Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising this matter. We come back to this relationship between the MMO and the IPC and also, in this group of amendments, the relationship between the marine policy statement and the national policy statements. She is right to say that there will be a number of those statements. I very much understand the point she raises about the need for clarity. She also mentioned the relationship between this Administration and the devolved Administrations. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, might be in the Chamber for the order that is about to be debated as it covers matters in which he has a great interest. I am not quite sure what lay behind his laughter, which the noble Baroness described. Our discussions with the devolved Administrations over the past few months about the Bill and the areas where we need absolute clarity and consistency between the Administrations have gone very well indeed. These are interesting amendments. One of their themes is the extent of the influence of the plans and the marine policy statement on the IPC’s decisions; hence the amendment which would require the IPC to take its decisions in accordance with marine policy documents. Another thread in the amendments is that which relates to which documents and policies should take precedence in the event of a conflict between them. We are always in danger of reopening the regime established by the Planning Act 2008, which the Government are reluctant to do. We believe that it has established a new regime for allowing us to address the national need for infrastructure that is vital to the future of this country. The new regime has been put in place precisely because of the recognition of the particular and special importance of nationally significant infrastructure projects and the considerable challenges that are related to them. In particular, I believe that there is a lot of support for the notion that there should be a special planning and consenting regime to consider them. Nationally significant infrastructure projects which are in the marine area, whether they are related to ports or energy generation, are a vital part of this new process. The Government have consistently argued that those projects should not be removed from the new planning regime simply because they are in the marine area. We think that it is entirely appropriate that the IPC will make its decisions in accordance with the national policy statements but also have regard to the marine policy statement and relevant plans, because we think that that gets the relationship right. Clearly, as far as the IPC is concerned, the relevant national policy statement will be the prime statement. However, we are also clear that the IPC must have regard to the marine policy statement. I do not want to take us back to the debate on group 10, but we also expect the MMO to have a strong role by having to be consulted on pre-applications and then to have an involvement in the IPC’s examination process itself. I also want to reiterate a point which I have made consistently. The national policy statements and the marine policy statement plans will be entirely consistent—they have to be. The same departments will collectively be involved in establishing both the NPS and the marine policy statement. It would be intolerable if there were inconsistency and conflicts between the two statements. It would not give the kind of clarity that all noble Lords, including me and the Government, wish to see. I know that the noble Baroness’s Amendments 89 and 90 seek to ensure that policies in the marine policy statement or plans will always take precedence over those in the national policy statements. Of course, Clause 56 imposes a clear duty on public authorities, with the single exception of the IPC, to take any authorisation or enforcement decision relating to the marine area in accordance with the marine policy statement and plans. In contrast, the only public authority under a direct duty to take its decisions in accordance with the national policy statements is the IPC, in view of the national significance of projects on which it will take decisions. So those duties and the relative precedence of the marine policy statement and national policy statements in relation to authorisation and enforcement decisions seem to be entirely appropriate. The question of precedence is less acute in relation to the secondary duty on public authorities to have regard to the marine policy statement and plans when taking their other marine decisions. Even so, that duty to have regard to the marine policy documents is clear and applies to any decision which is capable of affecting the UK marine area. I am not unrealistic. I recognise that there will sometimes be circumstances in which a planning authority is to have regard to both a national policy statement and the marine policy statement. Despite the best endeavours of government, there could be a conflict between the two which had not previously been foreseen, and I do not think that as a matter of principle one could provide that the marine documents should in all cases outweigh the national policy statements. Policies on matters of national significance will by their very nature often be different from those relating to local matters. Sometimes a decision-maker, such as a coastal local planning authority in the present context, may need to consider both when deciding what weight as a material or relevant consideration should be given to each. We have therefore not imposed duties to take these decisions in accordance with either the marine policy statement or the national policy statements, precisely because in such circumstances we believe that public authorities should use their discretion and judgment, looking at the context and the likely impacts of possible decisions. That is not an unusual approach and, after many years’ experience, planning authorities are experts in weighing up and integrating government policy. We would also expect them to seek advice from the relevant department on how to resolve any conflict, which will help us to identify any potential need for clarification or amendment of our policies. It should not be a question of technical precedence but of taking the best decision for the marine area and the national interest in all the circumstances. If the noble Baroness were to press her amendments and they were accepted by your Lordships they might reduce the clarity in the Bill about how any conflicts within the MPS or plan should be resolved. Clauses 42(3) and 49(9) presently provide that in the event of a conflict between the policy and any other information included in an MPS or plan, the conflict is to be resolved in favour of the policy. This provision is necessary to ensure clarity for decision-makers and we think that that would be lost if the focus of these clauses were turned on the national policy statements instead. I apologise for speaking at such length. It is so good to see the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, now in his place. It is not too late for him to intervene and explain why he thinks that collaboration between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations will not work on the marine Bill. His timing is impeccable. I fully understand why the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has moved these amendments—she seeks clarity. I want to reassure her that we thought a lot about this. We do not want the circumstance that she fears to arise whereby there is a lack of clarity and a conflict and the relevant public bodies do not know what to do. It is clear, as it has to be, that the IPC must turn first to the national policy statements. I turn to my own amendment in this group. It is a minor and technical amendment to correct a typographical error in Clause 56(4). As noble Lords will have noted, the closing words should read "in relation to which" rather than "relating to which", as currently in the Bill. I hope that noble Lords will support the Government on that amendment.