§ Sir John GilmourI beg to move Amendment No. 40, in page 4, line 9, at end insert:
'(2) The particulars of operations to be carried out under such a licence must have been advertised 21 days prior to the granting of the licence'.Clause 3 gave the Secretary of State power to create a designated sea area. The amendment seeks to ensure that when a licence is granted notification will be given of the exact nature of the work to be undertaken. It is essential that local interests should know that.Among the things that may have to take place in a designated sea area are dredging operations to facilitate the passage of larger ships, blasting of rock and so on, which might have a considerable effect on the fishing industry. It is reasonable that the local people interested should be given notice.
§ Mr. DalyellWhat is the Government's thinking on whether the period should be 21 days rather than 14 or 28 days? This is worthy of explanation.
§ Mr. John SmithMy hon. Friend ought to address his question to the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson), who moved the amendment, because this is an Opposition amendment, not a Government amendment. In any event, I do not think that the point that my hon. Friend raises has anything to do with the matter now being considered. The question of 21 days or 28 days was discussed previously in another connection, and we are now concerned with a different matter.
351 The hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) suggested that the operations to be carried out under licence ought to be advertised. The normal reason for requiring public advertisements in such cases is to enable the public to make an objection if they wish, as applies, for example, in planning matters. But it is not suggested by the hon. Gentleman that there should be an opportunity for the public to object to any of the works that would be carried out under the licence. Therefore, it would be a question merely of informing the public of the works to be carried out, rather than of telling them about some right which they could exercise. In that context, the need for advertising might be a little less clear.
The Committee should understand that the licence is intended to be a protection to the public because the Secretary of State will have control over what the licensees will be able to do. It involves the same principle as in the sea designation order. If the Government did not intervene, make controls and have powers over all the operators, the public would be left unprotected. This should not be seen as an invasion of public rights, but rather as a control which ought to be exercised in the public interest.
One difficulty which might be encountered if we adopted the suggestion in the amendment would arise from the fact that the Secretary of State may vary or revoke a licence at any time if conditions are breached. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that this is a useful provision to have. But the question would arise whether such variation or revocation would have to be advertised. If it was necessary to inform the public of operations to be carried out, the public might have to be informed again if there was to be a variation of those operations.
I understand what the hon. Gentleman means by his amendment, but we have to strike a balance here, and we must ask whether it is necessary in the circumstances to go to this trouble. I am not in principle opposed to what the hon. Gentleman suggests. The amendment, for drafting reasons, is technically defective. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would indicate whether he wants to press the matter.
§ Sir John GilmourI am grateful to the Under-Secretary. Perhaps I should have gone further when moving the amendment and said that when the licence was issued and the matter was advertised there should be a right to object. I felt that if no one knows what work is to be done under the licence mysteries may build up as to what is the object of the exercise. We may return to this point later when considering Schedule 3, which includes provisions about the making of designation areas. But if a licence is granted and any local interested party learns, for instance, that there is to be blasting of rocks between two islands somewhere on the West Coast of Scotland, or near Orkney or Shetland, he would feel aggrieved if he did not know about this in the first place. If local interests can be carried in such matters, people would understand the necessity for carrying out the works, the approval of local people would be secured, and this would help the general objective.
I admit that possibly the wording in the amendment is not correct from a drafting point of view. But if the Minister can give an assurance that he is prepared to look at this and give information about what the licences are intended to do, it would go a long way towards winning the good will of the people concerned. The Minister will appreciate that in many cases the works take place in out of the way areas, not in places where such operations have been occurring daily in the past. Such works are an innovation, and people need reassurance.
§ Mr. John SmithPerhaps I might respond by saying that there is a reluctance by the Government to put too many requirements of this sort into an Act of Parliament. What the hon. Gentleman says about informing the public is absolutely right. The more that the public know, the more they will under-staid both the nature of the operations and the need for them, and they might be prepared to tolerate inconvenience where it arises. Whether it is necessary to do that by statutory provision is another matter. It is a question of judgment as to how far we are prepared to pepper our Acts of Parliament with statutory provisions to this effect.
9.15 p.m.
Perhaps I can leave it on the basis that we will look at this again. It may be 353 that the best way of dealing with this would be for the Secretary of State to ask licensees to take the trouble to inform local people what they are doing, without the necessity of a statutory obligation. Since the hon. Gentleman thinks it is important to press the manner we will consider it.
§ Sir John GilmourIn view of what the hon. Gentleman says, and the fact that I wholly agree that we might look at this again when we discuss Schedule 3, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
354
§
Amendment proposed: No. 41, in page 4, line 9, at end insert:
' (2) Where it appears that, as a result of the granting of such a licence, public or private rights of navigation or fishery or other public or private rights on the sea or sea bed in the designated sea area to which the licence relates may be prejudiced, the Secretary of State shall, before granting such licence, consult with those, or with appropriate organisations of those, whose rights may be so prejudiced'.—[Mr. Buchanan-Smith.]
§ Question put, That the amendment be made:
§ The Committee divided: Ayes 143, Noes 176.
355| Division No. 27.] | AYES | [19.20 p.m. |
| Adley, Robert | Grist, Ian | Parkinson, Cecil |
| Aitken, J. W. P. | Grylls, Michael | Pattie, Geoffrey |
| Arnold, Tom | Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) | Penhaligon, David |
| Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne) | Hampson, Dr Keith | Percival, Ian |
| Bain, Mrs Margaret | Harrison, Sir Harwood (Eye) | Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal) |
| Banks, Robert | Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss | Reid, George |
| Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay) | Hayhoe, Barney | Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon |
| Benyon, W. R. | Henderson, Douglas | Rifkind, Malcolm |
| Biffen, John | Hicks, Robert | Roberts, Michael (Cardiff N.W.) |
| Biggs-Davison, John | Holland, Philip | Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks) |
| Bowden, Andrew (Brighton) | Hooson, Emlyn | Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire) |
| Braine, Sir Bernard | Howells, Geraint (Cardigan) | Shaw, Giles (Pudsey) |
| Brotherton, Michael | Hunt, John | Shelton, William (Lambeth St.) |
| Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) | Hutchison, Michael Clark | Shepherd, Colin |
| Buchanan-Smith, Alick | Irving, Charles (Cheltenham) | Sims, Roger |
| Buck, Antony | James, David | Smith, Cyril (Rochdale) |
| Bulmer, Esmond | Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine | Smith, Dudley (Warwick) |
| Burden, F. A. | King, Evelyn (South Dorset) | Speed, Keith |
| Carlisle, Mark | King, Tom (Bridgwater) | Spence, John |
| Chalker, Mrs Lynda | Kitson, Sir Timothy | Spicer, James (W. Dorset) |
| Clark, Alan (Plymouth, S) | Knight, Mrs Jill | Spicer, Michael (S.Worcester) |
| Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe) | Lane, David | Sproat, lain |
| Cockcroft, John | Lawrence, Ivan | Stainton, Keith |
| Cooke, Robert (Bristol W) | Lo Marchant, Spencer | Stanbrook, Ivor |
| Cope, John | Lester, Jim (Beeston) | Stewart, Donald (Western Isles) |
| Cormack, Patrick | Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) | Stewart, Ian (Hitchin) |
| Corrie, John | Lloyd, Ian (Havant) | Stokes, John |
| Costaln, A. P. | Luce, Richard | Stradling Thomas, J. |
| Crawford, D. | MacCormick, lain | Taylor, R. (Croydon NW) |
| Dodsworth, Geoffrey | Macfarlane, Neil | Taylor, Teddy (Glasgow C.) |
| Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James | MacGregor, John | Tebbit, Norman |
| Durant, Tony | Marshall, Michael (Arundel) | Temple-Morris, P. |
| Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke) | Mates, Michael | Thompson, George |
| Elliott, Sir William | Mather, Carol | Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (Devon) |
| Eyre, Reginald | Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald | Townsend, Cyril D. |
| Fairbairn, Nicholas | Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin | Tugendhat, Christopher |
| Fairgrieve, Russell | Mayhew, Patrick | Viggers, P. J. |
| Farr, John | Meyer, Sir Anthony | Wainwright, Richard (Colne V) |
| Fell, Anthony | Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove) | Wall Patrick |
| Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N.) | Miscampbell, Norman | Warren Kenneth |
| Fletcher-Cooke, Charles | Monro, Hector | Weatherill Bernard |
| Fookes, Miss Janet | Morrison, Peter (Chester) | Welsh Andrew |
| Fry, Peter | Mudd, David | Wilson, Gordon(Dundee E.) |
| Gardiner, George (Reigate) | Nelson, Anthony | Young Sir George (Ealing) |
| Gardner, Edward (S. Fylde) | Neubert, Michael | Yonnger, Hon George |
| Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife) | Newton, Tony | |
| Gray, Hamish | Osborn, John | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
| Grieve, Percy | Page, John (Harrow West) | Dr. Gerard Vaughan and |
| Grimond, Rt Hon J. | Pardoe, John | Mr. Fred Silvester |
| NOES | ||
| Allaun, Frank | Bidwell, Sydney | Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P.) |
| Anderson, Donald | Blenkinsop, Arthur | Campbell, Ian |
| Archer, Peter | Boardman, H. | Cartwright, John |
| Armstrong, Enrest | Booth, Albert | Clemitson, I. M. |
| Ashton, Joe | Boothroyd, Miss Betty | Cocks, Michael (Bristol S.) |
| Atkinson, Norman | Bradley, Tom | Coleman, Donald |
| Barnett, Guy (Greenwich) | Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow Pr.) | Concannon, J. D. |
| Bates, Alf | Buchan, Norman | Conlan, Bernard |
| Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N) | Buchanan, Richard | Cook, Robin F. (Edin C) |
| Corbett, Robin | Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln) | Prescott, John |
| Cox, Thomas (Wands, Toot) | Janner, Greville | Radice, Giles |
| Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow M.) | Jay, Rt Hon Douglas | Richardson, Miss Jo |
| Cryer, Bob | John, Brynmor | Roberts, Albert (Normanton) |
| Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh.) | Johnson, James (Kingston, W.) | Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock) |
| Dalyell, Tam | Jones, Alec (Rhondda) | Rodgers, George (Chorley) |
| Davies, Denzil (Llanelli) | Jones, Barry (East Flint) | Rodgers, William (Teesside) |
| Davies, Ifor (Gower) | Jones, Dan (Burnley) | Rooker, J. W. |
| Deakins, Eric | Kaufman, Gerald | Roper, John |
| Dean, Joseph (Leeds West) | Kelley, Richard | Rosa, Paul B. |
| de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey | Kerr, Russell | Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilm'nock) |
| Dempsey, James | Kilroy-Silk, Robert | Rowlands, Ted |
| Doig, Peter | Kinnock, Neil | Sedgemore, B. |
| Dormand, Jack | Lamond, James | Selby, Harry |
| Douglas-Mann, Bruce | Latham, Arthur (Paddington) | Short, Rt Hon Edward (Newcastle C) |
| Duffy, A. E. P. | Lewis, Arthur (Newham N.) | Sillars, James |
| Dunn, James A. | Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) | Skinner, Dennis |
| Dunnett, Jack | Lomas, Kenneth | Small, William |
| Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth | Loyden, Eddie | Smith, John (N. Lanarkshire) |
| Edge, Geoffrey | Luard, Evan | Snape, Peter |
| Edwards, Robert (Wolv. S.E.) | Lyon, Alexander (York) | Spearing, Nigel |
| Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun) | Lyons, Edward (Bradford W) | Spriggs, Leslie |
| English, Michael | Mabon, Dr J. Dickson | Stallard, A. W. |
| Evans, loan L. (Aberdare) | McCartney, Hugh | Stewart, Rt Hn Michael (H'smith, F) |
| Ewing, Harry (Stirling) | McElhone, Frank | Stoddart, David |
| Fernyhough, Rt Hon E. | McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C.) | Stott, Roger |
| Flannery, Martin | McNamara, Kevin | Strang, Gavin |
| Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston) | Madden, Max | Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W) |
| Ford, Ben T. | Magee, Bryan | Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery) |
| Forrester, John | Mahon, Simon | Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW) |
| Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin) | Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole) | Thorne, Stan (Preston) |
| Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend) | Marshall, Jim (Leicester) | Tierney, Sydney |
| George, Bruce | Maynard, Miss Joan | Tomlinson, John |
| Golding, John | Meacher, Michael | Urwin, T. W. |
| Gould, Bryan | Mellish, Rt Hon Robert | Varley, Rt Hon Eric G. |
| Gourlay, Harry | Mendelson, John | Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V.) |
| Grant, George (Morpeth) | Millan, Bruce | Walker, Terry (Kingswood) |
| Grant, John (Islington C.) | Miller, Dr M. (E. Kilbride) | Ward, Michael |
| Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife) | Moonman, Eric | Wellbeloved, James |
| Hamling, William | Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe) | White, Frank R. (Bury) |
| Hardy, Peter | Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw) | White, James (Glasgow, P) |
| Harper, Joseph | Murray, Ronald King | Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton) |
| Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) | Newens, Stanley | wise, Mrs Audrey |
| Hatton, Frank | Noble, Mike | Woodall, Alec |
| Hayman, Mrs Helene | Oakes, Gordon | Woof, Robert |
| Heffer, Eric S. | O'Halloran, Michael | Wrigglesworth, Ian |
| Hooley, Frank | Orbach, Maurice | Young, David (Bolton E.) |
| Horam, John | Ovenden, John | |
| Hoyle, Douglas (Nelson) | Park, George | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| Hughes, Mark (Durham) | Parry, Robert | Mr. James Hamilton and |
| Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N.) | Pendry, Tom | Mr. Laurie Pavitt |
§ Question accordingly negatived.
§
Amendment made: No. 42, in page 4, line 16, after 'works', insert:
in the designated sea area'.—[Mr. John Smith.]
§ Mr. Buchanan-SmithI beg to move Amendment No. 43, in page 4, line 23, at end insert:
'and the authority shall be the sole authority to grant any licence or permission for relevant operations within its own area'.
The Deputy ChairmanWith this amendment, it will be convenient to take the following amendments:
No. 44, in page 4, line 24, leave out subsection (4).
No. 47, in page 4, line 31, leave out
'and sections 5 to 7 of this Act'.No. 48, in page 4, line 35, leave out from ' accordingly ' to end of line 37.
§ Mr. Buchanan-SmithThe amendment seeks to clarify the clause. I admit that I have become slightly confused about the clause, not so much as to its meaning but as to its outcome. In certain operations in some areas confusion could arise as to which authority would grant a licence.
The present situation is that the Secretary of State is to issue a licence for relevant operations executed within a designated sea area. Subsection (3), which deals with a designated area, appears to envisage a situation in which an area overlaps or contains part of another area which lies within the jurisdiction of a harbour authority where that authority has power to grant licences or permission to those who want to carry out operations. As the provision now reads, it appears that the authority remains entitled to take such action, but it also appears that the Secre-taiy of State may also grant licences for 357 these operations. Provision is also made for consultation with the harbour authority.
I seek to avoid a situation in which both the Secretary of State and the relevant harbour authority have the power to issue a licence in a sea area. I wonder whether such an arrangement is sensible. I should like only one licensing authority to deal with the matter.
It may be asked, "In a designated area, part of which falls within the jurisdiction of a harbour authority, how will it be possible to achieve certain conditions in relation to operations carried out within that area?" That is a possible objection to my argument.
9.30 p.m.
The Secretary of State must consult the harbour authority, anyway. I hope that he will not dictate to the authority, but will use his persuasive powers, just as the Under-Secrctary has used his very persuasive powers, to get us to accept assurances that he has given and withdraw certain amendments. In most instances, we, for our part, have been very generous in accepting those assurances. This is another instance in which the Secretary of State might consider using his charm. I suggest that the harbour authority should have the power to issue licences or permission for operations to be carried out and that the Secretary of State should use his persuasive charm on the authority, if necessary.
The amendment would simplify the matter. It would mean that we should have one authority, and not two, in these limited areas.
I am trying to be helpful. I hope that the Under-Secretary will receive the amendment in a helpful spirit. I look forward to hearing what he has to say.
§ Mr. John SmithI am grateful to the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) for the way in which he has moved the amendment. I understand that this set of amendments was put down to ascertain the Government's approach to the problem.
The clause has a more evocative meaning for hon. Members on this side of the Committee than for the 358 Opposition. It has caused great difficulty of interpretation in other situations. One might have anticipated that if there was to be confusion, it would be in this clause.
The hon. Gentleman has explained the purpose of the clause extremely lucidly. I suggest that if anyone wishes to understand it he should read in HANSARD what the hon. Gentleman said.
The hon. Gentleman put his finger on the difficulty that arises when a sea designation area overlaps the jurisdiction of a harbour authority. There are a number of solutions to that problem. The hon. Gentleman suggested that the harbour authority should be the sole authority in that situation. That also presents difficulties. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman not only lucidly explained the purpose of the clause; he also explained the objection that I was minded to make to the provision that he suggested.
Perhaps I could leave the matter in this way: we appreciate the problem. It would be hopeless if the Secretary of State and a harbour authority were at odds in the matter. As there will be consultations between them, we expect that they will work closely together. There is no intention on the part of the Secretary of State to override and overrule in a domineering way the jurisdiction of a harbour authority. There is no complete solution to the problem. It can be resolved only in a commonsense way, with both parties working together.
I hope that with that assurance the hon. Gentleman will feel that his lucid explanation has not been in vain.
§ Mr. Buchanan-SmithI suppose that my explanation was not in vain if anyone required the clause to be explained. However, it is unfortunate that, after our trying to understand the clause, and the Under-Secretary having gone into it and pointed out a small difficulty that could arise, despite my lucidity, the amendment will not be accepted.
I did not and do not regard this as a matter of principle. I am pleased that the difficulty that I foresaw when drafting the amendment is realised by the Government. Equally, in my normally fair and equable way, I accept that the amendment could lead to other difficulties. In 359 those circumstances I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
§ Mr. Buchanan-SmithI have one point which follows from the last amendment but applies to the whole clause. What consultations have taken place with harbour authorities already in Scotland in relation to the workings of the Bill? Obviously, particularly in relation to this clause, harbour authorities are very much involved in certain areas. On the West Coast of Scotland, where many of these provisions are likely to apply, in most cases the local authority will be the harbour authority and will be consulted in other respects anyway. What I am much more concerned about are those cases in which the harbour authority is separate from the local authority, as is often the case in Orkney and Shetland. I should be interested to know how often this is likely to arise in areas affected by the Bill, and what consultations have been held with these authorities on how these provisions will apply.
§ Mr. GrayI have been asked by my local authority to say that it would always hope that the Secretary of State would consider the local authority the principal body to be consulted. I know that this places the Secretary of State in some difficulty, but he will probably find that local authorities throughout the country cherish their position very closely in this regard.
I hope that, despite the existence of harbour authorities, the local authority will be considered the primary body in these cases but that the Secretary of State will consider consulting other bodies as well. An example is river purification boards. If development took place in a firth, new piers could be created, and the river purification board would have an interest and could give the Secretary of State useful guidance. But local authorities are the primary bodies to be consulted, in my opinion.
§ Mr. John SmithThe hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) raises an important point. In another debate not so much confidence was placed on consul- 360 ing local authorities. The Government believe that in this instance the most appropriate authority when we are dealing with the jurisdiction of a harbour is the harbour authority. Where a local authority is the harbour authority, both bodies would of course be consulted.
We think that the harbour authority is the most important body to be consulted and that is why it has been given this statutory right. Of course, giving a statutory right to one authority does not mean that the Secretary of State should not bear in mind other interests as well, and, where that is suitable, they can be consulted.
§ Mr. GrayThe hon. Gentleman probably knows that there is a dilemma in my constituency between the Invergordon Port authority and the Ross and Cromarty planning authority, because there is some doubt in a particular situation as to which is the authority below the low water mark. Counsel's opinion is being consulted at present. It is worth mentioning, because the two authorities could conflict.
§ Mr. SmithThe hon. Gentleman has put his finger on a difficult point of Scottish planning law—the extent of the jurisdiction of planning authorities when one reaches the low water mark. However, if we debated this complex matter we should be here for some time and it would not be of great interest to the majority of hon. Members. I think it right to constitute the harbour authority as the statutory authority to be consulted, but I bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman said.
The hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) raised questions about the consultations which might take place under Clause 4. I must say to the hon. Gentleman that the Secretary of State ought to consult the body which has been described in the Bill— namely, the harbour authority. I think that that, perhaps, may meet his point. But I am afraid that I have forgotten some of the detail of the other points that he made. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would refresh my memory.
§ Mr. Buchanan-SmithI was asking what consultation had already taken place in relation to the terms of the Bill with harbour authorities, and particularly with those which are not local authorities. 361 Second, in areas in which this building is most likely to take place, which we understand will be mostly on the west coast, I was asking how many specifically harbour authorities, as opposed to local authorities, are involved.
§ Mr. SmithThe direct answer to the question is that the matter has been discussed informally with the Clyde Port authority, which might conceivably be involved in some of the areas to be designated. The other harbour authorities have not been consulted. There are a great number of them in Scotland. It would not be very productive, perhaps, to go around them all with the Bill and the proposals. The matter will arise when the Secretary of State comes to consider whether a sea designation order ought to be made and whether licences ought to be issued. Those authorities will be consulted. However, the hon. Gentleman's point has been noted and will be borne in mind when the clause is operating.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Clause 4, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.