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

I beg to move amendment 10, in clause 71, page 48, line 30, at end insert—

‘(1A) This decision shall be made within 16 weeks of the application.’.

Assessments must be considered and a decision reached within three months. There is a requirement that onshore planning applications are considered within 16 weeks.

Subsection (1) outlines the conditions for granting licences. Our amendment requires that assessments must be considered and a decision reached within 16 weeks. As the Bill stands, there is no time limit on the consideration of marine licence applications. Without committing marine licensing authorities to a certain time scale—I am happy to say at this stage that I am relatively flexible on what that time scale should be—we are leaving the system open to massive backlogs and delays. Considering the potential lists of activities that will require a licence, it is important that we do not open up small businesses, in particular, to a potential loss of earnings through the lack of a licensing time scale.

The amendment also considers the renewable energy industry. Time is of the essence for marine developers. They may be funded by venture capital, and delays cost money. Unless we insist on some sort of defined time scale, it is conceivable that important developments that will play a great part in dealing with our renewable energy commitments will be affected.

Roger Williams (Brecon & Radnorshire, Liberal Democrat)

I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman’s amendment to put a time limit on dealing with licence applications. The explanatory statement mentions onshore planning applications, but does the same requirement apply to onshore licence applications? There is a slight difference between planning applications and licence applications.

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

I am seeking to develop a degree of consistency. I am not entirely certain what the requirements are on the whole range of onshore licensing, but we certainly have a well developed and accepted system of time limits in relation to planning. I do not see why we should not impose that on marine licence applications. Other countries do that as well.

Hugo Swire (East Devon, Conservative)

My hon. Friend is making a point with which I have some sympathy. There also seems to be nothing in the clause about an appeals process. Given that, as my hon. Friend has said, many of the applications will be funded by the private sector and that time costs money, should the Bill not also contain something about an appeals process if, for whatever reason, the initial application is refused?

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

My hon. Friend makes a good point, and this may be an opportunity to tease out of the Minister whether we can expand the amendment to include that sort of requirement. Other countries seem to manage in terms of marine management licensing. I was interested to read that South Africa has a legal framework that requires environmental impact assessments to be considered and a decision reached within three months. I therefore hope that the Minister will look favourably on imposing some sort of time limit.

Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)

Before we go down that road, may I draw hon. Members’ attention to clause 73, which may cover part of the issue that has just been raised? I do not want to have the debate twice; if you have it now, that is fine by me.

Roger Williams (Brecon & Radnorshire, Liberal Democrat)

I have a certain amount of interest in the issue, and I have sympathy for the amendment. My interest arises out of onshore licensing by Government authorities and the way in which that must be done to a standard in order to ensure that the environment is safeguarded. Imposing a specific time limit should in some way reflect the complexity of the application, because my experience is that the conditions that are put on a licence must be both practicable and enforceable. On a large pipeline that went through Wales, for example, there should have been a statement at each stage of the crossing of various streams in relation to how adverse effects on those streams could be mitigated, but such statements were not included as conditions in the licence.

While I have some sympathy with the suggestion of the hon. Member for Newbury, certain minor applications should be dealt with on a shorter time scale than larger ones, which needs to be reflected in the scale and complexity of the application. That would help in our future deliberations, because we will later discuss clauses on enforcement. Does the licensing authority have the necessary capacity to ensure that it can enforce the conditions? It is one thing to put a condition on a licence, but it is another to enforce it when a rather large organisation that is pushing ahead with a development has more of an eye on completing that development than on complying with the conditions.

The hon. Gentleman has raised a good issue, and I look forward to the Minister’s response, but the issue involves an option of proportionality that depends upon the size and complexity of the applications.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Marine and Natural Environment), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Ogmore, Labour)

Let me say first that we agree with the sentiment behind the amendment. In fact, one criticism of the current licensing system is that applicants are uncertain about when their applications for a licence will be determined, and we are certainly looking to improve that in the Bill. To pick up the points made by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire, however, an arbitrary time limit in the Bill is not the way to proceed, and I will explain why in a moment. None the less, I think that we can do something about the issue.

As has been said, the activities and developments that the marine licensing regime has to encompass are incredibly varied in scale and nature. They include everything from jetties built at the bottom of people’s gardens to pilot offshore energy schemes, aggregate  dredging, harbour developments, laying submarine cables and pipelines, and the creation of artificial reefs, which is something that we are hearing more about.

The varied nature of such projects is matched only by their size and complexity and sometimes by the controversy over what they involve, which can go from the insertion of a few piles to the construction of a huge marina. Projects also take place in a wide variety of environments, which can be miles out to sea, in intertidal areas, in marine conservation zones or in sites that are protected under European legislation.

For each application, the licensing authority will have regard to the need to protect the environment and human health and to prevent interference with other uses of the sea. It will also factor in marine plans, socio-economic issues and anything else that it considers relevant. All those factors will be unique to every application and will need to be given the due consideration that they deserve and which is required under law.

David Jones (Shadow Minister, Wales; Clwyd West, Conservative)

I take the Minister’s point, but do not similar considerations apply to onshore planning applications? Is it not the case that a sensible developer will understand that the statutory time limit for such planning applications frequently cannot be adhered to and will allow the determining authority more time? The difficulty here is that no time is stipulated, so it is not possible to have such a negotiation.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Marine and Natural Environment), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Ogmore, Labour)

That is why I think that there is a way forward, although it does not necessarily involve including a time in the Bill. One drawback of putting something in the Bill is that the tendency might be to find the longest time limit to take account of the most complex projects in the most complex environments. We need an intelligent and flexible way forward that gives industry more certainty about the consideration of applications and that allows the proper analysis of the various factors in projects.

Several other issues arise at a practical level. Many applications received by the Marine and Fisheries Agency do not contain sufficient detail, supporting information or a full consideration of the facts. Having an arbitrary time in the Bill is therefore a difficulty.

In some instances, the licensing authority has to go back to the applicant to request further information. What do we do in those situations? Do we stop the clock? In other instances, the authority has to commission further evidence from scientific advisers such as the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science. In the odd case, the evidence may be collectible only at certain times of the year, because of the seasonal nature of the environment.

What will happen if the time frame is missed? Should the licensing authority be obliged to grant the licence? If that is done, say, before evidence is gathered, we risk possible infraction of a number of European directives, which will require appropriate analysis. Those are tricky issues.

Such details should be decided in conjunction with the bodies that I have mentioned and put in the secondary legislation that governs the applications process. To that end, I am pleased to say that we will publish a consultation paper on 1 July that includes a suggestion for target time frames, and all Committee members will receive a  copy of that paper. The licensing authority will come to an informed view about the nature of the application right at the front of the process and give the developer target time scales for the various stages of the process, recognising that different applications have different complexities.

The suggestion in the consultation is that we state at the outset what the time scale should be. We think that that is a way of building flexibility into the process in an intelligent and tailored way to give applicants the increased certainty that they are looking for, without being unrealistic about some of the complex demands in our marine environment.

David Jones (Shadow Minister, Wales; Clwyd West, Conservative)

Will the Minister say what sanctions against failure to determine are in an applicant’s hands in such a case?

Huw Irranca-Davies (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Marine and Natural Environment), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Ogmore, Labour)

In response to the intervention from the hon. Member for East Devon, there is an appeals procedure in clause 73, which the Secretary of State is required to use, so that facility is there already.

Consultation is the correct way to get this right. There can be a full debate over the summer and we welcome contributions from all stakeholders. We will discuss the details in depth with industry, scientific advisers and other consultees, all of whom have important inputs and contributions to make.

Roger Williams (Brecon & Radnorshire, Liberal Democrat)

Under clause 73, which is titled “Appeals against licensing decisions”, the appeal power is against the decision, not against non-determination. The Minister might like to consider that.

Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)

Order. I shall allow debate on clause 73, in so far as it is relevant to this clause, because the two are clearly intermingled. However, if the Minister is happy with this, that will be on the understanding that when we get to clause 73, we will not debate it again.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Marine and Natural Environment), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Ogmore, Labour)

In that case, Mr. Gale, it might be worth my while to reflect on clause 73, which obliges all licensing authorities to establish appeals mechanisms against their licensing decisions. The appealable decisions are listed in clause 71(1), namely refusing to grant the licence or to grant it subject to conditions.

The reasons why the appeals mechanism is open only to applicants, not third parties, are twofold. First, clause 68 requires the licensing authority to publish notice of a marine application or to require the applicant to publish notice of it in a manner calculated to bring it to the attention of any persons likely to be interested. The licensing authority is obliged under clause 69(3) to

“have regard to...representations which it receives from any person having an interest in the outcome of the application.”

Clause 70 allows the licensing authority to

“cause an inquiry to be held”,

for example when there are particularly controversial or complex cases. Therefore, there is sufficient opportunity during the application process for third parties to get their views factored into any decision.

Secondly, it is important that marine developments are not held up unnecessarily by a large number of appeals lodged by third parties who simply disagree with the licensing authority’s decision. Appeals can be costly in terms of time and resources, not only for the applicant, but also for the regulator. If we want this improved, expedited licensing system, we cannot afford for it be clogged up by handling appeal after appeal.

Clause 73(3) lists the types of provisions that will be made by order that will establish an appeals mechanism and the procedure that must be followed in conducting an appeal. We do not want to prescribe the procedural detail in the Bill as we consider the appeals mechanism to be integral to the marine licensing decision-making process, which is itself to be prescribed by regulation. We want to consider stakeholders and the public in that process, including what they think to be appropriate procedures, time scales and grounds for appeal.

The appellant body may be different in each devolved territory to that used for MMO licensing decisions. Enabling such detailed provisions to be made in subsequent regulations allows each Administration to tailor the process to complement and reflect its decision-making procedures. I can give assurances that the UK Government will enable appeals against MMO decisions to be heard by an independent body. The order will be subject to the affirmative procedure.

On non-determination, as the licensing function is to be delegated to the MMO, the Secretary of State has the power under clause 100 to direct it, and there is also scope for judicial review. Therefore, there are opportunities to challenge the body for not delivering in the time scale.

The consultation will commence tomorrow. It is a good opportunity for industry, Committee members, stakeholders and the wider public to engage properly in the debate. The intention behind the debate is right. We want to give certainty and clarity through proper dialogue with stakeholders, including industry. The secondary legislation will reflect the outcome of those discussions and I will welcome Committee members’ views on the subject. With this reassurance, I urge the hon. Member for Newbury to withdraw the amendment.

Andrew George (St Ives, Liberal Democrat)

With regard to clauses 71 and 73, I seek reassurances about when a licensing activity clearly impinges on the coast itself and the local authority. I am concerned that some activities—whether offshore wind development when cables are coming onshore, or activities at sea where service vessels need to be brought onshore—clearly require planning permission from a local authority as well. There must be some joint operation and consultation between the coastal authority and the MMO when licensing the activity. It concerns me that there appears to be no provision for that, and nor has the co-ordination of the licensing and the appeals process been envisaged.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Marine and Natural Environment), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Ogmore, Labour)

I refer the hon. Gentleman to clause 68, which deals with notice of applications and those bodies and persons that need to be consulted in the process. There is no way in which local authorities or others—those in not only the marine environment, but the adjoining terrestrial environment—could not be engaged, particularly, as the hon. Gentleman quite rightly says, when applications are relevant to them, such as pipeline or grid connectors.

With that reassurance, I say to the hon. Member for Newbury that we are sympathetic to what he says. We are bringing forward the consultation tomorrow to allow stakeholders to get engaged and to give some certainty about time frames. I hope he will feel assured enough to withdraw the amendment.

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

I am grateful for the Minister’s clarification. As he rightly points out, there is a wide variety of applications in the marine environment but, as hon. Members have said, there is also a wide variety of applications on land—everything from a loft extension to a nuclear power station. We have methods that allow a time limit in such circumstances.

I am grateful to you, Mr. Gale, for reminding me about clause 73. It was in my subconscious mind and you brought it to my conscious mind. I notice that there is no reference in that clause to a time limit on appeals. That is a very important point. Given that the Minister has announced a consultation, it would be wrong to press the amendment at this stage, but I hope to return to the matter on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.