that we are creating the MMO to carry out its own functions; we expect it largely to carry them out and there is no intention of transferring functions wholesale to others. The point of the Bill is to create the MMO with the powers that it needs. However, as we indicated in earlier debates, there will be occasions when, for reasons of resources, expertise or geographical remit, another body is better placed to perform a function on the MMO’s behalf. We seek to create a degree of flexibility, and the list of bodies includes harbour authorities.

Clause 20 makes additional provision in relation to any agreement with a harbour authority where that harbour authority is also a local authority. Under the Local Government Act 2000 and subordinate legislation, each function of a principal local authority—and, by heavens, I appreciate that I may be in great danger of seeking to teach several noble Lords how to suck eggs, when they have deep expertise in this area—is administered either directly by the full council or through executive arrangements, depending on the function. The full council or executive—as applicable—of that authority may use various usual powers of delegation, for example to its committees or to the officers of that authority, to perform the function.

9.45 pm

Subsection (4) states that:

“‘Committee’ does not include a joint committee of two or more local authorities”.

It refers to a committee of the harbour authority. Clause 20 allows delegation only to committees of the same authority. I emphasise that although Clause 15 gives the MMO the ability to enter into agreements with the bodies listed in Clause 16, it may do so only with the approval of the Secretary of State. The fact that a body is included in the list in Clause 16 does not mean that the MMO will inevitably delegate functions to it. I hasten to add that the purpose of the clause is to deal with the issue of the harbour authority and its proper right of delegation, not to raise the issue which the noble Baroness raised about more than one authority being involved, because that is not the power which is envisaged; nor does the deletion of subsection (4) materially affect that position.

I do not pretend that that is good news for the noble Baroness, because I understand the representations that she is seeking to make, but that is what the Bill says. The Government are defending not only the

21 Jan 2009 : Column 1759

policy underpinning the Bill but the actual lines in the Bill and what they mean in the Bill—which, after all, is what the noble Baroness is seeking to amend. I am sure that she will want to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: At this point I miss my noble friend Lady Hamwee, who, as the Minister knows, is not able to be here because she is not at all well. She will be much more able than I am to draft something on Report to explore the issue. If two local authorities need and want to work together in a relationship with the MMO on, as the Bill envisages, a single harbour authority, then that should be possible. The Bill should not decide local matters such as whether one local authority can be a harbour authority or whether two local authorities can join together in a harbour authority and have such a relationship with

21 Jan 2009 : Column 1760

the MMO. Surely that should be a local decision and not one for the Government to lay down in statute.

I am grateful for the support of the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, who, from his great expertise, I know understands exactly what I am driving at. Between his expertise and that of my noble friend Lady Hamwee, we will be able to come up with something far more satisfactory on Report. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 69A withdrawn.

Clause 20 agreed.

Clauses 21 and 22 agreed.

House resumed.

House adjourned at 9.49 pm.

---