Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
89AZA: Clause 49, page 25, line 16, at beginning insert Unless prepared and adopted by the Secretary of State,
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I am introducing Amendments 89AZA, 89AZB, 89CB, 89FZB and 89HB to improve the clarity of the Bill in relation to the Secretary of State and retained functions. They are minor and technical amendments. At various stages of the planning process, certain requirements apply if the proposed plan makes provision in relation to retained functions; that is, functions which have not been devolved. Retained functions is a concept which only has relevance in relation to devolved marine planning regions. There are no devolved functions in the English inshore or offshore regions, so there are no retained functions. These requirements should therefore not apply to plans prepared by the Secretary of State for those regions.
Amendment 89AZA ensures that the requirement to state whether a marine plan makes provision in relation to retained functions does not apply to plans prepared by the Secretary of State. These are followed by consequential amendments to Schedule 6 Amendments 89CB, 89FZB and 89HBwhich make it clear that the Secretary of States agreement is not needed for publishing his own statement of public participation or a revised SPP or his consultation draft.
Finally, Amendment 89AZB to Clause 49 introduces a signpost to the definition of retained functions, which appears later, in Clause 57, for purposes of clarity. I beg to move.
89B: Clause 49, page 25, line 24, at end insert
(11) Nothing in this section prohibits the preparation of joint plans by marine plan authorities between marine planning regions.
Baroness Hamwee: I shall speak also to Amendments 89LA to 89LC, and one of my noble friends has Amendment 94ZZA in this group. These amendments concern joint planning across borders and boundaries. Amendment 89B would add a paragraph to Clause 49 to provide that there can be,
Again, I am grateful to the Link Coalition for this amendment.
It does not need arguing any further that to ensure sustainable development one must look not at political or administrative boundaries, but follow what my noble friend on the Front Bench probably would call sensible boundariesecological boundaries in this case. We have had reference already, not least from my noble friend Lady Miller, about the dangers of having separate plans produced for the same area. This is an encouragement to the preparation of joint plans.
I am advised that under the marine strategy framework directive member states are required to produce strategies and programmes to,
The amendment suggested by the Link Coalition builds on that.
Amendments 89LA, LB and LC seek to amend Clause 52, which covers the need to keep matters under review and would extend those matters beyond the authoritys own region to the regions of the other marine plan authorities. They are the result of my drafting and are therefore a lot shorter than those of the coalition. Amendment 94B would add a similar provision to Clause 58. I beg to move.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I shall speak briefly to my Amendment 94ZZA, which is grouped with those of my noble friend. It seeks to add a further subsection to Clause 56, which covers Decisions affected by marine policy documents. The amendment suggests much more definite wording than that proposed by the Government in Schedule 6. The issue here is exactly how the interface between the marine plan authority and the land-based planning authority will work. The Minister has used the phrase have regard to, but at exactly what stage will that happen? My suggested wording addresses a critical issue that we have not yet fully considered. I should say also that we have received a briefing on this from the LGA.
Noble Lords will be aware that the LGA is concerned about the importance in planning terms of the overlap between the landward extent of the UK marine area, which is marine high water, and the seaward extent of areas under local authority responsibility, which is
10 Feb 2009 : Column 1105
Lord Tyler: I support my noble friend Lady Miller on this issue. As the Minister may recall, ever since Second Reading I have been particularly concerned about the extent to which local coastal communities want to and feel they should have a sense of ownership of the plans that are going to develop under the new regime. I, of course, am well aware of such communities, having represented them. If there is no proper and sensible relationship between the terrestrial planning process and the marine planning process, that sense of ownership simply will not exist. Moreover, there is a feeling that the well established and mature regimes that already operate on land will not interrelate effectively with the new regime, which is untried and therefore needs to be tested carefully in terms of public communication, ownership and involvement. The whole of this new planning hierarchy may be at risk if the relationship is not made explicit at the outset. I agree with my noble friend that the reference in Schedule 6 is insufficient in that respect.
A great many coastal communities will feel that this crucial relationship is not sufficiently well expressed on the face of the Bill. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will be sympathetic to the objective behind the amendment and, if he is not prepared to accept it at this stage, that he will think about this point, which is crucial to the success of this legislation.
Earl Cathcart: I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for moving the amendment. Those of us who were at the helpful devolution briefing and who have looked at the maps will understand that the more we delve into the issue of devolution and different authorities, the more complex the question becomes. A quick look at the map shows that for the UK part of the Irish Sea at least four separate plans could be applicable. The issue of joint planning, therefore, is importantor is planning jointly a better phrase?
The Governments consultation document, Our SeasA Shared Resource, states clearly that the marine objectives are in line with the,
The objectives are designed to promote the action of the UK Government, the Northern Ireland Executive and the Welsh Assembly Government in a coherent and consistent way.
The sea is a volatile beast and decisions made in one area may affect another. It is difficult to draw precise boundaries and define where the impact of the action of one authority will end and another begin, so it is vital that joined-up planning takes place across
10 Feb 2009 : Column 1106
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: This is another amendment which highlights the importance of ensuring that there is a collaborative and coherent approach both to the way in which different planning authorities work together in relation to the marine environment and to the need for marine planning to work side by side with terrestrial planning. I take the point but I am not convinced that the kind of legislative approach outlined in the amendments is the right way to ensure this.
We have discussed the approach that is needed to ensure that there is one marine policy statement for the whole of the United Kingdom in which all the devolved Administrations have ownership. The way to achieve this is partly through the encouragement contained in the Bill, partly because it is to the advantage of all the policy authorities to come together and partly because our experience of the discussions that have taken place between the different Administrations and the UK Government lead us to believe that there is a determination to make all these arrangements work together.
I accept the important point made by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, about the need for a sense of ownership. The question is the extent to which that ownership is arrived at because of the encouragement that is given, and whether you can legislate to determine it. I certainly think that the Bill is an encouragement to that kind of ownership. It provides a number of reassurances that neighbouring planning authorities will co-operate with one another in preparing marine plans.
I know that noble Lords think that Schedule 6 does not really meet their requirements. However, it makes it clear that, before planning commences, notice of intent to plan must be given to any neighbouring planning authority. Steps must be taken to ensure that plans are compatible with any other related marine plan or land plan. There are various other provisions in that schedule about involving all interested parties in consultation.
On Amendment 89B, we come back to the issue that we debated regarding the Bristol Channel. Nothing in the Bill prohibits two marine plan authorities from working together to plan collaboratively for a cross-border area. We intend and hope to do just that. As I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, we are ever open to suggestions about how that may be done effectively.
The drafting of the Bill technically prevents the creation of a single joint plan that crosses borders between marine planning regions. The reason is simply, as I said before, to protect the distribution of functions under the devolution settlement. A cross-border plan would mean giving each Administration the ability to adopt or reject policies for the others marine region.
10 Feb 2009 : Column 1107
The work of planning and managing across borders is not new. I draw the attention of your Lordships, even at this late hour, to the excellent cross-border work done by, for example, estuary partnerships, in which the Government, the devolved Administrations and our agencies are already involved. We will also have the benefit of the various voluntary estuary management plans and strategies that are commonly prepared for larger estuaries. That will help to ensure that we create a consistent approach on both sides of the administrative borders.
Earlier I reiterated our commitment to a joined-up approach to planning in the Bristol Channel. I emphasise that again; the same issue will clearly arise at the border with Scotland and the boundaries between the inshore and offshore marine planning regions. We are no less committed to working co-operatively there to develop a coherent approach that works for marine users and meets the aspirations and needs of both Administrations.
I turn to Amendments 89LA, 89LB and 89LC to Clause 52(2), and the related Amendment 94B, which seeks to amend Clause 58. It may assist if I set out the amendments in some context. As currently drafted, Clause 52(1) obliges the marine plan authority,
the authoritys planning functionsin other words, how it identifies planned areas and plans accordingly for them. Clause 52(2) contains a non-exhaustive list of what those matters could consist of.
We would not expect marine plan authorities simply to ignore anything that was happening outside their borders. Indeed, as has already been stated, it would be unwise for them to do so. It is impossible to view our seas in discrete areas. The effects of the dynamic environment can be felt some distance out to sea as well as on landI entirely agree with the points raised. This is why the Bill contains provisions for marine plan authorities to take reasonable steps to ensure compatibility with all other related areas; that is, areas at land or at sea which adjoin or are adjacent to the area, or may be affected by the whole or any part of another area of a proposed plan.
It may also useful to note that the suggested amendments are confined to marine plan regions. They do not provide any scope toconsider related terrestrial regions which are equally important. A
10 Feb 2009 : Column 1108
Amendment 94ZZA to Clause 56 proposes to introduce a requirement for the marine plan authority to have regard to terrestrial plans in taking certain decisions. I know that Schedule 6 is not popular in this regard, but paragraph 3 requires the marine plan authority to have regard to related terrestrial plans when preparing a marine plan and to take all reasonable steps to secure compatibility with them. I know that local authorities want the provision hardened, but it is a sensible and finely judged requirement. I would have thought that taking all reasonable steps to secure compatibility meets this concern. It is clearly one of the most important decisions that the marine plan authority will take, which could affect adjacent land. The duty is already imposed. The marine plan authority will also have to have regard to the marine plan when taking other decisions. The marine plan will have been drafted having regard to the terrestrial development plan. In addition, any development above low watermark would in any case need development consent under terrestrial plans.
I understand the importance of this matter. I have listened carefully to the arguments in favour of including a duty to keep under review matters taking place in other planning regions. I have said that I regard that as being implicit in the legislation, but I shall give it further consideration between Committee and Report. I am happy to discuss it further, because there is not much point in doing this unless one can be satisfied that arrangements exist to incentivise and ensure as far as possible that planning authorities, whether terrestrial or marine, work together. One should not underestimate the challenge because there will be tensions in this environment. The Bill has the necessary levers, requirements and forms of encouragement, but, as I have said, on a duty to keep under review matters taking place in other planning regions, I am very much open to further discussion.
Baroness Hamwee: We have managed to get through that without anybody using the term holistic. I am grateful to the Minister for that reply and, particularly, for his offer. I hope that he will not think it is any slight on him or the officials who have assisted in preparing that response if I simply say that I will not seek to deal with it in any detail at this hour and merely thank him for it.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I should have said something about the point raised on the concern that local authorities were experiencing. My understanding is that we are taking forward extensive work with the Local Government Association to understand better how we can involve local planning authorities in the
10 Feb 2009 : Column 1109
Baroness Hamwee: I hope that that is with the special interest group and not simply the LGA corporately because, by definition, there are special interests. I am grateful for all that. We will read carefully the Ministers reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Clause 49, as amended, agreed.
Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |