| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
The noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, told the House that the context of these amendments and assurances is the new document that the Government have published, Our Seas—A Shared Resource: High-Level Marine Objectives. It is good to read in that document that among the high-level marine objectives is the conservation of the cultural marine heritage and to see definitions of “marine cultural heritage” and “seascapes”. Following the assurance that my noble friend Lord Davies of Oldham gave in Committee on 23 February, at col. 48, and what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said today, I am confident that the marine policy statement—the overarching statement of policy—will set out the Government’s policy on safeguarding the marine environment, including the cultural and historic marine environment.
The amendments and commitments give us the essence of what we have sought. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, indicated, there are problematic issues surrounding the conservation of the marine heritage beyond 12 nautical miles. In the extremely important case of HMS “Victory” described by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, is the Minister in conversation with colleagues at the Ministry of Defence, which should have competence in this matter given that HMS “Victory” was a naval warship? I hope that the MoD is taking seriously its responsibility to ensure that a commercial and predatory firm of divers is not able to loot this extraordinarily important part of our naval heritage.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, let me answer the noble Lord’s points in order. I confirm that he is right that the powers lie with the Ministry of Defence
5 May 2009 : Column 476
5.30 pm
Lord Howarth of Newport: My Lords, I appreciate what my noble friend has said. I thank him, my noble friend Lord Davies of Oldham, Mr Huw Irranca-Davies and the ministerial team for being so accessible and willing to listen and for responding so constructively—I am most grateful to them. I also thank and congratulate English Heritage officials, who briefed a number of us with precision, lucidity and very good judgment.
My final point has already been suggested by others. Could we please now have the heritage protection Bill? That would much more fairly and squarely deal with the important issues addressed with such eloquence and passion by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges. The debates that we have had on the heritage aspects of this Bill have been more anxious and uncertain than they would have been had the heritage protection Bill been proceeding in parallel through Parliament.
This Bill is primarily about issues concerning the natural environment, whereas the heritage protection Bill is the appropriate primary vehicle for protection of the marine historic environment. As my noble friend Lord Hunt said, there must be complementarity between the two, and I am grateful to Defra for the strenuous efforts that it has made to ensure that there is that complementarity. However, in the absence of what should have been the parallel Bill, the regime for which we are legislating will be lopsided.
I was pleased to hear my noble friend Lord Hunt reaffirm that the Government remain committed to the heritage protection Bill, but why do we not have it? It has been frustrating to be told repeatedly that the House of Commons during the past several weeks has been twiddling its legislative thumbs without enough to do. We know that the heritage protection Bill has all-party support—at least, I am assured by senior, responsible people in both the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties that they support the essence of the measure. It has had pre-legislative scrutiny. Why can we not, even now, at this late stage of the Session, bring it into the House of Lords, make some progress with it and, if we cannot complete scrutiny of it in this Session, carry it over to the next Session? As I understand it, there is no procedural objection. Of course, that would need to be agreed by the usual channels, but, given that everyone thinks that it is a valuable measure, what difficulty should there be?
If we fail to do that, how will the heritage protection Bill get on the statute book? The next Session, the last of this Parliament, must be a short Session. It is difficult to be confident that the Bill would take its place in the first Session of the next Parliament, when it is all too liable to be crowded out by Bills emanating from big manifesto pledges. It would be a valuable thing to get it on the statute book. It would be enormously helpful for the heritage sector and local government. I hope that it will be possible for the usual channels to have constructive discussion about that and to agree that we should proceed with no further delay with the heritage protection Bill to support the now excellent heritage protection elements within the Marine and Coastal Access Bill.
5 May 2009 : Column 477
Lord Greenway: My Lords, in speaking briefly to the amendments, I should declare an interest as chairman of the World Ship Trust, which is dedicated to encouraging the preservation of historic ships. I say “ships” rather than “wrecks”, but we are nevertheless interested in what is brought forth from wrecks discovered under the sea. I agree in many ways with what the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, just said. The proposed heritage protection Bill is certainly the right vehicle to deal with this subject, but I am delighted that the Government have made this concession in their amendments, which will at least act as a stop-gap until such time as the heritage protection Bill is brought forward.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his interesting remarks and for the sympathetic attitude that he has shown to the subject. I should make it clear that under existing law—I refer in particular to HMS “Victory”—although HMS “Victory” was in international waters, the fact that it was a British vessel was recognised by all concerned, so we had the right to dispose of the remains of the ship in the way that we thought best. I was trying to suggest in that part of my remarks that no proper attention was devoted to that by the Government, who simply allowed the Ministry of Defence to sell it off for what it could get to the United States. That does not seem to me to be an appropriate treatment of the most historic wreck belonging to this country found for a very long time.
I also suggest that, in the other legislation referred to, it would be helpful if more specific reference were made to exactly what we mean by the marine environment. For a lot of people, that will mean fish. The idea that there will be treasures down there that people are not free to raid needs to be explored. Living where I do, it is clear to me that there are a lot of foreign vessels snooping around our shores looking for what they can find. I have yet to see a vehicle from the Ministry of Defence or anyone else keeping an eye on what is going on. We do that where we are. There is an enormous gap before good intentions are transferred into something more concrete. That was my only motive in moving the amendment. I hope that we can be a little more specific; that would give a great deal of encouragement to those of us who care. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Clause 4: Licensing of fishing boats
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, in moving Amendment 20, I shall speak to several other amendments in the group. Noble Lords will see that they make substantive amendment to Clause 4. They partly result from agreement reached with Scottish Ministers to enable the Marine Management Organisation to enter into agency arrangements with Scottish Ministers in
5 May 2009 : Column 478
The licensing of English fishing vessels operating out of Scottish ports and Scottish fishing vessels operating out of English ports is an administrative convenience currently undertaken on a reciprocal basis by Scottish Ministers and the Secretary of State, although, in practice, the Secretary of State’s licensing function in England is carried out by the Marine and Fisheries Agency, an executive agency of Defra. Unlike the Northern Ireland Act and the Government of Wales Act, the Scotland Act has no provision enabling Scottish Ministers to enter into agency arrangements with any public body to exercise functions on their behalf. Specific provision for that is therefore required in the Bill to enable the Marine Management Organisation, as a non-departmental public body, to enter into those arrangements with Scottish Ministers to maintain the status quo.
Consequential Amendments 20, 23 and 36 have been made to delete subsections (2), (7) and (8) and Clause 14(3)(b), which are no longer required. In addition, Amendment 23 replaces subsection (6) with new subsections (6) to (8) appropriately to convey the scope of the transitional provisions that may be required when the MMO comes into being. The clause provides that licences already granted by the Secretary of State will, once the Bill is commenced, be treated as having been granted by the MMO. The amendment ensures that the same principle applies to licences that have been varied, suspended or revoked by the Secretary of State before the Bill is commenced; such licences will be treated as if varied, suspended or revoked by the MMO. Similarly, any application for a licence made to the Secretary of State that has not already been determined or withdrawn by the time that the MMO is established will be treated as an application to the MMO. I beg to move.
The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, the amendments to Clause 4 envisage a high degree of flexibility in the licensing of fishing boats. It is good to hear the Minister explain that, because of the lack of this agency ability under the Scotland Act, he is bringing Scottish powers into line with those of all the other devolved Administrations. It is certainly a nice thought that Scottish fishing boats in England will be able to get a Scottish licence, as it is that English boats in Scotland will be able to get an English licence. The mind turns to how far flexibility can reach and whether that will have any relevance for Spanish boats that have obtained an English or Scottish quota licence. It might be interesting for the House to know whether the Minister can see such an arrangement being extended to other countries. Does that mean in effect that every skipper can just nominate from which authority he wishes to obtain a licence?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Duke for that comment; he raises a very interesting point. Before I come to that, perhaps I could give the background to reciprocal licensing of fishing vessels. Normally, the port letters and numbers given to a fishing vessel on original registration remain
5 May 2009 : Column 479
From a practical point of view, it makes more sense for vessels to be administered and licensed by the port office close to the port out of which they fish. A Scottish vessel was defined in the devolution settlement as a fishing boat whose entry in the register specifies a port in Scotland as the port to which the vessel is to be treated as belonging. I am sure that the noble Duke will remember our debating that point during the devolution Bill.
The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, can the noble Lord give me the reference?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, that is a very good question, on which, alas, the noble Duke has found me short.
Because of the way in which that was so defined, it is necessary for Scottish vessels, or those originally registered in Scotland, that operate out of English ports to be licensed by the Secretary of State on behalf of Scottish Ministers and for English vessels, or those whose original port of registration was in England, to be licensed by Scottish Ministers on behalf of the Secretary of State. This is a sensible approach; we just need to make sure that, in legislative terms, we can carry on doing it.
The noble Duke asked about Spanish vessels rather than Spanish customs. This legislation is not a way in which we can encompass Spanish vessels in the licensing regime. They are licensed by the Spanish Government.
21: Clause 4, page 3, leave out lines 14 and 15 and insert—
“(2) In subsection (1)(a) of that section (power by order to prohibit fishing unless authorised by a licence granted by one of the Ministers) the reference to one of the Ministers is to be read as including a reference to the MMO instead of a reference to the Secretary of State.
22: Clause 4, page 3, line 30, at end insert—
“( ) After subsection (11) of that section insert—
“(11A) As respects any function under this section, other than a function of making an order,—
(a) the Marine Management Organisation may make arrangements for the function to be exercised on its behalf by the Scottish Ministers, and
(b) the Scottish Ministers may make arrangements for the function to be exercised on their behalf by the Marine Management Organisation.
An arrangement under this subsection does not affect a person’s responsibility for the exercise of the function.
5 May 2009 : Column 480
(11B) A person exercising a function on behalf of another by virtue of subsection (11A) above may charge that other such fees as the person considers reasonable in respect of the cost of doing so.”.”
23: Clause 4, page 3, line 31, leave out subsections (6) to (8) and insert—
“(6) The grant, variation, revocation or suspension of a licence under that section by or on behalf of the Secretary of State before the coming into force of this section has effect as from the coming into force of this section as the grant, variation, revocation or suspension of the licence by the MMO.
(7) Where a decision to grant, vary, revoke or suspend a licence under that section—
(a) has been taken by or on behalf of the Secretary of State before the coming into force of this section, but
(b) has not been notified in accordance with regulations under section 4B of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967 (c. 84),
the decision has effect as from the coming into force of this section as a decision taken by the MMO.
(8) Where, before the coming into force of this section, an application for a licence under section 4 of that Act, or for the variation of such a licence,—
(a) has been made to the Secretary of State or a person acting on behalf of the Secretary of State, but
(b) has not been determined or withdrawn,
the application is to be treated as from the coming into force of this section as an application made to the MMO.”
Clause 6: Trans-shipment licences for vessels
24: Clause 6, page 4, line 10, at end insert—
“( ) In subsection (1) of that section (power by order to prohibit trans-shipping of fish unless authorised by a licence granted by one of the Ministers) the reference to one of the Ministers is to be read as including a reference to the MMO instead of a reference to the Secretary of State.”
25: Clause 6, page 4, line 27, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
“(5) The grant, variation, revocation or suspension of a licence under that section by or on behalf of the Secretary of State before the coming into force of this section has effect as from the coming into force of this section as the grant, variation, revocation or suspension of the licence by the MMO.
(5A) Where a decision to grant, vary, revoke or suspend a licence under that section—
(a) has been taken by or on behalf of the Secretary of State before the coming into force of this section, but
(b) has not been notified in accordance with regulations under section 4B of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967 (c. 84),
the decision has effect as from the coming into force of this section as a decision taken by the MMO.
(5B) Where, before the coming into force of this section, an application for a licence under section 4A of that Act, or for the variation of such a licence,—
(a) has been made to the Secretary of State or a person acting on behalf of the Secretary of State, but
(b) has not been determined or withdrawn,
the application is to be treated as from the coming into force of this section as an application made to the MMO.”
5 May 2009 : Column 481
Clause 7: Regulations supplementary to sections 4 and 4A
26: Clause 7, page 4, line 37, leave out “that section” and insert “section 4 or 4A of that Act (licensing of fishing boats and trans-shipment licences for vessels)”
Clause 9: Licences to kill or take seals
27: Clause 9, page 5, line 31, after “section” insert “in relation to the whole or any part of England or the English inshore region”
Clause 10: Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981
Clause 12: Certain consents under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989
30: Clause 12, page 6, line 30, leave out from “station” to “a” in line 34 and insert “that meets the requirements of subsections (3) and (3A).
(3) The generating station must be in waters which are subject to regulation under section 95 of the Energy Act 2004 (c. 20), other than—
(a) any area of Scottish waters, or
(b) any area of waters in a Scottish part of a Renewable Energy Zone.
32: Clause 12, page 7, line 19, at end insert—
“( ) In this section, the following expressions have the same meaning as in section 95 of the Energy Act 2004 (c. 20)—
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |