Ann McKechin (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Scotland Office; Glasgow North, Labour)

I beg to move amendment 24, in clause 51, page 29, line 34, leave out subsection (2) and insert—

‘(2) Where an MPS governs marine planning for a marine planning region, the marine plan authority for the region must seek to ensure that every part of the region is within an area for which a marine plan is in effect.’.

Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 31, in clause 51, page 29, line 36, at end insert—

‘(2A) Sub-regions of a marine plan area may be defined at any time.’.

Amendment 32, in clause 51, page 30, line 4, at end insert—

‘(d) has regard to all other plans and strategies that relate to the adjacent land area.’.

Ann McKechin (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Scotland Office; Glasgow North, Labour)

The Government amendment is a minor technical amendment that will ensure that the requirement placed on the marine plan authorities by the other place to seek to plan for all areas works as intended. Lobby groups are concerned that we maintain that provision in the Bill. I am pleased to report that having listened to the views that they and other interested parties expressed in the other place, we and the devolved Administrations have concluded that we fully support the principle behind the amendment. I have tabled this minor amendment to slightly redraft and clarify the original provision without changing its intended effect, and I hope that the Committee supports it.

Andrew George (St Ives, Liberal Democrat)

My two amendments are probing, primarily to pursue a theme that applies throughout the Bill. That theme is the extent to which Government quangos, whether they are the MMO or other Government agencies, can determine the activities within any local authority or sub-regional area without sufficient or adequate consultation with the terrestrial local authority in the coastal area concerned. The purpose of the two amendments—particularly amendment 32—is to ensure that the Government have cognisance of the existence of local authorities and that those authorities have local strategic plans that apply to the coastal areas. Each local authority on the coast establishes policies that have, or seek to have, an impact on the local economy, whether in the furtherance of tourism and the holiday trade, in the furtherance of the maintenance of local industries, such as fishing, diving or marine exploration, or in the furtherance of other activities that relate to either a local industry or tourism. What happens beyond the control of the local authority has an impact on the local authority itself.

The purpose of the amendments is simply to raise issues that I hope the Minister is prepared to reflect on. I do not intend to press the amendments, but I am interested in the Minister’s response, particularly regarding the broader theme of seeking to ensure that democratically elected local authorities in particular, which have a clear interest in the future of the marine resource on their coastline, have a say in decision taking under the clause.

Richard Benyon (Shadow Minister, Environment, Food & Rural Affairs; Newbury, Conservative)

Amendment 24 is a welcome redrafting of an Opposition amendment tabled in the other place, creating a requirement to seek to ensure plan coverage throughout the United Kingdom waters, where a marine plan statement is in effect. I am pleased to support the amendment.

I also support the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for St. Ives, because they have been backed by a number of organisations that have spoken to me as well, particularly the British Marine Federation. That body argues that there is a need for an integrated relationship between marine and land use planning in order to reduce the loss of land sites that are important for access or boating facilities—for example, recreational harbours or slipways and associated parking and boat storage. This is, therefore, a good probing amendment.

Ann McKechin (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Scotland Office; Glasgow North, Labour)

I thank the hon. Members for St. Ives and for Newbury. I understand that amendments 31 and 32 replicate an amendment tabled by Baroness  Miller of Chilthorne Domer and Lord Greaves in Committee in the other place, but as my noble Friend Lord Davies of Oldham explained at the time, there is no need for specific provision in the Bill enabling the creation of sub-regional marine plans or marine plan areas. We entirely agree that planning authorities must be able to plan in the most appropriate way for any given area. Clause 51 already enables the marine plan authority to divide its marine planning region into marine plan areas however it sees fit. Those plans, however, are not set in stone, so the authority may prepare new plans at any time, either to divide the region differently or even to prepare additional plans for smaller areas within existing marine plan areas.

Amendment 32 would place within the definition of a marine plan the requirement that it must have regard to all other plans and strategies on the coast. Hon. Members will be aware that paragraph 9(2)(h) of schedule 6 already contains a requirement that marine plan authorities, when preparing a marine pan, must have regard to

“any plan...prepared by a public or local authority in connection with the management or use of the sea or the coast, or of marine or coastal resources.”

That will include local development plans, shoreline management plans, river basin management plans and, when prepared by a local authority, estuary management plans. I believe that that provision is clearer than the one set out in the amendment, which does not limit the other plans or strategies to which the marine plan must have regard to those with some relevance to the marine environment.

Hugo Swire (East Devon, Conservative)

I declare an interest as a member of the governing council of the Royal National Lifeboat Institution. I wonder whether the RNLI has been consulted in any of that.

Ann McKechin (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Scotland Office; Glasgow North, Labour)

That obviously relates to plans that are to come in the future, but we certainly envisage that there should be the widest possible consultation in any planning structure, and in the Bill we have made it clear that we do not seek to limit the consultations that are to be held and want to ensure that, when we devise marine plans and marine plan strategies, there is the widest possible public consultation. Clearly, the RNLI will be a relevant body in many cases.

Amendment 32 would place an unnecessary additional burden on the resources available to marine plan authorities. Furthermore, paragraph (3) of schedule 6 goes beyond the requirement set out in paragraph (9)(2)(h) to have regard to other terrestrial plans and strategies by requiring the marine plan authorities to

“take all reasonable steps to secure that the plan is compatible with”

plans developed as part of the terrestrial planning system. Clearly, that goes beyond a requirement merely to have regard to such plans. Provisions in clause 62 will enable a marine plan to be challenged before the courts if a marine plan authority failed to comply with that compatibility requirement or to have regard to the other plans mentioned in paragraph (9)(2)(h) of schedule 6.

I will take this opportunity to reassure members of the Committee that the integration of marine and terrestrial planning at the coast has been of fundamental importance to the development of our proposals from the very beginning. The land and sea, as the hon. Member for St. Ives has pointed out, are inextricably linked. Many actions on the land have an impact on the sea and vice versa. For that reason, it is important that the planning and management of both areas is as integrated as possible, with both systems working effectively together to enable seamless and holistic management of the area. To that end, we have worked extensively with the Local Government Association’s coastal issues special interest group, the Royal Town Planning Institute and numerous key stakeholders to understand how best to enable the integration of marine planning with what happens on land and to identify the most appropriate mechanism to involve local authorities in that process.

Local authorities already lead in the planning and management of the terrestrial components of the coast and in the development of the previously mentioned local development plans and shoreline management plans, and invariably they are instrumental in the partnership development of estuary management plans. Local authorities contain a wealth of specialised and knowledgeable skills and expertise, which the MMO will need fully to incorporate, utilise and build on throughout its marine planning process and beyond into the majority of its functions. Importantly, local authorities also represent the interests of their communities and implement the will of the locally and democratically elected representatives. Therefore, I assure hon. Members that full local authority involvement in the marine planning process will be key to the successful implementation of marine planning from the early stages of development through to implementation, monitoring and review. The provisions within the Bill will support and encourage the integration of planning systems at the coast and will go further than is proposed in amendment 32.

Amendment 31 is not necessary, too, as the result that it seeks is already achievable under the current drafting and could therefore cast doubt on how existing provisions should be interpreted. In light of those reassurances, I hope that hon. Members will withdraw their amendments, as they indicated that they would.

Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)

Order. There is no need to withdraw them, as they have not been moved.

Andrew George (St Ives, Liberal Democrat)

Thank you for reminding me that I have not moved my amendment, Mr. Gale. My intention was to probe this issue, which we might come back to on Report. I do not know what I need to do next, under the rules, so I seek your guidance, Mr. Gale. Must I move the amendments to entitle myself to seek to do something on Report?

Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)

It is worth clarifying the position for the benefit of all members of the Committee, one or two of whom have indicated to me that their knowledge of procedure is a little rusty. That probably goes for the Chair as well. We move only the lead amendment, and it is open to any other Member to seek to move any other amendment that is grouped with the lead amendment, but the Chair requires notice and will then decide whether to take that. Any amendment that is moved in Committee is unlikely to be selected for debate on  Report, so the fundamental principle is that if you wish to come back to something, you should not push it in Committee and should then take a further look at it on Report. I hope that that clarifies the position.

Andrew George (St Ives, Liberal Democrat)

I am very grateful to you for that explanation, Mr. Gale. Perhaps by accident, I have managed to pursue the right strategy on this occasion. Of course, I do not wish to move the amendments because, having listened to the Minister’s response, I might like to come back to the issue on Report.

A theme that runs through the Bill is that we are quango-ising decision taking with regard to the intertidal zone and the marine resource. I am troubled by the issue of democratic accountability for decisions that are taken in areas reasonably adjacent to the coastline in relation to what the Minister has referred to as the seamless provision in the Bill regarding what one might argue is the intertidal zone itself. I remain unconvinced that the Government have quite got the balance right.

The Minister said that amendment 32 would place an unreasonable burden on resources—I think that that was the terminology that she used—but democracy places a burden on resources. That is the nature of democracy, as we know from the cost to the taxpayer of maintaining the House of Commons and ensuring that we have a democratically accountable body to take decisions. Equally, the terrestrial authorities—the local authorities—have a clear interest in future development on the coastline and in maintaining the integrity of local development plans and the frameworks in which they operate, and the Bill should take cognisance of that.

Finally, by failing to acknowledge further the role and importance of locally democratically elected local authorities, the Bill appears to contradict a number of the Government’s other stated intentions and aims to ensure that there is local democracy as set out in the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill, which is currently going through Parliament.

Ann McKechin (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Scotland Office; Glasgow North, Labour)

I assure the hon. Gentleman and other members of the Committee that we fully intend to involve the local community and local authorities, as well as business people and other people with an interest in the marine environment, in the preparation of each marine plan. The proposal will require a full public consultation on the draft plan that is created. There will be no lack of engagement. We are very clear that we want a rigorous consultation process and for the MMO to have full regard to it when preparing its final plan. As I said earlier, that is why we believe that local authorities are very important. We believe that local authorities are a key partner not only in the consultation process, but in the actual implementation of the plan that follows it.

Andrew George (St Ives, Liberal Democrat)

I am grateful to the Minister for her intervention. However, that, of course, does not preclude the conclusion of that consultation and consideration ignoring and overruling the interests of the local authority. On behalf of those local authorities with an interest in the coast and in the intertidal zone in particular, that is the concern that I want to articulate to the Minister. While the processes described in the Bill would allow the marine authorities to go through the motions, the local authorities could be ignored in that process. Having said that, I have had the opportunity to air the issue.  The lack of democratic accountability, in some respects, is a theme that runs through the Bill. We may well come back to the issue, if not later in Committee then on Report.