| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Addington, L.
Alderdice, L.
Anelay of St Johns, B.
Arran, E.
Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon, L.
Attlee, E.
Bates, L.
Blackwell, L.
Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury, B.
Bradshaw, L.
Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.
Brougham and Vaux, L.
Burnett, L.
Byford, B.
Caithness, E.
Cathcart, E.
Chidgey, L.
Clement-Jones, L.
Colwyn, L.
Cope of Berkeley, L.
Cotter, L.
Courtown, E.
Crathorne, L.
De Mauley, L.
Denham, L.
Dixon-Smith, L.
Dykes, L.
Eccles, V.
Elton, L.
Falkland, V.
Fookes, B.
Garden of Frognal, B. [Teller]
Gardner of Parkes, B.
Glenarthur, L.
Glentoran, L.
Goodhart, L.
Greaves, L.
Hamwee, B.
Hanham, B.
Henley, L.
Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.
Hooper, B.
Howe, E.
Howe of Aberavon, L.
Hunt of Wirral, L.
James of Blackheath, L.
Jones of Cheltenham, L.
Jopling, L.
Kingsland, L.
Kirkwood of Kirkhope, L.
Laing of Dunphail, L.
Lee of Trafford, L.
Lester of Herne Hill, L.
Linklater of Butterstone, B.
Livsey of Talgarth, L.
Lucas, L.
Luce, L.
Lyell, L.
MacGregor of Pulham Market, L.
Maclennan of Rogart, L.
Maddock, B.
Mar and Kellie, E.
Marland, L.
Marlesford, L.
Mayhew of Twysden, L.
Methuen, L.
Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.
Montrose, D.
Naseby, L.
Neuberger, B.
Neville-Jones, B.
Newby, L.
Noakes, B.
Northover, B.
Norton of Louth, L.
O'Cathain, B.
Pannick, L.
Razzall, L.
Reay, L.
Rennard, L.
Roberts of Llandudno, L.
Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.
Rogan, L.
Ryder of Wensum, L.
Seccombe, B.
Selborne, E.
Sharp of Guildford, B.
Sheikh, L.
Shephard of Northwold, B.
Shutt of Greetland, L. [Teller]
Smith of Clifton, L.
Steel of Aikwood, L.
Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Taylor of Holbeach, L.
Taylor of Warwick, L.
Teverson, L.
Thomas of Gresford, L.
Thomas of Swynnerton, L.
Thomas of Winchester, B.
Tonge, B.
Tope, L.
Tordoff, L.
5 May 2009 : Column 490
Vallance of Tummel, L.
Waddington, L.
Wakeham, L.
Wallace of Saltaire, L.
Wallace of Tankerness, L.
Walmsley, B.
Walpole, L.
Warsi, B.
Wilcox, B.
Adams of Craigielea, B.
Adonis, L.
Alli, L.
Anderson of Swansea, L.
Andrews, B.
Archer of Sandwell, L.
Armstrong of Ilminster, L.
Bach, L.
Bassam of Brighton, L. [Teller]
Berkeley, L.
Bernstein of Craigweil, L.
Bhatia, L.
Bilston, L.
Blood, B.
Borrie, L.
Boyd of Duncansby, L.
Bradley, L.
Brennan, L.
Brett, L.
Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.
Brookeborough, V.
Campbell-Savours, L.
Chester, Bp.
Christopher, L.
Clark of Windermere, L.
Clinton-Davis, L.
Colville of Culross, V.
Davidson of Glen Clova, L.
Davies of Coity, L.
Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]
Donoughue, L.
D'Souza, B.
Dubs, L.
Elder, L.
Evans of Parkside, L.
Farrington of Ribbleton, B.
Faulkner of Worcester, L.
Finlay of Llandaff, B.
Ford, B.
Foster of Bishop Auckland, L.
Gale, B.
Gavron, L.
Gibson of Market Rasen, B.
Gilbert, L.
Gordon of Strathblane, L.
Goudie, B.
Gould of Potternewton, B.
Grantchester, L.
Greenway, L.
Griffiths of Burry Port, L.
Grocott, L.
Hannay of Chiswick, L.
Harris of Haringey, L.
Haskel, L.
Haworth, L.
Henig, B.
Hilton of Eggardon, B.
Hollis of Heigham, B.
Howarth of Newport, L.
Howe of Idlicote, B.
Howells of St. Davids, B.
Howie of Troon, L.
Hoyle, L.
Hunt of Kings Heath, L.
Janner of Braunstone, L.
Jay of Ewelme, L.
Jay of Paddington, B.
Jones, L.
Judd, L.
Kennedy of The Shaws, B.
King of West Bromwich, L.
Kirkhill, L.
Layard, L.
Lea of Crondall, L.
Lipsey, L.
Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.
McDonagh, B.
McIntosh of Hudnall, B.
Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.
McKenzie of Luton, L.
Malloch-Brown, L.
Mar, C.
Masham of Ilton, B.
Massey of Darwen, B.
Maxton, L.
Moonie, L.
Morgan, L.
Morgan of Drefelin, B.
Morgan of Huyton, B.
Morris of Aberavon, L.
Morris of Handsworth, L.
Morris of Yardley, B.
O'Neill of Clackmannan, L.
Palmer, L.
Patel, L.
Patel of Blackburn, L.
Patel of Bradford, L.
Paul, L.
Pendry, L.
Pitkeathley, B.
Quin, B.
Rea, L.
Rendell of Babergh, B.
Rosser, L.
Rowe-Beddoe, L.
Royall of Blaisdon, B.
Scotland of Asthal, B.
Simon, V.
Snape, L.
Soley, L.
Stone of Blackheath, L.
Symons of Vernham Dean, B.
Taylor of Bolton, B.
Temple-Morris, L.
Tenby, V.
Thornton, B.
Tunnicliffe, L.
Uddin, B.
Vadera, B.
Wall of New Barnet, B.
Walton of Detchant, L.
Warwick of Undercliffe, B.
Wedderburn of Charlton, L.
Whitaker, B.
Wilkins, B.
Williams of Elvel, L.
Williamson of Horton, L.
Young of Hornsey, B.
Young of Norwood Green, L.
Young of Old Scone, B.
5 May 2009 : Column 491
6.21 pm
Clause 18: Maximum duration of agreement
Clause 20: Agreements with certain harbour authorities
43: Clause 20, page 11, line 40, at end insert—
“( ) any power of a local authority to arrange for the discharge of the function jointly with another local authority (but only to the extent that each of the authorities is a harbour authority),”
44: Clause 20, page 12, line 3, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
(a) “committee” includes a joint committee of two or more local authorities which are harbour authorities and which include the local authority mentioned in subsection (1);
(b) “sub-committee” includes a sub-committee of any such joint committee;
(c) the reference to a member, officer or employee of the local authority includes a reference to a member, officer or employee of any local authority, or any of the local authorities, with which the local authority may have entered into arrangements for the joint discharge of functions which consist of or include functions which the local authority is authorised under an agreement to perform.”
45: Clause 20, page 12, line 5, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
“(5) If the local authority is operating executive arrangements, the function is to be treated as a function of the local authority for the purposes of section 13 of the Local Government Act 2000 (c. 22) (provision for determining which functions of the authority are to be the responsibility of the executive and which are not).
(5A) If, in a case where the local authority is operating executive arrangements, the function is to any extent the responsibility of the executive of the local authority, then to that extent—
(a) subsection (2) does not apply, but
(b) the provisions mentioned in subsection (5B) have effect.
5 May 2009 : Column 492
(a) sections 14 to 16 of the Local Government Act 2000 (c. 22) (discharge of functions in the case of different types of executive arrangements);
(b) any regulations under section 17 or 18 of that Act (discharge of functions by executive of a type prescribed under section 11(5) of that Act, and discharge of functions by area committees);
(c) so far as relating to arrangements (including the appointment of joint committees) under section 101(5) of the Local Government Act 1972 (c. 70) which involve another local authority which is a harbour authority, any regulations under section 20 of the Local Government Act 2000 (c. 22) (joint exercise of functions).”
47: Clause 23, page 13, line 9, at end insert “to be undertaken by an appropriately qualified person or body”
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I hope that the Minister is not unduly alarmed by this amendment. It is in the nature of a probing amendment and a word from the Minister will be sufficient reassurance, provided, of course, that it is the right word. The Minister will recall the debate that we had on Clause 23 in Committee. My concern is that when the MMO commissions research under subsection (1)(b), it does so according to a procedure that will enable the appropriate decision-maker in the body to choose the right person or research body for the right task.
My confidence that this will be the case is reinforced both by the prospective insertion into the Bill of a chief scientific adviser and by the Minister’s undertaking to have a scientific advisory committee included as part of government guidance to the MMO. I am sure that the MMO will follow such guidance. Nevertheless, it would be helpful if the Minister could confirm that he would expect such procedures to be established by the MMO so that, if it is in the position of having to spend valuable money on research, that money will go to the person or organisation best qualified to use it productively in the public interest. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, it might be helpful if I respond briefly to the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, and then speak to my own amendments in this group. I think I can give the word that the noble Lord is seeking; I think it is “yes” and I am happy to say that. The noble Lord is also right to say that the amendments we have tabled, particularly those on the appointment of a chief scientific adviser and my commitment that the MMO will establish a scientific advisory committee, in themselves go a long way towards meeting the point he is making.
We expect the MMO to forge good and active relations with many of the centres of scientific excellence. Those include—there is always a danger in listing only some of them but I will take the risk today because I
5 May 2009 : Column 493
I turn now to my Amendment 48 to Clause 23. Noble Lords will recall that in Committee we had a very interesting discussion about the MMO’s power to undertake research. Some noble Lords were concerned that, as currently drafted, subsection (2) would require the MMO to disclose all results of research to any person on request, including those results that may be of a sensitive nature and the disclosure of which could have unwanted implications. I have reflected on those concerns and tabled Amendment 48 to address them. Let me make it clear that, as a non-departmental public body, the MMO should make available to the public as much information as possible and that it is required to have a publication scheme under the Freedom of Information Act. We intend the MMO to act in an open and transparent manner. It is entirely appropriate that the MMO should make available the results of any research that it undertakes. My department has a publication scheme for research projects, the results of which are publicly available on the departmental website. The way in which the MMO operates should be no different from that at all.
However, while we want the MMO to make as much information as possible publicly available, there might be occasions when it is not appropriate to disclose the results of research. In Committee, noble Lords instanced some of those occasions. For example, they might arise because information includes personal data or, as the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, suggested earlier, because the information is commercially sensitive or affects British interests. In such cases the MMO might reasonably wish to keep the information confidential. It would be possible to keep this type of information confidential under an exemption from the Freedom of Information Act 2000 or an exception from the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. I accept that that is not explicit in the clause as drafted. As a result, I have decided that it would be appropriate to bring Amendment 48 to your Lordships so that it tightens the clause to make it clear that any requirement for the MMO to make available its results or research would be subject to any exemptions or exceptions under two pieces of access to information legislation, namely the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. The MMO would also not have to disclose information that was prohibited from disclosure under any other Act in the future.
I should say clearly again that, having tabled this amendment in light of the concerns expressed in Committee, our overall stance is that the MMO will wish to make as much information as possible publicly
5 May 2009 : Column 494
6.30 pm
Lord Taylor of Holbeach: My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing his amendment and I support the amendment moved by my noble friend. He has persuaded the Government to ensure the importance of science in the Bill and, indeed, the importance of building up our knowledge of the marine environment, which is only just starting to be appreciated. Although progress is being made, the MMO will be critical in encouraging further research and investigation.
Earlier this month I had the great pleasure of being invited by the Minister to look around the research vessel “Cefas Endeavour”, and the work impressed me greatly. The mapping, collating and analysis being carried out will be of great benefit to all users of the marine environment, fishermen as well as conservationists. However, it is not just Cefas that is involved in this work. As my noble friend said, there are research laboratories in universities as well as private firms seeking to produce more effective equipment and develop new techniques. All sources of information must be exploited if we are to manage our seas effectively. I thank the Minister for tabling his amendment and thus meeting our concerns.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for giving what I regard as a copy-book answer, one that I wish I had the eloquence to have drafted myself. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
48: Clause 23, page 13, line 11, at end insert—
“(3) Subsection (2) does not require the MMO to make available—
(a) any information that it could refuse to disclose in response to a request under—
(i) the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (c. 36), or
(ii) the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (S.I. 2004/3391) or any regulations replacing those Regulations;
(b) any information whose disclosure is prohibited by any enactment.”
49: After Clause 23, insert the following new Clause—
“Advisory role of the MMO in development consents
(1) The Planning Act 2008 (c. 29) is amended as follows.
(2) After section 60 (local impact reports) insert—
“60A Advice from the Marine Management Organisation
(1) Subsection (2) applies where the Commission—
(a) has accepted an application for an order granting development consent, and
(b) the application relates to land which is in the UK marine area or is likely to impact upon the UK marine area.
5 May 2009 : Column 495
(2) The Commission must give notice in writing to the Marine Management Organisation, inviting it to submit advice and recommendations in respect of the application.
(3) The “Marine Management Organisation” is the body established under section 1 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009.
(4) The “UK marine area” is the area defined within section 40 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009.”
(3) After paragraph (2)(d) in section 104 (decisions of Panel and Council) insert—
“(e) any advice and recommendations given to the Panel or Council by the Marine Management Organisation in accordance with section 60A as inserted by section (Advisory role of the MMO in development consents) of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009.”
(4) After paragraph (2)(d) in section 105 (decisions of the Secretary of State) insert—
“(d) any advice and recommendations given to the Commission by the Marine Management Organisation in accordance with section 60A as inserted by section (Advisory role of the MMO in development consents) of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009.”
(5) After subsection (1) in section 116 (reasons for decision to grant or refuse development consent) insert—
“(1A) Where the Commission has received advice and recommendations from the Marine Management Organisation, the reasons for decision to grant or refuse development consent must include a statement addressing—
(a) the advice and recommendations that were adopted;
(b) justification for not adopting any advice and recommendations.””
Earl Cathcart: My Lords, this group of amendments looks rather more like those we discussed in Committee, with several versions of much the same point being tabled by various Peers around the House. I hope that the Minister will appreciate that with these amendments, we are all trying to achieve the same thing: the statutory role of the MMO as an adviser to the IPC for decisions that will impact on the marine area it has responsibility for. I am sure that the drafting of these alternatives could be improved, but it is always tricky to amend previous legislation. However, I hope that the substance is clear.
It may be surprising to the Minister that we have returned in such force to this group. After all, we are close to the Government’s own position on the point. In Committee, we tabled much stronger amendments which sought to insist that the MMO should take complete control of these decisions. I hope the Minister will appreciate our search for an acceptable compromise. We still oppose the carve-out of such important decisions from the MMO because that damages not only its position as the principal management body for the marine environment, but also achievement of a consistent policy of sustainable development. In this I believe that I am supported by noble Lords to my right and many outside organisations concerned with the effective implementation of the Government’s marine policy. However, it has been made clear to us that the Government do not intend to move on putting the MMO in overall charge of all planning decisions at sea. Of course, with the numbers in this House we probably could have won the day, but only for a short time, and I have been persuaded that seeking to insist on such a policy, only to see it rejected in another place, would be counterproductive for the smooth passage of a Bill that we are all keen to see made into law.
5 May 2009 : Column 496
A better option is to seek a compromise amendment which I hope will be more acceptable to all sides of the House. This amendment therefore represents the bare minimum of what we would find acceptable and is not, I believe, very different from the Government’s own intentions. We seek to put in the Bill that the MMO must be a statutory adviser or consultee and that the IPC must not only seek the advice of the MMO, but where its advice and recommendations are not taken, justification for not adopting them must be published. I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment, but if not, that he will be able to come back on Report with his own no doubt better drafted version. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, we are the “various Peers” who have tabled the other amendments in the group, although from the minor explosion on the Front Bench, perhaps I should put on the record that we are only to the right of the noble Earl in the geographical sense.
The Government have created two big beasts in the IPC and the MMO and it is essential—not a word I use lightly—to ensure that the relationship between them is proper, appropriate and as equal as it can be, given that their responsibilities are not so very different. Our amendments amount to something very similar to that moved by the noble Earl so I do not need to go through the detail, but I will say that we believe that there is a qualitative difference between being a statutory adviser and a statutory consultee.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |