Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL]

The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, never ceases to amaze me. Even when ill he is still assiduous in his activities and research. How much we wish he were with us to expand on that most important point. Before replying to the debate, I have just been informed that there is an error in the list of amendments. In the next group, we should be taking Amendment 101BZBC. Because of degrouping there has been a slight error. I shall try to set the noble Lord’s mind to rest on the matter. Clause 64(4) allows the licensing authority to require the applicant to provide further information or articles or to permit investigations, examinations and tests that it considers, "““necessary or expedient to enable it to determine the application””." Subsection (5) allows the licensing authority to charge the applicant a reasonable fee to carry out those investigations, examinations and tests. I understand the point behind the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler. We want the licensing authority to make its decisions as expediently as possible based on the best available information. Clearly, determining licences involves the exercise of judgment. The more information that the licensing authority has about any proposed development the better informed its decision can be. Making a determination is not just making a yes or no decision on whether to grant a licence. It is about attaching the right conditions that will best mitigate the adverse impact of any development or activity. Carrying out tests and investigations is an efficient way of allowing the licensing authority to use its judgment, which will be based on experience and expertise of marine matters. It will gather information that it considers useful in making a well informed and reasonable decision. An example of a common type of test conducted is one that requires an applicant to provide sediment samples for chemical or particle size analysis in order to identify if it contains unacceptably high levels of organic or inorganic contaminants and how or if the material can be predicted to disperse from a disposal site. In some cases it will be obvious that information is necessary before the licensing authority can be confident of being able to make any sort of determination. An obvious example would be information pertaining to the location of the activity. However, in many cases it will not be so clear cut. Some tests and investigations will be open to challenge on whether they were absolutely necessary for a determination to be made, but which would undoubtedly contribute to a more effective and better determination. Also when a test has been carried out that has confirmed that there is no adverse environmental risk, or even perhaps has failed to produce any meaningful results, a case might be advanced that the investigation was not shown to be necessary. We are conscious not to overburden industry with a requirement to conduct test after test where the impacts of an activity are likely to be negligible. However, we think this matter is more appropriately addressed operationally as part of ensuring that licensing authorities make effective and sensible decisions based on the particular facts of the case in question. We do not want to hamstring in any way the ability of the licensing authority to be able to make the most effective decisions that it can. We feel that removing the word ““expedient”” from the legislation would do this. I was interested in the tour de force dictionary definitions of ““expedient””. Would it be helpful if I gave the Government’s view of the meaning of the word? It is the first definition given by the noble Lord that it is, "““conducive to advantage in general or to a definite purpose; fit, proper or suitable to the circumstances of the case””," which I find entirely satisfactory and useful. The noble Lord then asked what precedents there were for using the word ““expedient””. I am glad to say that we have found two. One is from Section 112A(4) of the Energy Act 2004: "““if a notice under subsection (1) requires information in connection with a function of the Secretary of State under Section 107(1) or (4), the notice may require the provision of information or ""documents which the Secretary of State considers are necessary or expedient for the purpose of exercising those functions””." Section 43 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, under ““Possession of pesticides harmful to wildlife””, has two parts. The second part says: "““The Secretary of State may not make an order under subsection (1) unless he is satisfied that it is necessary or expedient to do so in the interests of protecting wild birds or wild animals from harm””." In essence, there is a precedent and it is sensible and proportionate to allow us to have ““expedient”” in the Bill.