| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
8 Jun 2009 : Column 418
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, that is an interesting view. However, it goes somewhat wide of the Question on the Order Paper, which asks what co-operation this House has with our MEPs who were elected yesterday. We have to work with the system as it is, rather than with what the noble Lord may consider to be a better one.
Education: Creative Partnerships
Question
2.59 pm
Asked By Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what contribution is made by the Department for Children, Schools and Families to the Creative Partnerships scheme.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Children, Schools and Families (Baroness Morgan of Drefelin): My Lords, the Department for Children, Schools and Families has provided financial support to the Creative Partnerships programme since 2003. The total funding from the department is £16.5 million. This financial year the department is contributing £2 million to the programme.
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that Answer and congratulate the Government on the creation of the Creative Partnerships scheme which, through introducing artistic creativity in schools, goes so far to help turn round struggling schools. Why, however, when the House of Commons Education and Skills Committee recognises this as core education, does such a tiny fraction of the finance come from the DCSF?
The DCMS, which shoulders the majority of the cost, has a budget which is 4 per cent of that of the DCSF. To put that into figures, that is £2 billion versus £54.4 billion. Why is the smallest department of state subsidising one of the largest?
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her kind opening remarks but, with all due respect, it is in the name. It is the department for media and culture and that is why it makes such a significant contribution. I would reassure her, however, that the DCSF is very committed to promoting arts and culture and creative education in all our schools. That is why through our schools funding and our work with developing the primary curriculum and the new secondary curriculum, we are promoting creative skills development as an integral part of that new curriculum. I share, therefore, the commitment of the noble Baroness to promoting arts and creative education.
Baroness Shephard of Northwold: My Lords, the Minister has spoken of the responsibilities of the Department for Children, Schools and Families. In the light of the abolition of its sister department, the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills,
8 Jun 2009 : Column 419
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin: My Lords, to reassure the noble Baroness, obviously where there are changes to the machinery of government, the Government ensure that a proper Statement is made as soon as possible and appropriate. Having come from the DIUS, I am aware of the important role that universities play in this country and, in view of the work that my right honourable friend David Lammy has been doing in promoting the highly successful higher education sector in this country, I am sure that will continue in the new setting.
Lord Howarth of Newport: My Lords, interesting and important though that was, perhaps I may revert to the Question on the Order Paper. Is it not the case that with the Creative Partnerships scheme, the schools that commit themselves seriously to the arts see not only an enhancement of confidence and imaginative range on the part of many of their students but a lifting of academic attainment and morale right across the whole school, while the arts institutions that play their part are investing in the development of a new generation of audiences and arts practitioners for whom the arts will be important all their lives? That being so, what plans do the combined departments have to extend the benefits of this scheme to schools and institutions which have not so far had the opportunity to be involved?
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin: My Lords, in the Children’s Plan that the DCSF launched shortly after its inception, following changes to the machinery of government with the creation of the first department focusing on children, we have made it clear that we wish to extend the offer of five hours of high quality cultural experience to all children throughout the country. Through 10 pathfinders, we have a considerable amount of work going on looking at how we can draw on the experience of Creative Partnerships to work in particularly deprived areas to make sure that all children have access during the curriculum and through extra-curricular activities to the kind of high-quality cultural experience he is talking about.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the programme ticks many of the Government’s core education policy boxes and that it is therefore very worth while to subsidise it right across the country? For example, Ofsted said that it benefits academic performance, personal and social education, behaviour and attendance. Given the duty on schools to promote social cohesion, the multicultural nature of many of the activities ticks that box as well.
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin: My Lords, the noble Baroness highlights very important work by Ofsted. An independent survey looking at the role and work of Creative Partnerships has found that, as a result of that work, 91 per cent of head teachers have seen improvements in pupils’ communication skills, 87 per cent
8 Jun 2009 : Column 420
Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble Baroness answered my noble friend Lady Shephard at some length but, having listened carefully to my noble friend’s question, I understand that she wanted to know which government department is responsible for universities. I understand that there is doubt about that outside this House as well. Can she very kindly tell us which department is now responsible for universities?
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin: My Lords, I am informed that there will be a Statement on machinery of government changes this afternoon.
The Lord Bishop of Liverpool: My Lords, can the Minister explain what provision there is for young offenders within the Creative Partnerships scheme?
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin: My Lords, as the right reverend Prelate will be aware, Creative Partnerships was set up as part of the Arts Council, which I believe works extensively with young offenders. I will have to get back to the right reverend Prelate about the detail of how Creative Partnerships connects, and I will make sure that I put a note in the Library as well.
Arrangement of Business
Announcement
3.07 pm
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, with the leave of the House, my noble friend Lord Bach will repeat the Statement on the Sonnex case immediately after the Third Reading of the Marine and Coastal Access Bill.
Bank of England (Amendment) Bill [HL]
Order of Commitment Discharged
3.07 pm
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, as no amendments to this Bill have been tabled and no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
8 Jun 2009 : Column 421
Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL]
Bill Main Page
Copy of Bill
Explanatory Notes
Amendments
Third Reading
3.07 pm
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Baroness Royall of Blaisdon): My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to acquaint the House that they, having been informed of the purport of the Marine and Coastal Access Bill, have consented to place their prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
1: Before Clause 23, insert the following new Clause—
“MMO’s role in relation to applications for development consent
(1) The Planning Act 2008 (c. 29) is amended as set out in subsections (2) to (6).
(2) In section 42 (duty to consult about proposed applications for orders granting development consent)—
(a) the existing provision is renumbered as subsection (1);
(b) in that subsection, after paragraph (a) insert—
“(aa) the Marine Management Organisation, in any case where the proposed development would affect, or would be likely to affect, any of the areas specified in subsection (2),”;
(c) after subsection (1) insert—
(a) waters in or adjacent to England up to the seaward limits of the territorial sea;
(b) an exclusive economic zone, except any part of an exclusive economic zone in relation to which the Scottish Ministers have functions;
(c) a Renewable Energy Zone, except any part of a Renewable Energy Zone in relation to which the Scottish Ministers have functions;
(d) an area designated under section 1(7) of the Continental Shelf Act 1964, except any part of that area which is within a part of an exclusive economic zone or Renewable Energy Zone in relation to which the Scottish Ministers have functions.”
(3) In consequence of the amendments made by subsection (2) of this section—
(a) the heading to section 43 becomes “Local authorities for purposes of section 42(1)(b)”, and
(b) the heading to section 44 becomes “Categories for purposes of section 42(1)(d)”.
(4) In section 55 (acceptance of applications), in subsection (5), in the definition of “local authority consultee”—
(a) for “section 42(b)” substitute “section 42(1)(b)”;
(b) for “section 42(c)” substitute “section 42(1)(c)”.
(5) In section 56 (duty to notify persons of accepted applications)—
(a) in subsection (2), after paragraph (a) insert—
“(aa) the Marine Management Organisation, in any case where the development for which the application seeks development consent would involve the carrying on of any activity in one or more of the areas specified in subsection (2A),”;
(b) after subsection (2) insert—
8 Jun 2009 : Column 422
(a) waters in or adjacent to England up to the seaward limits of the territorial sea;
(b) an exclusive economic zone, except any part of an exclusive economic zone in relation to which the Scottish Ministers have functions;
(c) a Renewable Energy Zone, except any part of a Renewable Energy Zone in relation to which the Scottish Ministers have functions;
(d) an area designated under section 1(7) of the Continental Shelf Act 1964, except any part of that area which is within a part of an exclusive economic zone or Renewable Energy Zone in relation to which the Scottish Ministers have functions.”
(6) In section 102 (definition of “interested party” etc)—
(a) in subsection (1), after paragraph (b) insert—
“(ba) the person is the Marine Management Organisation and the development for which the application seeks development consent would involve the carrying on of any activity in one or more of the areas specified in subsection (1A),”;
(b) after subsection (1) insert—
(a) waters in or adjacent to England up to the seaward limits of the territorial sea;
(b) an exclusive economic zone, except any part of an exclusive economic zone in relation to which the Scottish Ministers have functions;
(c) a Renewable Energy Zone, except any part of a Renewable Energy Zone in relation to which the Scottish Ministers have functions;
(d) an area designated under section 1(7) of the Continental Shelf Act 1964, except any part of that area which is within a part of an exclusive economic zone or Renewable Energy Zone in relation to which the Scottish Ministers have functions.”
(7) The Secretary of State must give guidance to the MMO as to the kind of representations which may be made by the MMO under—
(a) Chapter 2 of Part 5 of the Planning Act 2008 (c. 29) (pre-application procedure), or
(b) Part 6 of that Act (deciding applications for orders granting development consent).”
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change & Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 22. A number of amendments were tabled on Report with the aim of ensuring that the Marine Management Organisation’s role in relation to applications to the Infrastructure Planning Commission is enshrined in primary legislation, rather than secondary legislation as the Government had intended.
Noble Lords will recall that at the end of debate on Report I undertook, given the importance of the arguments made, to take the matter away to see whether we could come up with alternative amendments that would appropriately reflect the MMO’s important role in making representations to the IPC. The amendments that we have brought forward today are designed to reflect the MMO’s role at three stages in the Planning Act process: first, the pre-application stage when a developer is considering putting in an application for development consent to the IPC; secondly, notification that an application has been accepted by the IPC for examination; and lastly, the examination process itself. Since it is important that the MMO, as a key player in
8 Jun 2009 : Column 423
The amendment to Section 102 ensures that the MMO is involved throughout the examination of those applications and that therefore it will have a key role in advising on any necessary marine licences which the IPC will deem as part of any consent issues. A consequential minor amendment is made in my Amendment 22 to Schedule 8 so that the descriptions of the various marine areas we are inserting into the Planning Act are consistent with the existing language in that Act. In addition, the new clause we are inserting into Chapter 4 of Part 1 requires the Secretary of State to give guidance to the MMO on the kinds of representations it may make under Parts 5 and 6 of the Planning Act.
Given that both the IPC and the MMO will be newly established bodies which must work closely together on marine-related developments in order to carry out their respective roles, we consider it appropriate to place a duty on the Secretary of State to issue guidance to the MMO on its role in relation to development projects subject to IPC consent. This guidance will clarify how the MMO will need to use its marine expertise; for example, to inform licence conditions, make representations on the marine parts of coastal projects, and ensure that proper enforcement can take place. This is in addition to the general guidance which the Secretary of State can give to the MMO under Clause 37, such as on enforcement and planning.
In our debates since Committee and on the Planning Bill there has been considerable interest in the respective roles of the MMO and the IPC. All noble Lords have a desire to ensure that the two bodies should work together and be seen to do so. We are confident that these amendments are an appropriate reflection of the key role the MMO will have as a centre of marine expertise and the enforcement body for the majority of marine consents in advising both developers and the IPC on major infrastructure projects in the marine area. I beg to move.
Earl Cathcart: My Lords, I should declare my interests. I have been a local councillor for at least 10 years and I am a member of the Game Conservancy Trust, the Countryside Alliance, BASC, and other organisations that I cannot remember as I have only just recalled that I had to declare my interests now, but I can assure the House that they have not changed since last I gave them.
I thank the Minister for tabling these amendments, which are a result of meetings we had following the discussion on Report of the MMO’s formal role in
8 Jun 2009 : Column 424
However, we and noble Lords from all sides of this House have eagerly awaited the establishment of the MMO for a long time now. At Second Reading last year, we welcomed the Bill as the vehicle for delivering a champion of the sea. Unfortunately, as debates progressed, it became clear that our idea of a champion was rather different from that of the Government. The list of responsibilities that the Government intended to carve out from the MMO and either keep under direct government control or leave with alternative organisations grew to include some six or seven major areas. DECC keeps control over all the land gas installations at sea and Natural England sets up marine conservation zones, to name but two. I will not list them all, but the IPC keeping control over large energy installations was another example and the one we are discussing now.
The amendments, therefore, do not go as far as we would have liked. We would prefer the MMO to have proper control over its waters. However, we appreciate that the Government will not shift their views on that and will accept the amendments as the best we can get for now.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, made a few wide-ranging remarks there about the Marine Management Organisation and its role, with many of which we have great sympathy, but at Third Reading we are dealing with the specific amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. As this is a House of Lords Bill, I have no doubt that there will be plenty of opportunity in the House of Commons further to discuss the role of the MMO, but it has been strengthened and clarified as the Bill has gone through this House not just by some of the amendments tabled but in what has been said about it and the commitments that have been given. It is clear that the Marine Management Organisation will be a major organisation in its own right with a great deal of influence, so we have made some progress, but there is opportunity for more progress in the House of Commons.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |