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

I beg to move amendment 5, in clause 23, page 15, line 14, leave out ‘(6)’ and insert ‘(10)’.

Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)

With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 6, in clause 23, page 16, line 26, at end insert—

‘(5A) After section 60 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) has received—

(i) a certificate under section 58(2) in relation to the application, and

(ii) where section 59 applies, a notice under that section in relation to the application, and

(c) the development for which the application seeks development consent would affect, or would be likely to affect, any of the areas specified in subsection (2).

(2) The areas are—

(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 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) The Commission must give notice in writing to the Marine Management Organisation, inviting it to submit to the Commission advice on the principal issues arising on the application which would affect, or would be likely to affect, any of the areas specified in subsection (2).

(4) A notice under subsection (3) must specify the deadline for receipt by the Commission of the advice.”’.

Amendment 7, in clause 23, page 17, line 6, at end insert—

‘(8) In section 104 (decisions of Panel and Council) after subsection (2), insert—

“(2A) The Panel or Council shall take any advice or representations received from the Marine Management Organisation into account—

(a) in deciding whether or not to make an order granting development consent, and

(b) if it does decide to do so, in deciding what (if any) requirements are to be imposed in connection with the development for which consent is granted.”.

(9) In section 105 (decisions of Secretary of State) in subsection (2), after paragraph (c) insert—

“(3) The Secretary of State shall take any advice or representations received from the Marine Management Organisation into account—

(a) in deciding whether or not to make an order granting development consent, and

(b) if it does decide to do so, in deciding what (if any) requirements are to be imposed in connection with the development for which consent is granted.”.

(10) In section 116 (reasons for decision to grant or refuse development consent) after subsection (1) insert—

“(1A) Where the Commission has received advice from the Marine Management Organisation, the reasons for decision to grant or refuse development consent must include a statement of how (if at all) the Commission has taken account of the Marine Management Organisation’s advice.”’.

Amendment 8, in clause 25, page 17, line 31, at end insert—

‘(2A) The MMO must advise the Infrastructure Planning Commission on all nationally significant infrastructure projects that are in or impact upon the UK marine area as defined in section 42.’.

New clause 1—Amendment of Planning Act 2008

‘In section 104 of the Planning Act 2008 (decisions of Panel and Council) at end of subsection (2) insert—

“(b) any advice from the Marine Management Organisation on applications which are in or are likely to impact on the UK marine area.”’.

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

Through this group of amendments, we seek to strengthen the role of the MMO in relation to its interaction with the IPC through making it a statutory  adviser to the IPC on developments that impact the marine and coastal environment within the Planning Act 2008 and the Bill.

Members of the Committee will be aware that the Conservatives are no lovers of the IPC, a point which we did our best to make in the debates on the Planning Act 2008. We will probably revisit this issue in the near future. However, we are dealing with a situation in the here and now and therefore we must get it right for the framework of planning, as far as the Bill is concerned and at this time.

It is important that there is explicit accountability within the Planning Act 2008 for advice to be sought from the MMO through the planning process, which is what we seek to achieve in this group of amendments. Our amendments seek to weave the role of the MMO into the 2008 Act, so that it has defined involvement at the key stages of the process of assessing applications for marine and coastal developments.

Part 6 of the 2008 Act deals with deciding applications, and amendment 6 would insert a new section into chapter 1, which centres on the handling of applications by the IPC. The new section would be inserted after section 60, which outlines the provision for the IPC to request a local impact report from local authorities. That is the stage at which an application has been accepted for processing by the IPC and the applicant has sent notice of that to all persons required, including the MMO. That would be the opportune moment for the IPC to request advice from the MMO on the principal issues that may affect the marine environment before making an initial assessment of issues and holding a preliminary meeting with relevant parties under section 88.

The MMO is listed as a recipient of the notice to be issued by the applicant and as an interested person. We believe that its role could be further strengthened, specifically by allowing the IPC to request advice at the beginning of the examination process. That is additional and complimentary to the role of the MMO as a participant in the examination proceedings.

In order to clarify the issue, I was going to offer an explanation, but, while contemplating what I was going to say earlier, I found on my desk a useful briefing document from the RSPB, which is one of the key interested parties. The Minister will note that I did not use the S-word, but if I get through the Committee process without using the lexicon of new Labour, I will have achieved something, so I will use the term “interested parties”.

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

Socialism.

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

No—it is another S-word. The RSPB produced a very good briefing on the Bill. On the issue under discussion, it stated:

“The RSPB wants the MMO to be a true ‘marine champion’”—

I underline those words—

“which is fully and equitably engaged with all marine sectors and interests. To this end, we believe that the MMO, as the body with a marine overview and expertise, should have full responsibility for planning and licensing at sea. However, as the IPC will license larger ports and offshore renewable electricity generating stations, our focus is on improving the MMO’s role in determining these  applications. We hope the Committee will support our position that the IPC must actively seek, and take account of, advice from the MMO on all applications for nationally significant infrastructure projects (NSIPs) that take place in or are likely to impact upon the marine environment.”

It is important that those words are put on the record, because they clearly set out our attitude in seeking to strengthen the MMO, as well as our concerns about its relationship with the IPC in the marine environment.

There are all sorts of interested parties, bodies and organisations that get involved in the planning process on land, and the IPC is a new addition to that mix. We have doubts about its democratic accountability, which we believe to be its main problem on land. At sea, the organisation representing the environment and interested parties, such as those involved in fishing interests, tourism and so on, is, has to be, and always should be the MMO. However, sitting over it in some circumstances, alongside it in others, and subjugated to in certain circumstances, is the IPC, sucking power and responsibility from the MMO. We believe that that is wrong.

Amendment 7 would add material to section 104, to which the panel or council deciding an application must have regard, of the 2008 Act. One of the matters listed is the local impact reports prepared by local authorities. We believe that it would be appropriate to also mention the advice and representations given to the IPC by the MMO, so that it is clear that the IPC must take them into account in making its decision. That is an important part of amendment 7. The amendment uses examples from the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which would allow the MMO’s advice to be considered not only in deciding whether or not to grant consent, but also in deciding what conditions should be attached to that consent. That would be another useful way for the IPC to demonstrate how it had taken the MMO’s advice into account.

Amendment 7 would also add to section 105 of the Planning Act 2008, which relates to decisions made by the Secretary of State and sets out matters to be taken into account when deciding an application. Not all the decisions of the IPC will be made by the panel or the council. Some will fall to the Secretary of State, so the amendment to section 105 would require the Secretary of State to take into account advice and representations from the MMO. The amendment would also add to section 116 of the 2008 Act, which requires the IPC to prepare and publish a statement of reasons for its decisions to grant or refuse a consent.

I apologise to hon. Members for the complexity of this, but when talking to amendments to adjacent legislation, one has to get important points on record. It is appropriate to require a statement of reasons to address how the advice received by the MMO was taken into account by the IPC when making its decision. That provides for the final stage of interaction between the IPC and the MMO—please bear with me—by requiring the IPC to justify to the MMO whether it took its advice on board and how that affected the decision. The Minister is nodding, so I can see that he is with me.

Amendment 8 would introduce the MMO’s role as statutory adviser to the IPC to the Bill. The current wording of clause 25 provides some power for the MMO to advise the IPC on request, but it would be stronger and clearer to provide a specific provision for, and reference to, the IPC. The amendment would provide a general power for the MMO to advise and assist the IPC when required. New clause 1 is a consequential provision to the Planning Act 2008 to bring the MMO’s role as statutory adviser in line with the Bill.

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

Hon. Members have tabled a range of amendments, with complex interactions, that seek in various ways to require the MMO to advise the IPC on development consents relating to the marine area and to require the decision maker on applications for development consents to take the MMO’s advice into account when making decisions.

Other proposals relating to the IPC-MMO relationship, and similar amendments proposed during the Joint Committee’s scrutiny and on Report in the other place by Lord Taylor of Holbeach and Earl Cathcart, have been debated extensively. Given the importance of the arguments made in support of those amendments, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath undertook to take the matter away to see whether we could come up with alternative amendments that would reflect appropriately the MMO’s role in relation to the IPC.

It might be helpful to the Committee if I start with some background to this complex issue, as I know how important it is for many hon. Members. We are clear that the MMO, as a centre of marine expertise with responsibility for enforcing marine licences, will have a very important role in advising both developers and the IPC on nationally significant infrastructure projects in the marine area, including ports and wind farm developments. The Government brought forward an amendment to the Bill on Third Reading in the other place to reflect that key role, which was welcomed by Earl Cathcart and Lord Greaves.

To reflect properly the MMO’s important role, clause 23 of the Bill now ensures that, through amendments to the Planning Act 2008, the MMO will be involved at three key stages in the Planning Act process. First, at the pre-application stage—under section 42 of the Planning Act 2008—the MMO must be notified when a developer is considering applying to the IPC for consent for any nationally significant infrastructure project that would affect, or be likely to affect, the marine area. That will ensure that the MMO is fully engaged right at the start of the application process. The applicant is also required to submit a consultation report along with the application to the IPC setting out relevant responses and the account taken of any relevant responses. That relates to section 37(3) of the Planning Act 2008.

Secondly, the MMO must be notified when the IPC has accepted an application for examination relating to section 56. Finally, the MMO will be involved as an interested party throughout the IPC’s examination process relating to section 102, thus giving it a key role in advising on any necessary marine licences, which the IPC will deem as part of any consent that it issues. Such licences will be managed and enforced by the MMO, so when new evidence on a particular development comes to light, the MMO will, if necessary, be able to modify licence conditions, add new conditions or even revoke the licence.

Amendment 6 would require the IPC to invite the MMO to submit advice on the anticipated impacts on a marine area of any nationally significant infrastructure development. The amendment would treat the MMO’s advice in a similar way to advice from local authorities, which are invited, under section 60 of the 2008 Act, to submit a local impact report that sets out the authority’s views on the likely impact of a proposed project in its area. Section 60 was added to that Act to give due prominence to democratically elected local councillors who represent local people who will be affected by the proposed project. The MMO does not, despite some people’s wishes, consist of democratically elected members, and neither does it represent specifically a local community, although it will have an important role in marine planning and could, as such, be said to represent the interests of the marine area.

Most importantly, the amendments to the Planning Act that I have just outlined, which we are making through clause 23, already provide for what hon. Members seek. The clause will ensure that the MMO is aware of and can be involved in the examination of any applications to the IPC that are in the marine area. The MMO will, as an interested party, have the opportunity to make appropriate representations to the IPC on those applications, taking into consideration the likely impacts of any proposed development in the marine area. Should the IPC disagree with any of the MMO’s representations, it will have to explain why and give reasons for consenting or not consenting to an application. Simply ignoring the MMO’s representations would leave the IPC’s decisions open to successful legal challenge.

In the other place, we introduced an important amendment that the Secretary of State should give guidance to the MMO on the type of representation that it may make to the IPC. I consider that the kinds of matters that would fall as advice submitted under amendment 6 would be reflected in the content of the MMO’s representation to the IPC on the impact of a proposed development on relevant marine plans and on the relevant part of the UK marine area.

Clause 58 amends the 2008 Act to require the IPC to have regard to the marine policy statement and to relevant marine plans when taking its decisions. There is a further safeguard in that clause 25 enables the MMO to provide advice on any matter relating to any of its functions or its general objective, either on request or on its own initiative, if it considers that appropriate.

I shall move on to amendments 7 and 5, and new clause 1. Amendment 7 would amend the 2008 Act to require the decision maker on development consents under the new regime to take the MMO’s advice into account when deciding whether to grant a consent. It would also require the IPC to include a statement of how it has taken the MMO’s advice into account when giving its reasons for granting or refusing development. New clause 1 would have the same effect as amendment 7.

Amendment 5 is consequential on amendment 7 and would ensure that subsection (1) of the clause, which sets out the subsections that amend the 2008 Act, would refer correctly to all the new subsections that would have been added. As I have already outlined, we made a series of amendments in the other place that give the  MMO a clear role, in primary legislation, in the IPC development consent process.

We are resisting the amendments for several reasons. I do not believe that the amendment to section 116 of the 2008 Act would make a material difference to the operation of the IPC. As Lord Hunt explained in the other place, the MMO will be a statutory interested party as part of the IPC’s examination of marine projects. As with advice for any other such party, any advice that the MMO provides to the IPC will be an important part of the IPC’s consideration.

I will now explain why I do not think that amendment 7, which would amend sections 104 and 105 of the 2008 Act, is appropriate. First, as I explained regarding amendment 6, clause 58(5) of the Bill amends section 104 so that when the IPC takes decisions affecting the marine area, it must also have regard to the marine policy statement and to relevant marine plans. It gives the new marine policy framework its rightful place in the decision-making process. Additionally, the amendment would elevate the MMO above other bodies that are also interested parties to the IPC and have a key advisory role, such as the Environment Agency and Natural England.

I have already mentioned amendment 8. It would impose an absolute obligation on the MMO to give advice to the IPC on nationally significant infrastructure projects. What is the point of imposing an absolute obligation on the MMO to give advice? The obligation is on the applicant for the development to seek the advice of the MMO and the IPC will check that that is done.

I hope that my explanations have reassured the Committee that the positions we now have will be effective, that amendments already made will be effective, and that the MMO will have a full role in the IPC decision-making process. I trust the hon. Gentleman will be content to withdraw the amendment.

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

The amendments in the Lords were very welcome, but I do not believe that the balance in the relationship between the MMO and the IPC is right. I believe that the MMO’s role should be stronger than that of just a statutory consultee. There should be an obligation on the IPC to make a full account of its decisions. The advisory role for the MMO needs to be incorporated into the Bill. Our amendment would put the MMO on very much the same footing under the Planning Act 2008 as a local authority. It is entirely wrong in these circumstances that the MMO has to jostle for position and to be subjugated to the IPC in certain circumstances, particularly in the important area of energy generation. I put on record our wish to continue our approach—looking at the clock, I am not sure whether we should do that now or another time—and to press the amendments.

Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)

Order. I am sorry but I am not clear about precisely what the hon. Gentleman is asking. Amendment 5 has been moved. Does he wish to put it to the vote?

Mr. Benyonindicated assent.

Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)

The procedural situation is that although the amendments were debated together, they have to be taken separately. Two of the further amendments—amendments 6 and 7—relate to clause 23. Amendment 8 relates to clause 25, so that will be taken later anyway, and new clause 1 will be taken at the end of our proceedings on the Bill, when it will be open to the hon. Member for Newbury to move it formally, if he wishes. It will also be open to him to ask for a Division on amendment 8 when we reach clause 25, which we shall not immediately. If he wants to press amendment 6 and/or amendment 7, he will have to do move them separately, formally and now.