HL Deb 26 January 2004 vol 656 cc85-8

7.44 p.m.

Lord Berkeley

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Berkeley.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Viscount Allenby of Megiddo) in the Chair.]

Clause 1 [Amendment of procedure for dealing with applications for harbour orders]:

Lord Berkeley moved Amendment No. 1:

Page 2, line 10, after "situated, " insert—

"(ab) the relevant nature conservancy authority, "

The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 1 is grouped with Amendments Nos. 2 to 7, which also stand in my name. For the convenience of the Committee, I shall speak to them together.

These amendments have been prepared to meet a point raised by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, following the introduction of this Bill. I mentioned to your Lordships at Second Reading that I would be moving these amendments at this stage. I explained then that the effect of the amendments would be that the Secretary of State would be required to hold an inquiry to consider objections when English Nature or the Countryside Council for Wales object to an application for an order, and inform the Secretary of State that the agency or the commission wish the objection to be referred to a local inquiry. That explanation was not quite right, and I apologise to your Lordships if I misled the House.

I should have said that the amendments put English Nature and the Countryside Council for Wales in exactly the same position as local authorities under the Bill; namely, that they can require a local inquiry or a public hearing, but it is for the Secretary of State to decide which of those shall occur.

Other noble Lords questioned the effects of these amendments at Second Reading. I refer to the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington, the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, and the noble Viscount, Lord Astor. Many of those noble Lords are not in their places. I have discussed this amendment and my speech with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington, and he has agreed that I should say that he is happy with what is now being proposed.

These amendments do not oblige English Nature or the Countryside Council for Wales to object to every application for a harbour order. They already have a right to object to any application that may affect matters relevant to their statutory powers and duties, such as adverse effects on nature conservation. Experience demonstrates that English Nature and the Countryside Council for Wales exercise their rights to objection only in appropriate circumstances. In such circumstances, it is more than likely that the RSPB and other interested bodies, such as the local wildlife trust and amenity bodies, will also object.

In those circumstances, it is inconceivable that the Secretary of State would not require the application for that order to be referred to an inquiry. Where the Bill will assist is in cases where orders are promoted for purposes that do not adversely affect the environment. For example, an order may be promoted to alter the constitution of a harbour authority. I imagine that neither English Heritage, the Council, or the RSPB would wish to object to such an application. However, there may be others who would wish to do so, and the Bill would enable the Secretary of State to deal with those objections by means of written representations without the need for a public inquiry or hearing.

I hope that this has been an intelligible explanation. I do not think that these amendments will reduce in any respect the efficacy of what is proposed by means of this Bill. I beg to move.

Baroness Harris of Richmond

As well as I understand the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, my noble friend Lord Bradshaw regrets that he is unable to be in his place this evening, and he has asked me to deal with these few amendments. I am grateful to the noble Lord for explaining them so clearly. These Benches are happy with the general aim of the Bill. If that can be achieved, these Benches will be satisfied. We support the amendments.

Lord Triesman

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for his introduction. It was wholly intelligible even to me and therefore, I suspect, generally intelligible to everybody. I greatly appreciate what he said and the great care and detail that has gone into his work. I applaud that work, and I know that it has been done over some time. It has brought us to our discussion tonight.

The Committee will be aware that the Government support the objectives of the Bill. If enacted, it would make a useful contribution to our policy of streamlining the procedures associated with the planning process. A detailed exposition of the Government's support and the support expressed here was set out in the reply made at Second Reading on 7 January by my noble friend Lord Bassam of Brighton.

I can understand why the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has tabled the amendments. English Nature and the Countryside Council for Wales are already well versed in how to comment on harbour orders in their role as consultees on all relevant applications. Of course, the Bill brings the Harbours Act 1964 into line with the Transport and Works Act 1992 and similar planning legislation in respect of rights to inquiries. The amendment would upset that alignment to a certain degree.

I do not think, on the face of it, that that detracts from the Bill's objectives, but we would like to give the matter further consideration between now and Report, with a view to tabling our own amendments at that stage, if we believe that it is desirable to do so.

Lord Berkeley

I am grateful for the support from the Liberal Democrat Benches and for my noble friend's kind words in responding to the amendment. I am happy to consider with him any further changes that might be necessary before Report.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Berkeley moved Amendment No. 2:

Page 2, line 24, at end insert ", and

(b) "the relevant nature conservancy authority" means—
  1. (i) if the harbour (or any part of it) is situated in England, English Nature, and
  2. (ii) if the harbour (or any part of it) is situated in Wales, the Countryside Commission of Wales""

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2 [Amendment of procedure where harbour revision orders are made by the Secretary of State of his own motion]:

Lord Berkeley moved Amendments Nos. 3 to 7:

Page 2, line 44, leave out from beginning to ", and" in line 45 and insert "person within sub-paragraph (3A)"

Page 3, line 1, leave out "the local authority" and insert "that person"

Page 3, line 1, leave out "the authority" and insert "he"

Page 3, line 7, at end insert—

"(3A) The persons within this sub-paragraph are—

  1. (a) any local authority for an area in which the harbour (or any part of it) is situated, and
  2. (b) the relevant nature conservancy authority."

Page 3, line 11, leave out "has" and insert "and "the relevant conservancy authority" have"

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to.

House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

House adjourned at six minutes before eight o'clock.