Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL]

My Lords, the noble Baroness is underestimating the power of the MMO in that respect and also underestimating the fact that the MMO will have been consulted before the IPC comes to make the original decision. Turning to the detail of the amendments, the way the Planning Act works is to place a duty on applicants to consult the MMO at the pre-application stage, and once an application has been accepted by the IPC, to notify the MMO and invite it to make representations. Amendment 49 would, in effect, duplicate what the Planning Act regime will already require, in that the applicant will have already notified the MMO and invited it to make representations regarding the application. It is our clear intention that the national policy statement and the marine policy statement will be consistent. Of course, there may be many cases where the MMO will have nothing to add to an individual application over and above the opinions of the IPC and we would be concerned about imposing an absolute obligation, as proposed in Amendment 51, on the MMO to give advice in such circumstances. At the moment, the MMO would advise only as required, which would already be the case under the system set in the Planning Act and in the secondary legislation that we intended. Moreover I believe that this intention as regards these advice-giving functions is already met through Clause 24 of the Bill, which states that the MMO may provide whatever advice it feels appropriate to other public bodies, on its own initiative or upon request. As for the intention in the amendments to require the IPC to include specific reference to MMO advice and recommendations that were adopted when refusing or granting a licence, and to give justification for not adopting any of this advice or recommendations, the MMO will be a statutory party as part of the IPC’s examination of marine projects. Like advice from any body with statutory duties, any advice from the MMO provided to the IPC will be an important part of the IPC’s consideration. Section 116 of the Planning Act already imposes a duty on the IPC to give reasons for the decisions it makes. In practice, the IPC would need to justify itself when not following the MMO’s advice. The IPC has to justify its decision and would clearly be at risk of having that decision overturned in the courts. I have some reservations about the exact details of the amendments, but I understand the importance of the substance of what is contained in the argument in support of those amendments. I understand the need to give as much certainty as possible about the relationship between the MMO and the IPC. I understand that noble Lords want to ensure that the expertise and experience that the MMO will gain is utilised. It is worth making the point that, if we take account of offshore developments, the MMO will be building up experience, because it will be the statutory body asked to give consents for projects up to 100 megawatts, so it will have a lot of expertise to give. Because of that, and because I recognise the spirit in which the amendments have been put, I should like to take this matter away and see whether, after discussion between now and Third Reading, the Government can come up with suitable amendments that reflect in primary legislation the MMO’s role of being a statutory consultee at the pre-application stage and a statutory party to IPC examinations, as a way of providing reassurance that the MMO will have a clear, important and transparent role in the process. I hope that, on that basis, noble Lords will accept that the Government are prepared to engage in these important matters and that we can come back to this at Third Reading with an amendment that meets the substance of the arguments that noble Lords have put.