Clause 197
Marine and Coastal Access Bill [Lords]
4:00 pm
Huw Irranca-Davies (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Marine and Natural Environment), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Ogmore, Labour)
I shall return to that very pertinent question in a moment, but first I want to flesh out the other parts of the proposal.
New clause 5 will insert powers to vary shellfish orders, which is important because it acknowledges the fact that landowners cannot always foresee what development opportunities might arise over the lifetime of an order, which is potentially 60 years. The new clause will allow an order to be varied when landowners, including the duchies and the Crown estate, want to develop land on which an order is in place and when that development would make it impossible, or impracticable, to exercise the right conferred on the fishery. The power to vary an order reflects our desire to put the relationship between the grantee and the landowner on a more commercial footing, with the use of commercial contracts or memorandums of understanding clearly to define the relationship and the system for dealing with future developments. In earlier discussions with the Government, both the Shellfish Association of Great Britain and the Crown estate supported such a measure.
Clause 69 sets out the issues to which the licensing authority must have regard in determining applications for marine licences. Under subsection 1(c), those issues include
“the need to prevent interference with legitimate uses of the sea”,
which in turn include fishing and shellfisheries. Thus the licensing authority is well able to have regard to fisheries’ interests and to reach a balanced view on the merits of an application.
We do not intend to interfere with this marine planning process by insisting that fishing interests should automatically override all other needs or uses of the sea. If the order is varied, the landowner could be liable to pay compensation to the grantee of a several order for the loss of part, or all, of the order. It will be open for the grantees and landowners to agree a level of compensation, either when the order is varied or right from the outset. We believe that the ability to consider such outcomes at the outset of the making of an order will help to put the relationship between the two parties on a much more commercial footing. It will also make the agreements more transparent. That idea was previously supported by the shellfish industry as well as the Crown estate. The new clause will provide certainty to grantees of shellfish orders and landowners and signal a new relationship allowing the industry to develop and move forward.
The hon. Member for Clwyd, West asked about Crown powers. Those powers will be as set out in the Crown Estates Act, section 1(3) of which states that the commissioners will have a duty “to maintain and enhance” the value of the estate
“but with due regard to...good management.”
A letter from DEFRA to the Shellfish Association of Great Britain dated 26 June stated:
“Having regard to the CE’s powers and duties simply means that we must take account of them in arriving at a decision as to whether to grant an Order. It does not mean that if the CE object to the creation of an Order that we are bound to accept their objection as valid and reject any applications to grant an Order in these circumstances. But it would be open to the CE to challenge the SoS as to how their view has been taken account of in our decision making process.”
It is important that I read this next part into the record:
“Similarly, we would be bound to explain to any consultee how their view has been taken account of in our decision making processes; the difference is that the CE have explicit statutory powers and duties and our proposal reflects that point. If as you hinted you have legal or other advice which contradicts this view, I would be grateful if you could share it or summarise it”.
We concur with that view.