Clause 16
Marine and Coastal Access Bill [Lords]
3:00 pm

Andrew George (St Ives, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment 27, in clause 16, page 11, line 30, at end insert—

‘(f) any coastal local authority;

(g) the council of the Isles of Scilly.’.

I am sure that the amendment’s purpose is self-evident: to ensure that the eligible bodies that are set out in the Bill are not just Government agencies, as is the case now with the agencies listed in paragraphs (a) to (d) of subsection (1). Harbour authorities are also listed under paragraph (e)—I will come on to them in a moment. Coastal local authorities should also be listed, including the council of the Isles of Scilly—I am pleased to say that the Isles of Scilly are part of my constituency. The council must be specifically named and listed because it is not considered in all legislation as equivalent to other coastal local authorities. By the way, the council of the Isles of Scilly is a unitary authority, and was so before unitary authorities were created.

I listened to what both Ministers said in previous debates in which we attempted to attach a further body to a list of bodies. Perhaps they will refer to subsection (2), which grants the Secretary of State the power to:

“amend subsection (1) so as to...(a) add any body or description of body to the list, or...(b) remove any body”.

With regard to paragraph (a), the Ministers might well say that the Secretary of State could add to that list of eligible bodies coastal local authorities, or indeed named coastal local authorities.

To save time, and in anticipation that a future Secretary of State might be minded to do that by using the provision, the case for including coastal local authorities now is, in fact, very sound. Coastal local authorities should be added to the list of eligible bodies with which the MMO may enter into an agreement so that they are  authorised to perform any function of the MMO, because they already undertake a large number of functions that are relevant to the operation of the MMO. There will be a multitudinous interface between coastal local authorities and the MMO.

As I said, the current list of eligible bodies includes harbour authorities. Members such as me with coastline and harbour authorities in their constituencies will know that most of those harbour authorities—most of which will have an Act of Parliament referring to both their functions and powers—are either local authorities themselves, or have local authority representatives on them. Such authorities may also be constituent parts of local authorities when it manages a municipal port.

However, the list in the clause excludes those local authorities that do not manage a port, although they may still have a clear maritime function. I will list some, but not all, of the functions that are relevant to the interface between the role of a coastal local authority and the MMO. The provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, through planning policy formulation and the exercise of development and control as far as the mean low water mark, involve overlaps between local authorities and the MMO. The construction and maintenance of coastal protection installations—sea defences along the coast—involves overlap with the MMO, and certainly with the Environment Agency. A further function is emergency planning powers, which can also involve planning within the marine context, and another is responsibility towards sea fisheries committees, which are already very clear and well-established and also overlap with the future IFCAs set out in the Bill. In addition, overlap is involved in byelaw-making powers relating to the use of the inshore zone, and the management of beaches.

Indeed, those two functions also overlap. A number of byelaws relate to beaches, particularly in the intertidal zone, such as regarding the access of dogs to the coastline, and to beaches’ management and use. Kite-surfing is an increasingly popular sport in my area. That sport, jet-skiing and various other activities are affected by byelaws through which local authorities have influence or powers regarding what can be taken on to beaches, and therefore on to coastal waters.

Many local authorities are also involved in economic tourism and development functions, including regeneration of the coastal area. For example, they support the local fishing industry by investing in future market development. That is integral to marine management. Local authorities are also involved in broader issues of community well-being, which can include maritime matters.

Given the recognised interdependence of land and sea environments and the reliance of local communities on both, local authorities have a clear interest in decisions that might affect the health and well-being of those environments and hence the communities that depend on them. Under land use and marine plans, local authorities are responsible for delivering the local development framework in all its constituent parts, including for the intertidal area down to the low water mark. That area is part of the English inshore region, as defined in the Bill, so local authorities are already performing a clear function when considering developments in that part of the marine environment.

The MMO is likely to be the best place to undertake marine planning on a larger scale than many coastal local authorities can manage independently. However, that might not be the case for the inshore area. For example, a marine plan for a complex inshore area with a multiplicity of users may be more effectively dealt with by a local authority or group of local authorities acting together with the MMO. It would be appropriate in those circumstances to incorporate coastal local authorities as eligible bodies, along with the Government quangos listed under clause 16(1). There is also a need to integrate land-use and marine plans with community ownership. It is imperative to ensure that the spatial plans for both the terrestrial and marine environments are consistent in their approach to the shoreline.

There is a genuine concern among many coastal authorities that, if local authorities are not included as eligible bodies in the Bill, the integration that is clearly necessary between terrestrial and maritime planning may become inconsistent over time. Including coastal local authorities would benefit the MMO and what the Government are trying to achieve. Given the expertise available in local authorities, there are clear advantages in delegating to them plans for estuaries and high-use or sensitive areas. It would ensure that the issues were well managed by those closest to them—those who can engage development stakeholders and secure local ownership at a local level. The two plan systems—terrestrial and maritime—could thereby be reconciled. The transparency of decision making and the ability of local communities to influence decisions that affect them are strong reasons for ensuring that local authorities are explicitly included in the manner proposed in the amendment.

Local authorities also have a number of other marine functions. In conjunction with the Environment Agency, they deliver coastal defence functions, and they have expertise in preparing shoreline management plans and in delivering schemes.

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

The functions that the hon. Gentleman is listing are not functions of the MMO. They are functions that currently exist under statute in respect of the local authority and the Environment Agency. The purpose of the amendment is a delegation by the MMO of its functions to a local authority, so we are discussing something quite different.

Andrew George (St Ives, Liberal Democrat)

I disagree with the Minister. As I understand it, we are talking about the capacity to work with local authorities, not the question of whether the sole purpose is to delegate functions to them. In any case, where it is appropriate for local authorities to take on some functions or to work with the MMO in the delivery of its plan and functions, having that capacity in the Bill would allow the MMO a great deal more flexibility than at present. It would certainly be able to take advantage of the expertise available in many coastal local authorities thanks to the experience and talents in their officer structures. They have expertise in working in many of these areas. Local authorities also exercise powers within the marine environment to mitigate shoreline pollution. That is certainly a maritime role, and the hon. Member for East Devon will know about recent incidents such as those involving MCS Napoli, the Ice  Prince and RMS Mulheim, the latter of which ran aground in my constituency at Sennen. Those incidents demonstrate the need for clear knowledge of the marine environment within local authorities.

Local authorities undertake a range of additional functions that are maritime in nature, including the management of beaches and the regeneration of coastal towns. The Government already ask local authorities to engage in the market and coastal towns initiative, which the Government clearly want them to drive forward in their own areas. Local authorities have a general duty towards the sustainable management of the environment under the habitats and birds directives, the water framework directive and the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, for example. A key advantage of allowing local authorities to be eligible to work with the MMO, in the same way as the Environment Agency and Natural England, is their public profile and their recognition among coastal communities, as that would bring ownership to marine plans.

I hope that the Minister will reflect on the fact that that in no way undermines the powers of the MMO. Allowing local authorities to be eligible bodies would permit their talents and resources to be employed in the delivery of what the MMO is trying to achieve.

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

As I said in my earlier intervention, the clause is about the delegation of powers by the MMO. It is not intended in any way to detract from the need for the closest co-operation with coastal local authorities or from the value of their work, capacity and resources. Nor is it intended to amend any of their numerous existing powers set out in statute or exercised by the Environment Agency. Nothing in the clause, or in the Bill, takes that away.

The amendments are similar to those tabled in the other place, which sought to add any local authority to the list of eligible bodies to which the MMO may delegate functions. Lord Davies of Oldham made it clear at the time that bodies should only be added to the list if it is intended that the MMO will delegate functions to them. It would not be good practice to add additional bodies to that list if we have no intention of delegating powers to them. For that reason, we have included some specific local authorities: those that are members of the new inshore fisheries and conservation authorities; and those that are members of the current sea fisheries committees. We have also included those local authorities that are also harbour authorities—a point mentioned earlier by the hon. Member for St. Ives. We cannot think of anything further that the MMO would need to delegate to other coastal local authorities.

We are of course aware that the main reason why local authorities wish to be added as eligible bodies is that they would like the MMO to delegate marine planning to them. Members of the Committee will note that the designated marine plan authorities for each part of the UK, under part 3 of the Bill, are: the Secretary of State in England, the Scottish Ministers in Scotland, the Welsh Ministers in Wales and the Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland. Those marine plan authorities may delegate the majority of their marine planning functions to any public body with that public body’s consent. In England, it is the intention of the Secretary of State to ask the MMO to exercise the  marine planning function on his behalf, and other arrangements will be made and apply in the other Administrations.

Although the marine planning and marine licensing functions in England will be exercised by the MMO on the Secretary of State’s behalf, the formal responsibility still remains with the Secretary of State. The MMO cannot ask other bodies to exercise the function on its behalf. It may only do so in respect of its own functions—those directly conferred upon it under the Bill or in secondary legislation. We largely expect the MMO to carry out its own functions, but there will be some limited circumstances in which it makes more sense for reasons of specific expertise or geographical remit for it to ask another body to exercise one of its functions on its behalf. That is the context in which the list of bodies in clause 16 was drawn up.

Perhaps it would be helpful if I gave members of the Committee a specific example. Natural England, one of the bodies on the list, currently has the power, should it prove necessary, to issue licences to kill or take seals under the Conservation of Seals Act 1970. As the majority of these licences are issued in the marine area it made sense for the function to be transferred to the MMO, and provision has therefore been made for this under clause 9. However, should such a licence need to be issued on the rare occasions when a seal ventures upriver into fresh waters, that would be beyond the MMO’s remit as it does not operate beyond the high water mark. The MMO would therefore need to ask Natural England to exercise this function on its behalf.

Returning now to marine planning, we are of course aware how vital it will be to secure the involvement of coastal local authorities throughout the planning process. Marine plans in coastal areas will overlap slightly with the area of jurisdiction of local authorities, which runs down to low water mark. We believe that this overlap, as well as statutory duties on marine planning authorities to do all that is reasonable to secure compatibility with terrestrial plans, will further encourage integrated working.

We have been working with the Local Government Association’s coastal issues special interest group for some three years now to help us understand the issues associated with local authority involvement. We recently held a marine planning workshop for local authorities in partnership with that group, which had the aim of establishing how best we can provide for local authorities to be fully involved throughout the process from the early stages of development through to monitoring and review. That work is ongoing and we will be running a similar workshop in Leeds later next month.

Hugo Swire (East Devon, Conservative)

Can the Minister reassure us that the transference of a lot of these roles, particularly licensing roles, will not be an excuse for some of the charges that are going to be applied?

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

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that an increase in charges is certainly not the purpose of any part of the remit of the Bill or of the MMO. The idea is to try to make the bureaucracy as slim and effective as possible and to be proportionate. We see the MMO working in partnership with local authorities and all the users of our marine environment, including the private sector. They should be aware that it is there to help further their work, not to hinder them.

We have consistently made it clear that local authority involvement is fundamental to the success of marine planning and its integration with management and planning mechanisms on the coast. The publication “A strategy for promoting an integrated approach to the management of coastal areas in England” briefly explains the range of methods that will enable the integration of marine planning with terrestrial planning at national, regional and local levels.

I hope that this explanation has reassured the Committee. The fact that we have not added coastal local authorities to clause 16 does not mean that the MMO will not be working closely with them. On the contrary, it is essential that the MMO build close and productive working relationships with local authorities as well as local communities, elected representatives, industries, regulators and other interested people in the preparation of each marine plan. On that basis, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.

Andrew George (St Ives, Liberal Democrat)

The Minister seemed to imply that the MMO would be required always to delegate in every circumstance responsibilities to local authorities. That is clearly not the case. Clause 15(1) states:

“The MMO may, with the approval of the Secretary of State, enter into an agreement with an eligible body”.

That is a clear “may”—it is not a requirement. If my amendment were accepted the MMO would not necessarily come under pressure from local authorities to hand over some of its functions and powers to them. Underlying the Minister’s defence is an attempt to create the impression that that is the reality, but that is not in any way likely. I do not see the fear in allowing the amendment to be made. There is no fear at all. In the same way as with a harbour authority or an inshore fisheries and conservation authority, the amendment simply provides the MMO with an opportunity to enter into an agreement with such bodies, with the further check and balance of the approval of the Secretary of State. The agreement would be negotiated between the two parties in advance; the local authority would not be forcing an unwilling MMO to accept the removal of its powers in certain circumstances.

I do not follow the Minister’s logic; she is being unreasonable. The amendment simply gives the Government a further opportunity to demonstrate that they wish to work with coastal communities and not become a remote and rather centralised body, which will always retreat into the powers of the Bill to defend against attack.

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

I remind the hon. Gentleman that we have included local authorities in the list. To put in additional bodies to which we have no intention of delegating powers would be superfluous and bad legislative practice. That would also unnecessarily raise expectations that at some point there would be such a delegation. If we have no intention of doing that, why would we put it in the Bill?

The hon. Gentleman’s argument is illogical. I understand where he is coming from, but I hope that my statements today, specifically pointing out that we want to have the closest co-operation with local authorities and a whole range of other organisations that work and operate  within the marine environment, have not given the impression that we do not regard close working as utterly key.

Andrew George (St Ives, Liberal Democrat)

The Minister describing my amendment as “illogical” does not help me draw the conclusion to withdraw it.

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

Why not, if that is true?

Andrew George (St Ives, Liberal Democrat)

That would be true if the amendment were genuinely illogical, because the two bodies that it mentions were in the list. Paragraph (1)(c) refers to

“any inshore fisheries and conservation authority”,

and paragraph (1)(d) refers to “any local fisheries committee”. Therefore the list covers the sea fisheries committees and the harbour authorities, the boards of which may or may not include local authority representatives. However, the list does not cover all the other aspects and functions that I have described. I will not list them again now, but the Minister will remember them clearly. Local authorities are covered to an extent, but not in all those aspects where their powers are relevant and overlap with those of the MMO.

It would be illogical if I were saying that the Minister must not only accept my amendment but add a further power of duress, which local authorities could place upon the MMO to require them to always accept the removal of its powers. That is clearly not the case. There is a process of negotiation, and the backstop will be the Secretary of State being able to permit, and give the necessary approval for, the agreement—after all, it is an agreement—for such delegation. I am afraid, therefore, that I am unable to withdraw the amendment at this stage.