Marine and Coastal Access Bill [Lords]

Public Bill Committee, 2 July 2009.

Clause 129

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship on this beautiful morning, Mr. Pope. I have a couple of questions on clauses 129 to 134, which includes byelaws in Wales to protect marine conservation zones. Again, I have been approached by the Countryside Council for Wales, which would like to know whether it would be possible for byelaws to control movement, not just in MCZs, but in the areas immediately outside them. That is with particular regard to the disturbance of seabirds and marine mammals. The MCZ may well have been set up to protect them, but they do move. I am thinking, for example, of the gannets that nest on Grassholm and similar areas. The CCW seeks information and clarity on whether byelaws can be made that are not limited to the geographic location of the MCZs but cover areas immediately outside or some distance away from them. It is seeking to protect a particular species and avoid disturbance.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

I shall both disappoint and reassure my hon. Friend. He shows the importance of getting the area—the scope—of the MCZ right, based on the best scientific evidence. Clause 129 sets out the byelaw provisions for the protection of MCZs—for example, to restrict the movement of animals and vessels, to restrict speed and to restrict the anchoring of vessels in an MCZ. There may also be byelaws to restrict the killing or taking of animals and plants in the zone. However, that is within the zone. It is important to get the zone and the network of zones right, so that movement, whether migration of species in the marine environment or the movement of birdlife, can be taken into account. This is a question of designating the geographic limits not only of the individual zone, but of other zones that relate to it. That is where the network becomes important.

As I said, I have to disappoint my hon. Friend in some ways, as we cannot take account of things outside the zone. This clause has to do with the byelaws that apply within a zone. That is where the importance of getting the zone right comes into play. The hope is that if the zones are set up in the right way, they will take account of the factors to which he referred, to the satisfaction of the CCW and others.

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

I seek further clarification. The problems that we are discussing are often seasonal problems, particularly for seabirds when they raft up and so on at certain times of the year. They are mobile species and there may be rafts of seabirds a mile or two away, or perhaps even 10 miles away. My hon. Friend the Minister is saying that because there is a specific geographic designation to the MCZ, a byelaw could not apply outside that specific geographic location.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, but in respect of the seasonal aspect, it is perfectly conceivable—I am not drawing up the MCZs at the moment—that an MCZ could be designated to cover the overlap area that he is talking about and that has byelaws applying to it that relate to the seasonal nature of particular migratory patterns and so on. In effect, we would have an extended MCZ, but byelaws would restrict movement at certain seasons of the year. It is important that the underpinning science takes account not only of the restricted area but of a slightly wider area, in order to reflect such concerns.

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

On a point of order, Mr. Pope. Clause 139 refers to the offences of intentionally or recklessly killing or injuring animals in MCZs and so on. I realise that many members of the Committee are concerned about the disturbance element. Would it not be more appropriate to discuss the disturbance element when debating clause 139 rather than clause 140? I seek your guidance, Mr. Pope, because although the offences are listed in clause 139, the relevant amendment is to clause 140.

Greg Pope (Labour, Hyndburn)

I am grateful for that point of order. As the hon. Gentleman said, we will come to that amendment in the next clause. That will be the correct place for us to have the appropriate debate. It is not necessary to have that debate now, given that we can have it in a few seconds.

Clause 140

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

I beg to move amendment 39, in clause 140, page 95, line 8, leave out ‘kills or injures’ and insert ‘kills, injures or disturbs’.

The amendment would add the word “disturbs” to subsection (2). Although many conservation bodies welcome the general offence of damaging the protected features of the MCZ, there is a desire to explore the possibility that the provision as currently drafted is insufficient to protect the features of MCZs as intended. The worry is that the provision will provide a loophole unless “disturbs” is added, as features and animals that should be protected may be disturbed; they will not be as well protected as was originally intended. As drafted, the general offence still does not cover disturbance to the features of the MCZ. Disturbance can be very damaging, but it is much harder, on a case-by-case basis, to prove that that damage exists than that disturbance has occurred.

The clause should refer to disturbance of any animal in an MCZ that is a protected feature of that MCZ. As the Minister will know, that would also have the benefit of bringing the Bill into line with the provisions for sites of special scientific interest and those in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

There is concern that marine mammals that are identified—this is the critical factor—as a protected feature of an MCZ, such as cetaceans, dolphins, porpoises, seabirds and sea ducks, will be disturbed and move away from the source of the disturbance. That may cause them to suffer because they will be unable to feed adequately or will come under increasing stress, and the likelihood of their continuing to thrive will diminish. Such things can have a lasting negative impact on the animals’ ability to grow, reproduce and survive.

Disturbance can be caused by a wide variety of marine activities, such as fishing, dredging, marine construction, and oil and gas exploration and production. In some cases, it can even be caused by certain recreational activities, such as swimming, diving and boating. There are even cases where cetaceans have been disturbed by boats coming too close to them. On Second Reading, I argued that there is a case for looking carefully at the impact of sonar, particularly in the case of cetaceans, and the Minister may like to reflect on that. We would not want to constrain the activities or training carried out by our Ministry of Defence vessels, but it is worth looking at the impact that some of those activities might have on cetaceans. For seabirds, disturbance can be particularly damaging at certain sensitive times. For example, when birds are feeding, roosting, breeding or moulting, they will be more sensitive to the effects of disturbance.

It is important to note that including “disturbance” in subsection (2) does not turn all activities that could result in disturbance into offences. If the disturbance affects only animals that are not named features of the MCZ, or if it will not significantly hinder the achievement of the MCZ’s conservation objectives, no offence will have been committed. The amendment is not, therefore, a simple, all-encompassing provision that makes any kind of disturbance an offence.

It is welcome that clause 129 can be used to prohibit disturbance to animals or plants of any description in an MCZ. That is an improvement on previous nature conservation byelaws and it is broader than the inclusion of “disturbance” in the general offence would be, because it refers to animals or plants and does not rely on the subject of the disturbance being a named feature of the MCZ.

Although the ability to control disturbance in MCZs through byelaws is very useful, some conservation bodies do not consider the provisions to be sufficient as currently drafted. In particular, byelaw provisions under the Bill extend to only 12 nautical miles. Without byelaw-making powers, there is still a need for protection of offshore waters from activities that cause disturbances that pose a risk to the MCZ objectives. Therefore, the system clearly needs to be complemented with the general offence in waters beyond 12 nautical miles.

There is a concern that it is hard to prove that disturbance has occurred and the provision will be particularly hard to enforce, as I have mentioned, beyond 12 nautical miles. However, it will be equally hard to prove that disturbance has occurred in contravention to a specific byelaw, unless the byelaw imposes a blanket ban on a particular activity thought to be capable of causing a disturbance. In many cases, it would be disproportionate to completely ban an activity on the grounds that, if done recklessly or irresponsibly, it could cause a disturbance. Enforcement in the marine area, particularly in offshore waters, is clearly going to be challenging, but that is a universal problem for all offshore activities. I know that organisations which are concerned about strengthening the clause do not believe that that should be used as an excuse to avoid regulation in the marine environment.

I hope that the Minister will appreciate that the purpose of the amendment is to both probe the Government’s intentions and to seek clarity. Given the current drafting of the clause, there is a deep and justifiable concern that a disturbance of the type I have described could have a knock-on effect and damage those features that the MCZs have been created to protect. They will be damaged not simply through the killing or injuring of any animal, as the animals may well, as it were, experience their own demise, or be significantly injured by the kind of disturbing activities that I have described.

Do all the Government agencies that advised the Minister on the drafting of the clause, particularly Natural England, take the view that, as currently drafted, it is sufficient to provide adequate protection to animals in designated MCZs? Are there more exacting demands in having to prove that an animal has been killed or, in law, having to prove a definition of “injury”, rather than the offence of “disturbance”? That will clearly require a much higher evidential level of definition. I look forward to the Minister’s response. This is an important area, which clearly needs to be explored further.

Richard Benyon (Conservative, Newbury)

This is an interesting amendment, which comes down to the definition of the word “disturbed”—the previous word in clause 140 is “recklessly”. “Disturbed” has a very wide descriptive meaning. I am constantly disturbed by the thoughts and actions of my children—and sometimes by those of my colleagues—but that is not relevant in this context. We have to think about the impact on an MCZ, because we could be limiting actions in an MCZ in the wrong sort of way.

I am inclined to support the hon. Member for St. Ives, provided that we do not damage the kind of activities that we want to see in MCZs. For example, tourism, even eco-tourism, could in certain circumstances be described as disturbing wildlife in the marine environment. Certain sustainable fishing activities, such as recreational angling, could be permissible in or close to a MCZ, but they could be described in a pedantic following of the letter of the law as damaging. I support the hon. Gentleman’s intention and look forward to the Minister’s words on the impact that it will have, because I do not want unintended consequences in the protection provided to MCZs.

David Jones (Conservative, Clwyd West)

I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the representations that I have received from the CCW—I am sure that the hon. Member for Carmarthen, West and South Pembrokeshire will be pleased to hear that he does not have the monopoly on correspondence with that body. The CCW is an adviser to the Welsh Assembly Government on the Bill and other matters. It takes the view that clause 142 should be expanded to include disturbance of an MCZ. Its point, which the hon. Member for St. Ives has also made, is that that would be more intellectually coherent, because it would create a degree of uniformity with offences relating to SSSIs. Since we are talking about conservation of sensitive sites—whether marine or land-based—it is appropriate to introduce intellectual coherence into the Bill. I am interested to hear what the Minister has to say about it.

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

I will not repeat what the hon. Member for Clwyd, West has said. We have both received the same communications, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire has also received correspondence from the CCW.

I am chairman of the Pembrokeshire coastal forum, which was set up nearly 10 years ago as a secretariat to bring together the public and private sectors, statutory agencies, individuals and charities to look at coastal issues in Pembrokeshire. At our AGM on Monday, I asked members whether the issue of disturbance should be in the Bill. They have all been avidly watching the progress of the Bill and all said reference should be made to disturbance.

The Pembrokeshire coastal forum includes the outdoor charter group—a range of 26 companies offering activity-based holidays on the Pembrokeshire coast. They have come together to produce the outdoor charter, which is aimed at protection and minimising disturbance. They are not just companies that take tourists round Ramsey island to see porpoise and seals. There are also organisations offering surfing and coasteering, field study council people—anyone who is involved in activity on the coast. It is a voluntary charter, and it has been self-policed and self-regulated surprisingly well, but the charter group admits that even its members occasionally cause unnecessary disturbance, which is sorted out between them.

The problem is that there will be literally hundreds, and at times thousands, of other individuals on the coast—on jet skis, for example—who are not there under the guidance of one of those companies, and they can, and do, cause serious disturbance. The charter group feels that the voluntary code, which has been worked out over the years and appears to be working well, should be given some teeth, so that it can be used to regulate those individuals or groups not currently under the guidance of the signatories to the outdoor charter and so that enforcement can take place. It feels that we need to do more on that disturbance issue.

I know that that is not on the face of the Bill and am sure that the Minister will say that it can be included in byelaws, but I want an assurance that that matter will definitely be taken seriously, because disturbance can be just as damaging as the injuring, or even killing, of a marine mammal. If there is constant disturbance from jet skis during the seal pupping season, not only could pups die as a result, but that area might not be used by seals as a pupping site again. Disturbance is just as important an issue as the killing or injuring of marine animals, or any sort of animal. I would be grateful if the Minister were to respond positively and assure people across the board that disturbance is seen as an important issue, because people feel that it should be in the Bill.

Roger Williams (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

The Times reports today, hon. Members will be pleased to note, that Migaloo, a white humpback whale, is on its migratory path from the Antarctic to the Great Barrier reef for the breeding season and has been spotted off the coast of Australia. The Australian environment ministry has said that no one may approach within 500 m of the whale or fly lower than 600 m above it. I draw Members’ attention to that to demonstrate that the question of disturbance is one not only for the British Government, but for Governments across the world who are trying to protect their marine animals—yes, I have been lobbied by the CCW, but I thought that I would broaden the debate and give it an international flavour. [Interruption.] I have put a smile on Members’ faces this morning.

The management of MCZs could include details on what would be considered disturbance and what could be considered injury, or some other type of activity. I completely support the amendment and draw to the Committee’s attention to CCW’s views on the issue. The proposal has been imposed in other parts of the world, so it would not be new for Britain, but it is something from which we could gain experience and which we could implement in this country through the Bill.

Ann McKechin (Labour, Glasgow North)

Good morning, Mr Pope. I welcome the contributions that have been made in this interesting debate.

Four features that need careful examination define the debate: one is the definition of disturbance, as the hon. Member for Newbury has mentioned; the second is what level of fines is appropriate; the third is what is proportionate to the offence; and the fourth, which is quite important, is the standard of proof.

I draw hon. Members’ attention to subsection (2)(b) which specifies that someone is guilty of an offence under the clause if, at the time of doing the act in question,

“the person knows, or ought to have known, that the feature to which the act relates is in, or forms part of, an MCZ”.

That is a high standard of proof, relating to what we call, in law, mens rea. It is necessary to show the mental intention behind the act, as well as the physical act itself. That high standard of proof would, by definition, limit the prospects for prosecution, in comparison with the much lower standards of proof found in byelaws.

The Joint Committee that considered the Bill stated in paragraph 79 of its recommendations:

“We recommend that the Government insert the general offence referred to in the Marine Bill White Paper of damaging or destroying any species or habitat or other feature, for which a site has been designated an MCZ.”

The Government have done precisely that. We have reinstated the general offence provision, which will help to prevent deliberate and reckless acts of damage to a marine conservation zone.

I want to explain why we and the Joint Committee did not want to widen the general offence to include disturbance. Acts of disturbance will be an occasional and serious problem, as my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen, West and South Pembrokeshire has pointed out, but they are fundamentally different from deliberate or reckless damage. It is important that the Bill reflects that, because, as my hon. Friend has said, many incidents of disturbance are sorted out without prosecution by voluntary codes. That is somewhat different from incidents involving reckless damage or death. There is a difference in the definition, depending on the incident.

The matter comes down, first, to the difference in severity of the impact of what is done. Disturbance might, for example, be caused by people straying too close to a group of animals through innocent curiosity, although I think that if I saw a humpback whale I would move well back. Alternatively, the disturbance might come about because of an organised wildlife watching trip or through the use of machinery that emits a loud noise. A single act of disturbance is likely to have a temporary effect and will often be entirely accidental. In contrast, intentional or reckless acts of damage are likely to have longer-term and more permanent effects.

Secondly, what constitutes disturbance will depend on the protected features and conservation objectives of each MCZ. Byelaws provide a proportionate and effective mechanism to target specific activities in local areas and accordingly are the right way to control acts of disturbance in a MCZ, as opposed to areas of special scientific interest, which are in highly protected areas. MCZs often cover a wider spectrum of protection needs. That is why clause 129(3)(e) specifically states that byelaws may be made to prohibit or restrict the

“killing, taking, destruction, molestation or disturbance of animals of plants of any description in the MCZ”.

To give an example of that, an MCZ might be designated to ensure the protection of sea birds. The byelaw provisions in the Bill will allow us to provide targeted protection against disturbance and to impose movement restrictions at certain times of the year. Breeding seasons and nesting periods, which various hon. Members have alluded to this morning, are also relevant. Restrictions would thus be the minimum necessary and would be drafted to specify the offences and to be clearly understood by everyone.

Thirdly, byelaws will often be the most effective means of protecting a site from the general offence. That is because byelaws create strict liability offences. Prosecution under a byelaw will depend on proving not that an anticipated result occurred, but that a prohibited activity, such as movement within a protected area, took place. In contrast, prosecution under the general offence would depend on being able to prove that the defendant intentionally or recklessly carried out a prohibited act that significantly hindered—or could have significantly hindered—MCZ objectives. That is, again, a high level of proof. The hurdle is lower for proving breach of a byelaw.

We are fully committed to preventing disturbance within MCZs, where there is scientific evidence to suggest that such an approach is required. I do not want to pre-empt the scientific evidence by suggesting that all conservation zones will need to be protected from disturbance, but I will reassure hon. Members on various points raised in this debate.

The hon. Member for St. Ives correctly pointed out that the byelaws extend to only 12 nautical miles. However, clause 124 contains a duty on public authorities to ensure that they must do their best to further the achievement of conservation objectives, including those relating to the impacts of sonar and other activities. Activities beyond 12 miles are generally licensable and controlled through the mechanism in part 4 of the Bill. I assure him that sonar can be regulated through the licensing provisions and the nature of conservation byelaws. All public authorities, including the Ministry of Defence, will be subject to the byelaw restrictions in inshore areas and are under a duty in inshore and offshore waters to further conservation objectives. Under the Bill, nature conservation bodies can offer guidance on that.

The hon. Member for St. Ives also mentioned Natural England’s evidence. Natural England has stated that in the vast majority of cases in SSSIs, writing to people to advise them that they may be in breach of byelaws and subject to a fine is the most effective way to deter further breaches.

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

On the effectiveness of existing regulations, will the Minister clarify whether the introduction of the Bill, as drafted, will either diminish or remove existing levels of protection available through the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, as amended? I understand that last year a conviction was successfully brought against individuals in a case involving the disturbance of cetaceans off the Kent coast. It would be interesting to know whether the Bill will lessen the ability of authorities to obtain such convictions.

Ann McKechin (Labour, Glasgow North)

I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Bill will not remove protections to that effect contained in existing legislation. It is certainly not our intention to weaken existing protections.

My hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen, West and South Pembrokeshire mentioned the good work of the Pembrokeshire coastal forum. I confirm that the Marine Management Organisation must consult such groups under clause 136(6) and (7). It is certainly our intention—it is implicit—that when it comes to considering byelaws, local organisations on the ground should be fully involved in the consultation on what is best. Their local knowledge will be valuable in that regard.

Accordingly, I believe that the Bill, as it stands, provides a proportionate and flexible way of dealing with disturbance and the right level of sanctions. I hope that on the basis of what I have said, the hon. Member for St. Ives will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

I am grateful to the Minister for her reply. She drew attention in her response, as I did in my opening remarks, to clause 129 and the provisions available there for the creation of byelaws to add further protections in respect of the intentional and reckless disturbance of animals that contributes to their demise. That is reassuring.

A lot of the bodies that are concerned that the Bill, as drafted, does not contain a general offence as proposed in the amendment are worried because achieving the attachment of protection from reckless and intentional disturbance will now depend on the successful introduction of byelaws, with all the various hurdles over which byelaws must inevitably go, including the Secretary of State. The hon. Member for Newbury rightly emphasised that we are not talking about—as the Minister described, I think, in her response—simple, innocent curiosity without the intention to disturb or contribute to the demise of an animal, but about a reckless or intentional disturbance that would have a lasting impact on an animal. I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that a case similar to one that I referred to in an earlier intervention—I shall not mention names, as the matter is on the record—could be dealt with through byelaws, if, for example, there is an intention to protect particular cetaceans within an MCZ.

Ann McKechin (Labour, Glasgow North)

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s comments; he has made some good points. To reiterate what we have already said: we see the MMO as a proactive body. We do not think that there will be any reluctance to create byelaws; the body will have a duty to do so under conservation objectives. Byelaws are implicitly the means to achieve such ends. We anticipate the MMO carrying out exactly the type of activity that the hon. Gentleman has discussed and dealing with the need for protection, which will be the core of its work. I hope that I have reassured the hon. Gentleman.

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

I think that all parties want to see such an organisation—a proactive body that is keen to be responsive to the concerns expressed by stakeholders, including conservation bodies that wish to uphold the principles and objectives of designating an area an MCZ. In the case off the Kent coast, a conviction was successfully enforced on 16 April 2008, and it is worth reflecting on that example.

In the previous year, the two gentlemen who were convicted for that offence had been involved in trying to lift a bottlenose dolphin out of the water by holding on to its dorsal fin. The animal was not injured or killed, but the impact on it was long lasting. The police were called and the men were arrested and charged with recklessly disturbing a dolphin under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, as amended. Our amendment seeks to ensure that reckless and intentional disturbance can ideally be made a general offence, because once a marine conservation zone has been designated, it is clear which features and animals are to be protected.

I have listened to the Minister, and I hope that she will take on board the concerns expressed. Providing that we can be reassured, as the Bill goes through its later stages, that there will be little or no obstruction to legislating for the kind of byelaws that we need to provide that kind of protection, I am happy to have had the debate and probed the issue and to have received the assurances that the Minister has offered so far. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 141

Richard Benyon (Conservative, Newbury)

I beg to move amendment 18, in clause 141, page 96, line 2, at end insert—

‘(3A) It is a defence for a person who is charged with an offence under section 139 to show that that person took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of the offence.’.

It seems at times that we are coming at the Bill from different directions. I do not apologise for that because this is all about getting the balance right. I have been persuaded by many arguments made by some of the organisations lobbying us—both greens and those more concerned with socio-economic factors, which shows the nature of the Bill; we have to ensure that we get the balance right.

In moving the amendment, I hope to debate whether it is appropriate for a breach of a byelaw or order made on an MCZ to be a strict liability offence. Offences of strict liability are those crimes that do not require awareness of one or more elements of the guilty act; therefore, to be convicted, the defendant need not have intended to commit the offence or known that what they were doing was an offence. As the Bill stands, MCZs will clearly have an impact on navigation. They will not necessarily be marked with physical aids, as we discussed earlier this week, so there will not by any buoys or markers on the sea and perhaps not a recording on the relevant navigational charts. In the absence of such demarcation, it seems short-sighted not to include a defence for a person who takes all reasonable precautions and exercises all due diligence to avoid committing the offence. The language reflects that used in clause 104 on marine licensing. Proposed new clause 141(3A) does not need to apply to clause 140 because that relates only to acts committed “intentionally or recklessly”.

The longer I look at the clause, the more concerned I become about the sea-fishing defence in clause 141(4)(a)(i). I know, Mr. Pope, that you do not want me to start a debate that belongs to a later amendment, but this is important. It seems incongruous to whack a yacht or a ship that inadvertently breaks a byelaw in an MCZ with the full force of the law, regardless of it having done all in its power to avoid committing the offence, while those who are fishing and may not have taken reasonable steps to avoid damage, appear to have an instant defence. That is inconsistent. I firmly believe that the majority of fishermen will do all that they can to avoid the offence, but there may be one or two, and they might not be our own fishermen, who come into our waters and damage an MCZ. It is important to look at these matters, and, perhaps in the context of later aspects of the clause, clarify the position when there is no intention to damage an MCZ.

Ann McKechin (Labour, Glasgow North)

When I first saw the amendment, I thought back many years ago to when I was studying law at university and the wonderful case from, I think, the 19th century. While a chap was away at sea, a law was changed at Westminster. He came back, went onshore and duly committed the said statutory offence. He gave as a defence the fact that he could not have known about the change in the law. That was absolutely correct. Regrettably, the finding was that ignorance of the law was not an excuse, although it is probably a pretty good plea in mitigation.

To return to the amendment, most activities in the sea are carefully regulated. Some, however, have traditionally been considered to have such a low impact on the environment that there is no need to regulate them. We now know that in some circumstances even these activities can have an adverse impact on conservation objectives—we are talking in the main about recreational activities such as boating, jet skiing, which my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen, West and South Pembrokeshire mentioned earlier, and diving. The byelaw provisions for this part of the Bill are intended to enable us to regulate those activities as necessary.

Offences under MMO byelaws will be strict liability offences. We had an interesting discussing on the previous amendment about proof, successful prosecutions and the consequent deterrent effect. This is consistent with treatment of some other offences elsewhere under the Bill such as byelaws made by inshore fisheries and conservation authorities and other legislation for regulatory offences. Examples of possible offences are speeding, anchoring in a prohibited area or taking prohibited species when diving. I entirely understand where the aim of the amendment and the concerns raised by the Royal Yachting Association. We do not want to make criminals of those who take all reasonable steps to comply with the law.

Linda Gilroy (Labour, Plymouth, Sutton)

When the hon. Member for Newbury was making the case for the amendment I could see that he was trying to strike a balance. He drew attention to a certain inconsistency with other parts of the Bill. Rather than reject it outright, would my hon. Friend the Minister take the amendment away and have another look at it?

Ann McKechin (Labour, Glasgow North)

I hope that my later comments will reassure my hon. Friend. If an offence was not clear or a person cannot reasonably have known he was committing the offence, the chances of securing a conviction would be very low. It would be very unlikely to be in the public interest to prosecute. At the same time, we do not think that the Bill is the right place to include due diligence provisions, because it is better addressed through the secondary legislation itself.

The power to make byelaws is broad enough to enable the MMO to provide a due diligence defence in specific byelaws where that is appropriate. Other relevant areas of legislation have already taken this approach. For example, some harbour byelaws and the byelaws for lakes such as Windermere both specify the geographical area in which they apply, similar to the way in which the MMO byelaws will, and contain a due diligence defence. I can tell the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend that if a due diligence defence is necessary and appropriate in a byelaw, it will be included. I hope that provides sufficient reassurance for the hon. Gentleman to enable him to withdraw his amendment.

Richard Benyon (Conservative, Newbury)

In a sense, the debate on this amendment will be balanced by a debate that we shall shortly have on another amendment. It is important to lay down a marker showing that there are legitimate activities that take place in our seas and that there are industries that we want to encourage for a whole range of reasons. We want to be absolutely certain that we are not creating an unfair and inconsistent law. The Minister made a good point about developing this in secondary legislation. I am nervous about setting that precedent through the Bill, because it is subjective and dependent on all sorts of other factors. However, I shall withdraw the amendment so we can move on to the next debate. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

I beg to move amendment 35, in clause 141, page 96, line 11, at end insert—

‘(c) the act occurred on the seaward side of the 0-6 nautical mile fisheries zone in a location where European vessels have fishing rights.’.

The amendment stands in my name and the names of my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West and of the hon. Member for Broxbourne. It touches on a very contentious issue that was raised on Second Reading by Members on both sides of the House. The Bill contains a blanket defence for causing damage within an MCZ if that was the result of sea fishing and if there was no reasonable way of avoiding it. I think that everyone was surprised that the Bill contains such a broad defence. Many organisations have contacted us to raise their concerns and have acted constructively to try to address the issue, which is what my amendment, too, seeks to do. We recognise that, at this stage, no substantial changes can be made in areas covered exclusively by the common fisheries policy. However, the amendment, or something similar, would address the situation in inshore fishing areas—the nought to 6 nautical mile zones—and in 6to 12 nautical mile areas with no track record of foreign vessels being allowed to fish.

My amendment might not be worded perfectly, but I think that the Minister understands the need to address the problem. Marine habitats have been drastically damaged by some sea fishing activities. We have mentioned in previous debates the effect of scallop dredging in Cardigan bay, but there are many other examples around the UK of the activities, often not of British fisherman—certainly not of British inshore fishermen—but of fisherman from other countries, that have devastated habitats, not just of other species, but of their target species. Such areas are, in effect, deserts. I could give other examples from around the world, such as the Grand Banks off Newfoundland, where over-fishing removed a whole stock that for centuries provided massive amounts of fish for northern Europe and north America.

My amendment would make it clear that the blanket defence is not acceptable and that sea fishing has to be compliant with the requirements of the MCZs. We could address the problem by limiting the CFP to specific areas. Although the amendment might not be worded perfectly, I hope that the Minister will respond positively.

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

I want to comment on the primary objective in the identification of an offence. The thinking behind exempting fishing from prosecution might have been that, given that the purpose of fishing is to target a particular species, or species in a mixed fishery, it would be difficult to prove that damage to a feature or animal within an MCZ was either intentional or the result of reckless behaviour on the part of the people using the fishery. Would the hon. Gentleman like to respond to that in relation to mid-water trawling, for example? He has mentioned scallop dredging, but what about fishing activities such as mid-water trawling, which are clearly intended to target a particular species, but in which there is no intentionality or recklessness to damage an MCZ feature through that activity?

Greg Pope (Labour, Hyndburn)

Order. I gently remind the Committee that interventions must be brief and to the point.

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s point. Certainly, mid-water trawling should not cause problems on the sea bed, but he knows as well as I do that some techniques cause significant damage to the sea bed. Some forms of trawling use a chain, which churns up the surface of the sea bed, causing enormous damage to areas of sea grass and maerl. I accept that certain techniques should not cause damage; they are fine, and are not a problem. It is the techniques that do cause damage that are a problem. The argument about reasonableness is interesting, because, often, alternative techniques could be used. I recently saw a demonstration of people fishing for razor fish, or razor clams—this will be a short digression, Mr. Pope—by passing an electric current over the sea bed. For some reason, that causes them to pop up, and they are then harvested without any damage to the sea bed. There are therefore other techniques for targeting particular species.

Returning to my amendment, we need to address this issue, because the blanket defence is too widely drawn. I am sure that we can come up with a better wording, but if we do not address this issue, we risk undermining the concept of MCZs, because commercial fishing is likely to cause the most damage within them, and if we allow this widely drawn blanket defence, we risk undermining the whole process.

Charles Walker (Conservative, Broxbourne)

I rise to support the amendment. I served on the Joint Committee on the Draft Marine Bill, and it was of great concern to me that while we had the best intentions of conserving marine areas and sites of special scientific interest and protecting them from over-exploitation, we were operating under the aegis of the European common fisheries policy, which would allow European fishermen to continue trawling those areas, creating mayhem and destruction at will.

I am extremely pleased that the hon. Gentleman has tabled the amendment, because we are in a position to protect not only inshore areas—nought to 6 miles from the shore—but areas that are 6 to 12 miles from the shore, where there is no traditional access for European fishery vessels. The Bill currently provides too much of a blanket defence. Anybody who fishes in the marine conservation zones will be able to say, “There is no other method or way that I can do it, but I’m terribly sorry that I have caused this damage and taken non-target species.” In a sense, one could drive a coach and horses through this piece of legislation. If MCZs are to mean anything, they have to provide sanctuary and safety for the species, plants and corals within them.

Of course, we do not want to create a situation in which nothing can happen in MCZs and no types of fishing can occur in them. We need to ensure that sustainable fisheries that do not cause damage are allowed to continue, because if MCZs are to have the support of the public and the communities who border them, we have to allow those communities to derive some commercial benefit from them. We also have to strike a balance between commercial fishing and low-intensity recreational fishing. It is more than possible for recreational fishing to take place in the areas under discussion without causing damage. Of course, the captains of boats that embark on recreational fishing will need to ensure that their anchors do not drag through areas of special interest and cause damage, but that is manageable. Naturally, anyone who derives a sustainable living from conservation zones will want to ensure their future integrity.

I will not try your patience, Mr. Pope, because I do not want to stray too far from the amendment. If I do, please rule me out of order, but I do not think that I will do so. We accept that MCZs will provide important nursery areas for endangered species. For example, we have a growing bass fishery around our shores, but we need to ensure that there are places where bass can breed in relative safety. There is a danger in that it is difficult to have a nursery area where commercial fishing takes place, because, even though the bass may not be the targeted species, they will end up in the nets of fishing trawlers and will ultimately be discarded. The bass may go back into the sea, but they will be dead. We therefore need to make sure that the MCZs provide nursery areas for endangered species that can then go on to populate the surrounding areas, which will be of benefit to commercial fishermen. The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Carmarthen, West and South Pembrokeshire therefore offers a win-win situation.

In conclusion, we need to think globally, but act locally. We are globally aware. For example, the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire, which is in south Wales, not New South Wales, is very concerned about whales—that was very tortuous—on all sorts of levels. At a time when the World Wide Fund for Nature and others are bringing to our attention the parlous state of tuna stocks around the world, and the need to protect them and to provide safe areas for them to breed where they cannot be persecuted, it would be a rum deal if this country could not create a few MCZs that provide the necessary levels of protection for our own marine species to breed in safety. As I have said, they will be able breed in safety, the young will grow, and they will then be able to populate the wider area to the benefit of the species, to the benefit of animals that prey on the species and to the benefit of commercial fishermen. I support the amendment, and even if the Government have to go away and think about it, I hope that they will return on Report with something that we can all support.

Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)

If a small plane took off from Southampton airport, flew over the New Forest national park and dropped a large net in the middle at tree-top height in order to catch pigeons to sell in the restaurants of Southampton, and in doing so uprooted a load of trees and caught thrushes, blue tits and starlings, and then returned to Southampton airport, emptied the catch, discarded all the thrushes, blue tits and starlings, took the pigeons to the restaurants, apologised for the fact that it had uprooted a lot of trees, but said that that had been necessary in order to catch the pigeons, there would be a national outcry. There might also be a headline in the local paper asking why the trees had been uprooted.

That is exactly what we appear to be enabling to happen, in a nautical sense, between nought and 6 miles in MCZs off our shores, but because we cannot see it in the way that I have just described, our attention may not be as concentrated on it. I accept that there are areas outside the 6-mile zone where it is difficult to take action. However, if we can state in the Bill that it is not a defence in the nought to 6-mile zone for someone to say that they churned up the seabed in pursuit of fishing, we will have done something very positive for the sound passage of the Bill.

Even if the wording of the amendment is not exactly right, I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to pay close attention to what it says, because it is right. If he is able today at least to say that he will consider the matter and perhaps return at a later stage of the Bill with something that works as far as the purpose of the amendment is concerned, hon. Members on both sides of the Committee will be reassured that the Bill will be as good as it can be when it reaches the statute book.

Russell Brown (Labour, Dumfries and Galloway)

I rise to support my colleagues and the amendment. However, I can tell you, Mr. Pope, that I will not be as elaborate and descriptive as my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test in making the case. The point that he made is absolutely valid, although obviously we are considering the nautical and marine aspect of what he described. I am anxious about the matter. As other hon. Members said, we must address the issue of a blanket defence. In supporting the amendment, I recognise that it is never easy to convince our good colleagues on the Front Bench that an amendment is 100 per cent. spot-on and that we should win the case. However, if we are sincere and genuine about the value of marine conservation zones, we must ensure that whatever else is in the Bill, we are not doing something that will undermine the very idea behind the Bill.

Certain aspects of the clause seem somewhat anomalous. In view of that, I shall echo the sentiments of my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test and hope that if Ministers do not accept what has been proposed, they will at least take the issue away for further serious consideration, because it is a serious issue.

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

The amendment clearly implies that the geographical target is between the 6 and 12-mile zone, unless I have misunderstood it, yet many of the comments so far relate to areas within the 6-mile zone. I want to make it clear that we are talking specifically about the 6 to 12-mile zone being affected. I want to understand why the amendment would not deal with any area either within the 6-mile zone or beyond the 12-mile zone.

Russell Brown (Labour, Dumfries and Galloway)

The hon. Gentleman is correct. I shall finish by re-emphasising to the Ministers that if they are not minded to accept the amendment, I sincerely hope that they will take the issue away for further serious consideration at a later stage.

Richard Benyon (Conservative, Newbury)

One frustration of the Bill is that we could end up securing and protecting large areas of our seas from our own fishermen, but fishermen with historic fishing rights from abroad will be able to come in and fish more or less as they please. This matter must be seen in the context of CFP reform. We have to reach an understanding across Europe that the only way successfully to manage fisheries is to control them. A much greater degree of control of our seas out to 12 miles must be the ultimate aim of CFP reform as we approach 2012.

One solution that must have crossed Members’ minds would be to remove subsection (4), but I understand why such an amendment has not been moved. I have heard informally that the Minister will say that the clause must remain part of the Bill because its provisions are a fundamental part of European law, and that the Government do not want to contravene it. We want the Government to assure us that they have heard our serious concerns and are taking steps to secure MCZs from the few fishermen who might be inclined to misbehave in those areas. We should not protect our marine areas only from our own fishermen; those from other parts of the EU who enter an MCZ and break the law by damaging the area should be guilty of a criminal offence.

Charles Walker (Conservative, Broxbourne)

Does my hon. Friend agree that if that is not the case, the Bill will be nothing more than a few nice ideas, and that it will remain so? Our fishermen will be forced to sit on their hands, and there will be a great sense of animosity as European vessels plunder the conservation zones.

Richard Benyon (Conservative, Newbury)

We must not put all fishermen in the same bracket. We shall come later to an amendment tabled by the hon. Member for St. Ives that refers to coastal communities. Many coastal communities are hanging on by their fingertips, so we should be protecting those people in a vast social endeavour in order to secure their viability.

My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne is right that our fishermen could be restrained; they want to fish in an entirely proper fashion, and they want their children and their grandchildren to become fishermen and harvest the seas in a sustainable fashion. The risk is that restrictions are being placed on them, but not on fishermen from abroad with historic fishing rights. It is vital that the Government clarify the matter.

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

I wish to add a few remarks to this important debate. It is a subject to which I drew attention on Second Reading. We need to balance what we are trying to achieve in the Bill—its primary purpose is the promotion of marine conservation—and ensuring that our coastal communities, particularly those that depend upon the fishing industry for their commercial future, are maintained. It is must be done with care.

The amendment clearly does not address the sentiment expressed by those who are promoting it. From the geographical point of view, if one wants to ensure that fishing is not exempted from the provisions of the clause, the intention—the sentiment—must be to ensure that they are applied as widely as possible. It should go from the coast to the median line, or even out to the 200-mile limit. I understand and entirely sympathise with the sentiment behind the amendment. I am sure that the Minister will say that the CFP would clearly come into play, and a lot of the intentions would need to be achieved through international, member-state-wide, European negotiation. However, simply restricting the measure to the 6 to 12-mile zone, as the amendment would, would be rather odd. Perhaps we will have the opportunity to come back to the issue.

A view that that has underpinned many of the remarks that have been made is that the fishing industry is of one opinion on everything, but there is a lot of conflict among fishermen regarding different techniques. For example, scallop dredging is clearly in conflict with lots of other fishing activities.

Linda Gilroy (Labour, Plymouth, Sutton)

I hope the hon. Gentleman agrees that continental fishermen, like our own fishermen, have a great interest in conservation and they are increasingly co-operating. Does he think that the sort of set-up that we are trying to bring about with the Bill prepares us for those sorts of discussions with other European countries?

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

I think that that is right. The intention must be to ensure that such negotiations draw out the best views from other member states. Some in the fishing industry say that the use of scallop dredgers and heavy beams is like heavily ploughing an area of land again and again.

Charles Walker (Conservative, Broxbourne)

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the amendment would allow the promotion of best practice in MCZs? Perhaps we will have to help certain fishermen to change their methods, and we should support them. Our seas are under huge threat, and if we are to have a voice at international level, we have to be seen to be making progress in those parts of the ocean where we can influence fishing practices.

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

I agree and have no difficulty with that. When the Minister responds, perhaps this afternoon, I should like some reassurance that we are talking about the provision of byelaws, which are currently available to sea fisheries committees, to police the conflict between different fishing techniques and to take into account the impact of one fishing technique on the marine biodiversity of an area. It is important that the provisions focus on the most destructive and least selective techniques, so we need to look at the clause again.

I return to the point I made in an intervention on the hon. Member for Carmarthen, West and South Pembrokeshire. In bringing fishing within the provision, one has to demonstrate that the activity is reckless or intentionally damaging, which is the most difficult thing to do. Damage to the marine environment is caused by certain fishing activities and techniques, which the fishing industry fully acknowledges, but we need to establish that the intention is to cause damage. I do not think we can do that. It is a worthwhile debate, but I hope it can be balanced.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

It has been a worthwhile debate. The issue was raised extensively on Second Reading by a number of Members, and it has now been raised by seven hon. Members in major speeches and interventions in this debate. I understand what they are saying.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

I was saying this morning that the debate goes to the heart of how we manage not only our fisheries but our marine environment. It is undoubtedly true that the Government’s thrust is to stop keeping those two entities in the silos that have held them for so long—one being the common fisheries policy and the other being our marine conservation efforts. Part of the long-term thrust will be achieved through our existing proposals. I led the way in a recent debate in the European Union, and the argument was partly about bringing together the marine environment and fisheries and removing them from those silos. Ultimately, of course, that was the focus of much of this morning’s debate.

Today’s debate was good. As I said, the subject was discussed by several Members on Second Reading and by seven members of the Committee this morning, ably led by my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen, West and South Pembrokeshire. The hon. Member for Newbury, who leads for the Opposition, said that it is right to reflect on the fact that many parts of our fishing fleet operate sustainably and take an increasingly responsible approach, so we should not target them all for fishing recklessly or without due care.

One point touched upon this morning was that we must ensure that the rules apply equally to fishermen from the UK and from elsewhere; and—a point that I shall return to in a moment—to fishermen working in different zones. We do not want rules for those who fish out to 6 or 12 miles and another for those who fish beyond that limit. Let me explain why.

I compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West on his ingenious amendment. It is an attempt to deal with the question of UK fisheries and others, but it produces another complication. The amendment would limit the defence set out in clause 141(4) to those areas of interest to other EU member states. Let me turn that on its head. In effect, we would remove a defence for some of our fishermen, but those fishing on the other side of the line would be treated differently. Vessels from other member states would have a special status; they would always benefit from a defence that many UK fishermen could not.

I firmly believe that we should do all that we can to protect our marine conservation zones, but that is not an equitable way of going about it. As was said this morning, we should not penalise our inshore fleet while larger offshore vessels remain unaffected. Fishermen need clarity about what they can and cannot do right across the boundaries. That is one reason for including the sea fishing defence.

More important, however, the amendment will not achieve what is sought. Through inshore fisheries and conservation authority byelaws, we are able to regulate fishing in the area between 0 and 6 nautical miles when necessary. Similarly, we can introduce fisheries orders under the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967, under which only UK fishermen have fishing rights without reference to Brussels. We intend to use both types of instrument when there is good evidence that it is necessary to protect MCZs. If fishing practices are likely to cause significant harm to MCZs, we will regulate them; and we will be able to prosecute offenders.

The sea fisheries defence does not have to be the complete disaster that many suggest. It is available only to those who can show that damage was done in the course of or in connection with sea fishing—and, as important, that the effect of the fishing could not reasonably have been avoided. That is the key. Why is the condition that the effect of the act, the damage, could not have reasonably been avoided so important? It is important because if the damage could have reasonably been avoided, the defence does not apply.

Let me give an example. A person cannot rely on this defence if he is fishing using illegal gear. We talked earlier about the advances that have been made in the Scottish and English fleets and in other parts of the UK; much better gear is being used to avoid certain stocks and so on. However, if a fisherman was using illegal gear and as a result the damage was greater, he could not rely on this defence.

I understand the motivation behind the argument; we will take into the negotiations on reform of the CFP later this year. We have to make real changes there if we are going to take a step change forward. As I said at the outset, this is to do with integrating marine management with fisheries management. Having them in separate silos with different rules and regulations applying is complete anathema. We have to resolve this, but we need to do so in a way that does not disadvantage one part of the fleet, particularly inshore fishermen.

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

We are talking about the six-mile zone limit particularly in relation to fisheries management. The Minister will be aware that in my part of the world inshore crabbers lay their pots along the six-mile zone, sometimes beyond it or well within it. As a result they often have their gear towed away by foreign vessels that are sweeping within the six-mile zone. It is an area of conflict, and the relationship with fishing states that are operating very much on the limits of that zone should be taken into consideration.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

I agree entirely. The motivation behind the amendment is right, but we need to act in a way that is equitable and proportionate. It is an intelligent and ingenious amendment that tries to avoid the situation where only UK fishermen are affected by the removal of the sea fisheries defence and our European neighbours do not have to comply. The amendment finesses that, but it would mean that our fleet out to a certain range would be disadvantaged, compared with those who fish slightly beyond it. That seems inequitable.

Martin Salter (Labour, Reading West)

I thank the Minister for his kind words and I apologise for my absence this morning. I accept that the amendment is a probing amendment. Can he tell us what he proposes to do to persuade us not to press it to a Division, rather than just telling us that it will be swept up in a general reform of the common fisheries policy?

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

I see the strength of feeling in the Committee and the recognition that this issue will need to be resolved, but it needs to be resolved in a clear and equitable way. I hope the Committee recognises that the Government share the ambition to get the necessary reform that will apply not only to our own fleet but to everybody who fishes in common seas, as well. I want to make it absolutely clear that removing the sea fisheries defence as a whole would leave us in clear breach of our EU obligations. There are no ifs or buts about that. It would be illegal for the UK Government to legislate in that way; it would be wide open to infraction proceedings.

However, I listened carefully to the debate this morning and to the interventions. Powerful points have been made and I can see that concern is deeply felt right across the Committee. On reflection, therefore, I am prepared to consider what more we can do to address the position, which I myself find less than ideal. I should like to find a way to get rid of the sea fisheries defence in an equitable way that is consistent with EU obligations as soon as possible. I cannot make any promises at the moment, because I need to talk to colleagues in Whitehall and, importantly, in the devolved Administrations. I hope to be able to return on Report with a helpful way forward.

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

I listened carefully to the Minister, and he seems to accept that the Bill does not address the issue correctly, that the blanket defence is too widely drawn and that something needs to be done about it. He argues that we cannot get rid of a whole part of the clause, because he would face infraction proceedings from the Commission. I understand that argument. He also argues that we have to be equitable. The amendment’s phrasing recognises that there is already a difference beyond the six-mile limit, as well as beyond the 12-mile limit. In other words, as the hon. Member for St. Ives has identified, no EU-flagged vessel should fish within the six-mile limit, but they do. There is inequity, because we have different rules in relation to the six-mile and 12-mile limits, so that is an issue.

The Minister has offered some nice words and has admitted that something needs to be done, but I am concerned about the timing. He referred to byelaws that can be put in place to address the issue in some way. When are they likely to be implemented? He also referred to another way of dealing with the matter through reform of the CFP. When is that likely to have any practical effect? I should be interested to hear the Minister’s response, because, judging by what he has said, he is moving in the right direction, but people remain concerned about the practical way in which the issue is going to be addressed, and about the timing of any proposed changes.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

My hon. Friend’s comments are valid, because people want some certainty that the issue can be addressed through byelaws or through wider reform of the CFP. We have made clear our views on the way in which the CFP should be reformed, and I have made it clear today that the issue under discussion must form part of that. On the time scale for CFP reform, which we have already begun—I led the way in the May Council with radical suggestions for reform—we hope that it will be completed in the period up to 2011. Reform would therefore happen before the period in which we have a duty to introduce the ecologically coherent network of marine conservation zones.

If, after further discussion with Committee members and colleagues in the devolved Administrations and Whitehall, it is possible to return at a later stage with something we can agree on that would insert in the Bill a power for the Minister to remove the sea fisheries defence in a way that allows us to avoid infraction—in other words, in a way parallel to what we are doing with CFP reform—that might deliver on the issue before the whole network of marine conservation zones is up and running. In the broad scheme of things, that could be a relatively short-term process, bearing it in mind that the issue has been around for some time.

That is my line of thinking, and I think we will be able to return with something constructive. I am happy to discuss with Committee members what that might be and what would be workable. On that basis, I ask my hon. Friend to consider withdrawing the amendment so that we can address the issue further over the coming weeks.

Martin Salter (Labour, Reading West)

On a point of order, Mr. Gale. May I seek your guidance? Even though I was not here to move the amendment, it stands in my name and it is for me to ask for the Committee’s permission.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Actually, it is down to the hon. Gentleman who moved the motion to seek permission if he wishes to do so.

Martin Salter (Labour, Reading West)

In that case, may I intervene on the Minister?

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot make an intervention because the Minister has sat down. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to speak, I will call him.

Martin Salter (Labour, Reading West)

I shall make a speech in that case—a very short speech; almost an intervention. I will be comforted by the Minister’s reassurance, if he gives it to the Committee loudly and clearly, about something being brought back on Report.

Huw Irranca-Daviesindicated assent.

Martin Salter (Labour, Reading West)

I am pleased by the Minister’s response.

I have just one more point. The Government’s advisor on the marine environment out to the 12-mile nautical limit is Natural England, which has said quite clearly that it wants improvements—strengthening, as it describes it—to be made to the Bill. It would like to see the

“inclusion of damage caused by disturbance to the offence of damaging a marine conservation zone. We would also like to see removal of the blanket defence of sea fishing.”

The consensus view of the Committee is clearly in line with the Government’s marine and conservation advisors. In that regard, we are probably all in the right place.

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

In light of the Minister’s assurances that something will be brought forward on Report, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 1

Richard Benyon (Conservative, Newbury)

May I seek your guidance, Mr. Gale? I have a clause stand part query. We had a very good debate on Tuesday about the planning side of the legislation. The Committee came to a decision that needs to be reflected in this part of the Bill. I very much hope that that will happen so that the Bill is kept balanced.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

I will take that as a point of order. I will allow the Minister to make an observation in a moment. However, if I understand the hon. Gentleman correctly, I have to say that we must consider the clause as it is, not as we would like it to be, because there are no amendments tabled.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

Thank you for giving me some latitude, Mr. Gale. I will try to be helpful and to bring some clarity.

Following our debate and subsequent vote on Tuesday morning, I have had some time to reflect on the strong views of the Committee on some of the proposals, including those put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test. In response to our discussion about furthering sustainable development, which is material to the clauses we are coming to, he said:

“My hon. Friend makes a strong point about the comparative read-across of wording in the Bill, with other pieces of legislation that have or may not have a bearing on it. Schedule 5, however, is only relevant to the Bill and does not read across to other Acts. An amendment to that schedule, particularly to paragraph 7, could reflect the substance of this amendment. If he tabled such an amendment on Report he might secure a great degree of cross-party support.”——[Official Report, Marine and Coastal Access Public Bill Committee, 30 June 2009; c. 18.]

I can report to the Committee what has happened in the very short period since that debate. An amendment of such scale and potential impact would read across to Whitehall Departments and devolved colleagues—of course this is a UK Bill. On reflection, I am minded to take constructively my hon. Friend’s comments and to work with other Departments, devolved colleagues and members of the Committee in the weeks ahead to try to introduce something on Report that will satisfy my hon. Friend.

We need to make sure that the Bill maintains the right balance. The question surrounding a reporting function on the furthering of sustainable development is important, but placing such a duty on the Marine Management Organisation or making it part of a marine policy statement would risk causing an imbalance among the various interests under the Bill.

Mr. Benyonrose—

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Order. The Minister cannot give way on a point of order—and I take it that he is making a point of order. If the Minister has finished, I will be quite prepared to call the hon. Member for Newbury, but the Minister cannot give way.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

My apologies, Mr. Gale.

As I have said, I am willing to work with members of the Committee, and across Whitehall Departments and the devolved Administrations, to consider how to address genuine concerns about furthering sustainable development, but we are looking for an appropriate place to put it in the Bill. Given the constructive comments that were made on Tuesday morning, I urge hon. Members not to imbalance the Bill by imposing such a duty on the MMO or in the MPS. I might have to address those issues at a later stage, but I urge hon. Members to explore the constructive approach, as I am willing to do, of introducing a measure at a later stage, rather than imposing something elsewhere in the Bill.

Mr. Benyonrose—

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Further to that point of order.

Richard Benyon (Conservative, Newbury)

Yes, Mr. Gale.

I am interested by the Minister’s development of the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test, but we have the opportunity of balancing the Bill later and accepting the Committee’s earlier decision. My worry about this part of the Bill is that the MMO will not be as strong as many of us would like. If we do not balance the Bill—I am choosing my words extremely carefully, as I do not want to re-enter a debate that we concluded on Tuesday—we will further weaken it. I want a strong MMO, so I believe that we have to reflect the decision that the Committee made on Tuesday.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

All that might be true, but none of it is a matter for the Chair. When I say that it might be true, I mean that it might not be as well—I do not wish to take sides in this argument. It is for the usual channels to sort this out and to table such amendments as may be necessary. I repeat that it is not a matter for the Chair. The only question for the Committee at the moment is whether clause 1 should stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1

Richard Benyon (Conservative, Newbury)

I beg to move amendment 4, in schedule 1, page 227, line 11, at end insert—

Hugo Swire (Conservative, East Devon)

I rise to support the amendment. I would have thought that the proposal was fairly uncontentious; indeed, I am rather surprised that such a measure is not in the Bill. If the MMO is to function properly, it must take into account all competing demands and certainly the development of green energy. I wonder whether I am losing the Minister’s attention, Mr. Gale—[Interruption.] Ah, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will respond to the debate, which just shows the importance of having two people. That is why we need a chief engineering advisor and a chief scientific advisor—in case one or the other is off.

Offshore technology of one sort of another will be in demand in a lot of the areas we are talking about. We have already touched on offshore wind farms and wave projects, and a good wave project down in Plymouth is being funded by the South West of England Regional Development Agency, as the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton will know. Such projects will require infrastructure and cabling—the energy must be brought onshore—but a chief scientific advisor is not necessarily the correct person to make judgments on those things. He would be well backed up by a chief engineering advisor, and the two people working together would cover almost every conceivable eventuality. The disciplines are different, and an engineering adviser would add to the MMO. I hope the Government will accept the amendment.

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

I support the amendment. Given the strategic importance of the UK’s marine energy resource, the timely delivery of renewable energy targets should surely be part of the MMO’s remit and objectives. The fact is that some in the renewable energy sector are concerned that the MMO will be answerable solely to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and not to other Departments, and therefore that the organisation might have too much of an environmental base and might not be sufficiently considerate of the Government’s climate change objectives. Those wider, global conservation considerations must surely be part of the MMO’s activities.

The hon. Member for East Devon mentioned the South West of England RDA’s wave hub project. In fact, it is not in Plymouth; it has been proposed and recently licensed for the north coast of my constituency. The cable will be set out from Hayle and anchored about 10 km off the north coast of my constituency. It is an exciting and experimental project, and it is vital that the UK takes the opportunity to lead the world in that aspect of scientific and engineering development. Such a window of opportunity has been provided by the licensing and preparatory work that is in place. I would be significantly reassured, not only on offshore wind facilities, which hon. Members have mentioned, but on tidal and wave renewables facilities, if the MMO had the capacity to consider not only the science, but the vital and complex engineering challenges that many stakeholders must consider. I hope that the Minister will take the amendment on board. Extending the appointments from science to engineering and ensuring that the organisation has such capacity is something that the Government should support.

Ann McKechin (Labour, Glasgow North)

Thank you, Mr Gale, good afternoon. Everyone will have welcomed the announcement early this morning that Christopher Parry will be chair designate of the Marine Management Organisation. That shows that we are making progress on the necessary preparations.

I do not accept the contention in the explanatory statement to the amendment:

“Science and engineering are very different disciplines.”

My late father spent many years lecturing thousands of engineering undergraduates in physics, and I am sure that he would say that science underpins an understanding of and is the basis of engineering. Engineering today requires knowledge of mathematics, physics, geology and biochemistry, particularly in the field of renewable energy, which, I fully accept is key to our economic growth and potential. Our chief scientific adviser, Professor Sir John Beddington, is not only the head of science in Government but of engineering, and represents the interests of both. The understanding has always been that chief scientific officers in Government encompass both disciplines, including engineering skills and the practical application of the sciences.

I do not know whether the shadow Chancellor, who keeps saying that the Government need to consider cutting bureaucracy and costs, would consider the appointment of yet another highly paid and pensioned civil servant a positive step. I shall leave that to one side.

Serious and genuine points about offshore renewable energy licensing have been made today. To be seen as a credible marine regulator, the MMO must be able to draw on its expertise to inform decision making, and we recognise that energy expertise must be part of that skill set.

Clause 2 requires the MMO to take account of all relevant facts and matters when making decisions and carrying out its functions. Where engineering expertise is relevant, the MMO will, of course, draw upon it as and when needed. It is not necessary to require the MMO to appoint a chief engineering adviser specifically. We have amended schedule 1 to require the MMO to appoint a chief science adviser in recognition of the cross-cutting and truly fundamental role that science will play in the new MMO.

I am not disputing the fact that engineering is important, not only for renewable energy, but for many other areas, such as oil and gas marine structures and the move to carbon capture, which require specialist engineering skills. It is important, not to justify and advise, but to ensure that we have in the MMO the necessary expertise and can call upon it. We are confident that the issue can be addressed as part of the MMO’s wider recruitment and that the MMO will be able to bring in expertise through other means, because, depending on the type of application, special consultancy, rather than full-time staff, may be more appropriate.

The MMO will need to recruit new staff and develop them through training and interchange to ensure that the appropriate expertise is available from day one. Interchange is also a mechanism whereby the MMO can build its knowledge base through exchanges and strengthened links with partner organisations and industry. In addition, if the MMO decided that it needed to bring in further engineering expertise, it has the flexibility to do that without the specific power being included in the Bill.

Paragraph 16 of schedule 1 allows the MMO to appoint other employees. That could include specialist engineering staff, but that would be a decision for the chair and board, based on an analysis of the requirements at the time. To make prescriptions such as those in the amendment would be to micro-manage and remove the MMO’S responsibility for regulating its own staffing and resource requirements. As an independent non-departmental public body, those decisions should be left to the MMO.

I hope that I have reassured hon. Members that the necessary plans are in place to ensure that the MMO has access to engineering expertise. I do not believe that that should be specified in the Bill, so I urge the hon. Member for Newbury to withdraw his amendment.

Richard Benyon (Conservative, Newbury)

Earlier today, in the Chamber, the Secretary of State announced the chairman of the MMO. An enormous amount of weight has been placed on the calibre of that individual. I look forward to meeting him and finding out more about him. As the Minister says, the MMO must create its own structures and organisation. It must be a credible organisation, because it has an enormous amount of work to do in a very short time. I do not intend to burden it with increased recruitment requirements that could impact on the other work it does during the set-up phase. However, I strongly believe that if we do not press the amendment today, the Government will have to revisit the matter in the future. The MMO’s work will be enormously important, not just for electricity generation, but for the development of port facilities and the approach to dredging. For a variety of reasons, an intense cat’s cradle and network of cables lies under our oceans.

As we move towards carbon capture and storage, the implications from an engineering perspective will be massive. I do not believe, like the Minister, that a synergy would exist between a chief scientific officer and the technical engineering disciplines in some emerging technologies. At this stage, however, I am not minded to press the amendment, although that has nothing to do with the shadow Chancellor’s concerns, to which she referred. I am sure that the post could be financed from DEFRA’s budget, probably to the enormous pleasure of interested parties across Britain’s countryside that have to work with the Department. I am convinced that the matter will have to be revisited as the technologies emerge. However, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

I beg to move amendments 28 and 26.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot move them both at this stage.

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

I beg your pardon, Mr. Gale. I stand corrected. I understood that, because they refer to different clauses, it was appropriate to move them both. But thank you for your guidance.

I beg to move amendment 28, in schedule 1, page 228, line 15, at end insert—

‘(2A) The MMO must authorise at least one committee which will be charged with ensuring that the coastal communities affected by the discharge of its duties should be consulted.’.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 26, in clause 2, page 2, line 17, at end insert—

‘(aab) the impact on the lives and livelihoods of the coastal communities affected by its decisions and activities.’.

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

Amendments 28 and 26 get to the core of a theme that I raised on Tuesday: to ensure that this important legislation is underpinned by demonstrable local and coastal consultation and involvement in the planning, designation and implementation process. Later amendments of mine will go further on local accountability. Clearly missing from the Bill, especially this part of it, is the inter-relationship between what is, or could become, a highly centralised and remote—although important—Government agency unaccountable to coastal communities, and the coastal communities affected by the decisions and actions of the MMO.

Roger Williams (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

My hon. Friend has touched on an important point. The MMO will be given the great task of safeguarding the marine environment and our coastal waters, but it is important that it keeps in contact with both the democratically elected local authority and, more importantly, communities, because they are the ones that will often deliver on its important work.

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for underlining the essential importance of ensuring that the MMO is locally accountable and clearly consults coastal communities, taking heed of their concerns and sensitivities.

Hugo Swire (Conservative, East Devon)

The amendment suggests that there should be at least one committee. In the hon. Gentleman’s ideal world, how many committees would there be and how would they be constructed? Would people be elected to them, and by what electoral system? What terms would they serve and what would be their statutory role? [Interruption.]

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Ogmore suggests that I should be concerned more about the electoral system than about the number of committees or their geographical designation—I favour AV-plus, by the way. The hon. Member for East Devon is perhaps teasing me, or perhaps proposing that, in addition to my important roles in the Committee and in representing St. Ives, I might offer to assist the MMO in designing its committees and sub-committees, but I am not proposing that I should provide or micro-manage a blueprint for the MMO to follow.

I propose that there should be at least one committee because, first and foremost, something should be enshrined, preferably in the Bill, to require the MMO to ensure that it reviews its capacity to consult the communities affected by its decisions and actions. Beyond that, it might well establish sub-committees that cover geographical regions, perhaps relating them to the IFCAs—inshore fisheries and conservation authorities.

David Jones (Conservative, Clwyd West)

I am intrigued to know why the consultation process has to be via a committee. Why cannot the consultation process simply be direct?

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

We could amend the Bill in several ways to ensure that, as a function of consultation, the needs, sensitivities and requirements of local coastal communities are taken into account. My intention in proposing the amendment was to ensure that we debate the issue and that the Minister considers the theme of consultation and the impact on coastal communities. I do not think that that is raised sufficiently in the Bill, which it needs to be, and I am not reassured. The amendment is a device to achieve that objective. I am not particularly precious about its operation, so if the hon. Member for Clwyd, West has a better suggestion, I will be happy to consider it.

Linda Gilroy (Labour, Plymouth, Sutton)

In the interests of prompting that debate, and given that Cornishmen do do it directly, as they say in Cornwall, I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has considered the role that the satellites—I believe that there are 18 of them around the coast—of the Marine and Fisheries Agency, which will of course be taken into the MMO, might play as hubs for the sort of interaction he is looking for.

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

The hon. Lady has raised an interesting proposal. The local offices of the MFA are there. They are still part of a Government agency and not necessarily charged with achieving the objective that I am seeking to advance in the amendment. But, yes, that could be considered as a mechanism for consultation and embedding in the communities.

The Local Government Association, which I have consulted about this, supports seeing more in the Bill to reassure local coastal communities. It says that, although the Bill recognises that the MMO needs to build strong and effective relations with local authorities and coastal stakeholders to achieve coastal integration, it lacks detail about how this will happen. The LGA has concerns about the visibility and ownership of the MMO’s activity locally. It would like to see a place for local government on any governance board of the MMO, an alternative model from the one proposed in the amendment—that may answer the hon. Member for East Devon’s point—and local delivery arrangements involved in local government to be in place. I hope that the Minister will reflect on our shared interest to ensure that the MMO retains good standing and respect in the coastal communities that will be affected by its decisions and actions. Unless we do something in the Bill, through the amendment or some other means, I fear that we will create a remote body, which could easily become high-handed, dismissive in its attitude towards the considerations and sensitivities of coastal communities, and inconsiderate of the fact that there is often debate in coastal communities, which needs to be encouraged, aired and resolved. That is an important role for the MMO.

I hope that the Minister understands that this is not an attempt to torpedo or saddle the MMO with further bureaucracy and unwelcome obstacles to achieving its objectives. Rather I am trying to ensure that the MMO retains the respect of the coastal communities it serves and that the Minister recognises that coastal communities and the Government have a shared interest in ensuring that it is seen to serve the interests of coastal communities, can enter into a conversation with them, takes them with it and does not simply retreat into the shell of high office in Newcastle. Many coastal communities are hundreds of miles away from that remote office, which may become high-handed and not serve the purpose the Government want.

Richard Benyon (Conservative, Newbury)

I have concerns about amendment 28 and I broadly support amendment 26.

The hon. Member for St. Ives looks on the MMO rather bleakly and seems to suggest it might be about to become the Rural Payments Agency of the seas. That is not how I envisage it, and I hope to reassure coastal communities that that would not be allowed to happen on our watch. I want coastal communities to have confidence in the organisation. There is already provision in the Bill for a range of different methods of consultation and a sense of ownership of the new body, which is to be applauded. We will shortly come on to inshore fisheries and conservation authorities, which will involve members of local authorities as well as interested parties from various industries.

Roger Williams (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

I draw a parallel between the MMO as a quango and other quangos. It is difficult for quangos to integrate and get joined-up working relationships with communities. I have lots of experience of national parks, which have appointed members and some elected members, and they have to work that little bit harder to get productive relationships with local communities. With the amendment, we are saying that the MMO has to demonstrate much more fundamentally that it wants such relationships.

Richard Benyon (Conservative, Newbury)

That clarification was useful. We have to trust the organisation to develop its own brand of leadership. It is a new organisation that will have to go the extra mile to address the concerns of people in coastal communities and beyond. I, like others, receive many letters from people in inland constituencies—about as far from the sea as one can get—who are extremely concerned about our marine environment. Those people need to be heard as well. The organisation will have a national footprint.

When I think of coastal communities, I think particularly of some of those that I have visited in recent weeks, such as Ramsgate and Scarborough. However, if I were to select one, it would be Looe, in Cornwall, which is close to the constituency of the hon. Member for St. Ives. That is a coastal community that is, to an extent, hanging on by its fingertips. It has a viable fishing fleet, an auction house, fish merchants, ship chandlers and repairers, and all the land-based industries that support fishing and tourism. It is an attractive place with a wonderful tourist industry. However, all those interests depend on each other, and on the sea. I have communities such as Looe in mind when I say that I believe that the authority should be required to address the concerns of those many different interests. It is a legitimate social objective to try to protect fragile coastal communities, and no single interest in such a community should exclude the others, as they all depend on each other to some degree. Coastal communities are fundamental to the work of the new organisation, and it has to address them through a variety of means. I have already mentioned IFCAs, but regional advisory councils will still exist—

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

And coastal forums.

Richard Benyon (Conservative, Newbury)

—as will coastal forums. As we work through to 2012 and the CFP reforms, I hope that we will see a lot more decisions, particularly on fishing, taking place closer to communities. I hope that we can be confident that the organisation will be able to do that. If it does not, that will be a matter for the Secretary of State, the Minister and the leadership of the organisation to address.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

Again, we have heard some good contributions. I appreciate the spirit in which the amendments were tabled, which was to try to tease out the exact relationship that the MMO will have with its wider constituency right across the UK—in Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales, Plymouth, Southampton, Liverpool and so on—and in Brussels and Strasbourg. I understand that there is a lot of focus on the MMO’s location in Tyneside.

Linda Gilroy (Labour, Plymouth, Sutton)

Mentioning Tyneside is a bit like a red rag to a bull. The Minister knows that following the bids to host the MMO, there was huge disappointment in Plymouth and also in Cornwall. On Second Reading, I mentioned the possibility, which I have been discussing with the Minister, of an MMO satellite based on the current office of the Marine and Fisheries Agency in Plymouth. There are other such hubs around the country. Now that the chairman of the MMO has been appointed, is the Minister able to give serious consideration to such a proposal, as part—and it will only be part—of making this meaningful to coastal communities?

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

Indeed. My hon. Friend makes an important contribution to the debate about the way in which the MMO engages and, where possible, develops specialisms. It is good that we have announced the chairman of the MMO today. He is a very dynamic, forceful and charismatic person who wants to see the MMO do its job by reaching right out there. I cannot see this chairman letting the organisation sit in a bunker.

If there are 140 or 150 people within Tyneside, what about the other 100 people? Well, those other 100 people will be right around the country, where the MFA currently has stations. I am glad to say that we are on track with the development of the MMO. The advertisement for the chief executive went out in May. We will now be able to enter discussions about how we augment and build on what is out there, in Plymouth and elsewhere.

I do not want to pre-empt what a chairman or chief executive and their staff might do, or to tell them what to do. However, there is an interesting idea about how we can reach out into communities right across the country. How do we build on the excellent science base in Plymouth and elsewhere? How do we deal with the work that Plymouth has been doing with engagement on coastal partnerships, for example, let alone on marine science? There might well be a way for us to engage right around the country, including in Wales and Northern Ireland, and to bring in existing expertise.

Hugo Swire (Conservative, East Devon)

As the shadow Minister for Plymouth, may I add to what the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton has just said? I would be grateful if the Minister could convey to the new chairman of the MMO the very strong feeling in the south-west that we have unfairly lost out and the fact that a lot of these issues will affect us directly. We need some acknowledgement of that and a hub office might be one way to do it.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

I will be delighted to do so. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and others will seek a meeting with the chairman of the MMO as soon as possible, and I will be happy to help to facilitate it.

Linda Gilroy (Labour, Plymouth, Sutton)

As the assistant Minister for the South West, covering the constituency of the hon. Member for East Devon, may I support the approach that the Minister has just outlined?

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

Yes, indeed. As I say, I will happily work on the issue and write to my hon. Friend about it.

Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)

As the assistant Minister for nowhere, may I add the location of Southampton to the interesting discussion that we are having this afternoon?

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

Yes.

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

I have to confess that I am also an assistant regional Minister.

The Minister was talking about the MMO “reaching out”. May I suggest that he looks at the model that we have in Pembrokeshire: the Pembrokeshire Coastal Forum? That organisation pulls together all these interests in one forum. The model has worked elsewhere, such as on the Devon and Dorset coasts. If we had a lot more of these coastal forums, they could be the communication point for the MMO.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Although I understand what the hon. Member for St. Ives is trying to tease out in this debate, one of the advantages of the way in which the Bill is structured is that it gives the flexibility to build on what is on the ground. I know the coastal partnership that my hon. Friend is talking about very well and I know the challenges that it faces. I know that there is a multiplicity of uses of the marine and coastal environment, but the coastal partnership engages with those challenges well and puts its views forward. It looks at where there can be compatible uses of the environment and where some uses must be prohibited, for example. That type of model is not identically replicated around the country; there are many variations on it. Local authorities will have to engage with the MMO, as will national park authorities, and I will come on to how that will happen.

I congratulate the hon. Member for St. Ives on tabling an amendment that is very Welsh indeed, because we love committees in Wales. We love setting committees up because we can debate for hours. We do not actually come to any conclusions, but by God we can debate.

Amendment 26 is very similar to an amendment that was tabled by Lord Greaves and Baroness Miller in the other place. In fact, Lord Greaves said:

“It is very important that the MMO works in close co-operation and, it is hoped, harmony or at least full and frank discussion, with coastal communities.”

I wholeheartedly support those remarks. This is not just an ask for the MMO. It is for all the coastal partnerships, local authorities and others to get stuck in, and the Bill allows them to do that.

At the time, Lord Hunt referred to

“the vision for coastal management that my department has published recently entitled A Strategy for Promoting an Integrated Approach to the Management of Coastal Areas in England”—

I recommend that report to the Committee, although I recognise that there are good examples from coastal areas elsewhere. He continued:

“The strategy makes it clear that we place a great deal of emphasis on the need to empower coastal communities.”

There is not, therefore, a man-in-Whitehall approach—or even a man or woman-in-Tyneside approach. This is about empowering local communities. Lord Hunt went on to say:

“We want them to have a sense of ownership and stewardship within marine and coastal areas, and we think that that will greatly assist the MMO in the delivery of its functions and the overall objective of making a contribution to sustainable development. We think that marine planning will offer new opportunities for coastal regulators and communities to have a say in the way the marine environment is managed in the same way that they input now into land planning on the coast. Further, the statement of public participation issued by the MMO at the outset of development of each marine plan, which we might debate again, sets out how it intends to involve stakeholders and local communities at each stage. That will ensure that those with an interest will be clear about the process, decide what involvement they want to have and be able to become appropriately involved.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 5 May 2009; Vol. 710, c. 465-67.]

As I have said, I am sympathetic to the sentiment behind amendment 26, but I am not convinced of the need to make specific reference to

“the impact on the lives and livelihoods of the coastal communities affected”

by the MMO and its decisions and functions. The list of facts and matters that the MMO must take into account under clause 2(3) already enables it to take account of socio-economic evidence and such other facts or matters as it considers appropriate, which could and should include any impacts on coastal communities.

I re-emphasise that the MMO will have every incentive to involve coastal communities, particularly when carrying out its marine planning function. Its network of coastal offices, to which I have referred, will assist the MMO to develop relationships with those communities. I see that as an integral role of the MMO. It is not meant to be remote and tucked away in a bunker; it is meant to solicit engagement and work with communities to make things happen.

The marine planning system has been designed for transparency in consultation and processes, and to be open and inclusive. Public involvement in planning is essential to ensure that plans have genuine ownership and reflect the goals and concerns of local communities and those who use areas on the sea. That in turn will give greater strength to the plans. The plans should not be devised on a desk in an office; they need to be developed with communities, because they will then have their support.

On amendment 28, I have already explained how the MMO will discharge its responsibility to engage with local communities. It will, as a matter of course, ensure that local communities affected by the discharge of its functions are fully consulted. However, it would be unnecessarily burdensome to require the MMO, through primary legislation, to appoint a specific committee to ensure that it consults coastal communities affected by the discharge of its duties. I understand the sentiment behind the amendment, but it would lead to committees for committees’ sake.

If the MMO decided that such a committee was necessary, however, it would of course be able to appoint one through the provision in paragraph 21 of schedule 1. However, we believe that the decision on the specific type of committee is ultimately a decision for the chair, board and chief executive, rather than something that should be set down in primary legislation.

On that basis, while I understand the sentiment behind the amendments, there are very good reasons to resist them, so I urge the hon. Member for St. Ives not to press them. I have given assurances, and I cannot envisage any way in which the MMO will carry out its business without engaging properly with coastal communities.

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

I am grateful to the Minister for his response. To reflect on what the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton said, perhaps I would have been more sanguine if the MMO had been based in Cornwall where, obviously, its officials would have had the benefit of the Cornish air and the Cornish community to guide them in their decision making. I would feel much more relaxed about the possibility of the organisation becoming remote and high-handed if it were operating in that more convivial environment. Those concerns would clearly be dissipated if the organisation were based in Cornwall. Sadly, that was not ultimately the Minister’s choice, but he might have time to reconsider it, perhaps even during our consideration of the Bill.

The Minister said that the written strategy should encourage me, and I shall look at it again. He also referred to the processes involved in marine planning and claimed that they were transparent and that there was local ownership. In reality, the Bill does not bring about a satisfactory level of local ownership. There is a requirement to consult in certain circumstances, but the MMO will be in no way as accountable as national parks, which are at least semi-accountable, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire said. That accountability does not apply in this case, but one might argue that it applies to IFCAs working within the six-mile zone.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

The MMO is rightly being established as an NDPB to give it an independence of mind so it can chart its own way forward but, ultimately, it is directly accountable to the Secretary of State. If it does not discharge its duties appropriately, including with regard to the process of engagement, it will be held accountable, and its accountability is quite direct. I cannot see how it could discharge its duties without that level of consultation.

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

I am grateful for that response, but accountability to one person—the Secretary of State—does not really address the theme of these probing amendments, which is the lives and livelihoods of coastal communities. The Secretary of State might well come from, or be well integrated with, a coastal community and might well reflect its views, but it is equally likely, if not more likely, that the Secretary of State will not be capable of being sufficiently sensitive. It is important for the Minister to understand that.

When speaking to amendment 26, the Minister referred to clause 2(3) and emphasised that other evidence will be required with regard to socio-economic elements. However, if he had read on, he would have seen that that applied only in relation to sustainable development, so it might not fully take into account the issues that I have raised in this short-ish debate.

The hon. Member for Newbury said that we should trust the MMO, but he rather ruined that by saying that that would be under a Conservative Government. I became extremely worried that we might need to add lots more provisions to protect the organisation from the ravages of a future Conservative Government, but let us not go down that route. However, we are not being asked to trust the organisation with regard to engineering, as we discussed earlier debate, so this is like saying, “We’ll trust it on this but we won’t trust it in relation to other factors.”

By and large, I am pleased that the Minister has understood the sentiments behind what I have been trying to explore in these amendments. I caution him to ensure that the organisation embeds itself into the coastal communities as it is rolled out. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton suggested that existing offices of the MFA could be used as a vehicle for that.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

Let me make a very short intervention. Marine plan authorities will also be accountable to the courts. Challenge can be brought against an MPS or a marine plan if the complainant feels that the policy of the MPA involves something that it does not have the legal power to do, or if a complainant has been aggrieved by a failure in the policy of the marine plan authority to comply with any procedural requirements. Among those procedural requirements is the necessity to show the process through which there will be proper engagement with the communities before reaching conclusions. That is where the accountability lies. If the body does not do that, it can be hauled up.

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

I am grateful to the Minister for that intervention, although I have to point to a recent case in my constituency. The fishermen in the village of Helford were trying to build a fisherman’s quay. Properties in Helford are primarily second homes, and the village association got a planning permission that had been granted overturned by a court. Such a course of action was available to those with the necessary wealth, but not to the fishermen pursuing the objective of establishing a safe fishing environment in which to operate.

Roger Williams (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

My hon. Friend raises an interesting local case, but the Minister was talking about developing marine plans. If the process is not followed, I am sure that that could be challenged in the court. Most people will be interested in how the MMO delivers on the plan, the decisions that it takes and how that involves them. We are talking about not dry legal matters, but involvement with communities, which is an organic social thing that is important for developing trust and ensuring that things are done in a way that brings the best out of communities and does not cause them to withdraw from playing their own part.

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention.

I hope that the Minister will reflect on accountability to the Secretary of State and accountability to the court. Less wealthy members of local coastal communities want to be able to articulate their concerns to the MMO, and I am not convinced that either of those points helps with the resolution of that matter. I hope that the Minister will reflect on my concern that if the Bill is implemented as currently drafted, the MMO could easily become a remote, high-handed and out-of-touch organisation that would not command the respect of the coastal communities that need to be on board. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

I beg to move amendment 30, in schedule 1, page 229, line 19, at end insert—

‘(1A) The report must contain an assessment of whether the MMO has adequate resources and expertise for the carrying out of its functions under section 2.’.

As the Minister will be aware, the MMO will be a crucial lynchpin in the new regime created by the Bill. The renewable energy sector is clearly anxious to ensure that the MMO has the right skills and resources to carry out all its activities, and I hope the Minister will address that in a moment.

The potential for the expansion of offshore renewables, and the creation of a UK industry of some standing, is dependent on the MMO actively delivering Government policy based in another Government Department. The amendment would require the MMO to report annually on the adequacy of its resources.

The MMO will be based on the existing MFA secretariat. The MFA currently has 200 staff. As I understand it, it is proposed that the MMO will have, in total, 250 staff. There will be a wide range of demands placed on the MMO. To a large extent, those demands will consist of new functions additional to those currently carried out by the MFA, which will include planning. In other words, as I understand it, it will be a small increase in the complement of staff, while the MMO will take on a great deal more functions than the existing MFA—quite considerably more, which is the point that I wish to emphasise.

The MMO will have three new roles, which will have a significant impact on the future expansion of the renewable energy sector: it will act as a statutory consultee to the Infrastructure Planning Commission on schemes over 100 MW; it will be the consenting authority in its own right for schemes under 100 MW; and perhaps most significantly of all for the sector, it will prepare the regional marine plans, which will form the basis of offshore spatial planning policy. While the renewables industry welcomed the amendments tabled by the Government on Report in the Lords, which strengthen the MMO’s role in sustainable development, the extended remit requires the MMO to be the management hub at the centre of environmental, social and economic policy for the marine environment. In order to fulfil that role, as well as its wider marine spatial planning functions, the MMO will need to be sufficiently—and very well—resourced. There is deep concern within the sector about whether it will be sufficiently resourced to deal efficiently with the plans brought forward from the industry, which will need them to be dealt with very efficiently indeed.

MMO resourcing is particularly important as the renewables industry understands that none of the energy officials currently working in either the Department of Energy and Climate Change or the MFA will be transferring to the MMO. That gives rise to concern over the experience and knowledge base of the new organisation. Requiring the MMO to report on its own capabilities to Parliament will give us the opportunity to ensure that that concern can be adequately addressed.

I referred earlier to an important project, which we have lost some time on—the wave hub off the north coast of my constituency. From following that project, I know about the MFA’s support for the regional development agency and a number of Government Departments including the Department for Transport, Trinity House and others, which is a complex and involved process. I hope that the Government take on board the fact that this requires a level of resources to ensure that there is no slippage, and that each of the proposals and plans brought forward—whether they are to be supported, turned down, or brought forward with certain conditions—can be dealt with efficiently. I hope that the Minister will take that on board.

Richard Benyon (Conservative, Newbury)

The amendment gives the Minister an opportunity to tell the Committee a little more about the structure of the new organisation, particularly at the higher levels. We have heard about the appointment of the chairman, but I do not know what the process was or what skills he will bring to the job. We have not had time to find out much about him, and I look forward to the Minister enlightening us. We also want to know the make-up of the board. We want to be sure that it has a broad range of skills that reflect the demands made on the new organisation.

There is unhappiness among the MFA staff about the degree of consultation on the move to the new headquarters. That is a matter of great concern, as is the lack of incentive for the staff to move. It is crucial to the success of the organisation that as many staff as possible make that move. They are highly skilled and many have years of experience, but they are being required to make a major, life-changing move to a different part of the world—one of which many have no knowledge and with which many have no connection. It is important that their concerns are met.

The credibility of the organisation will be measured largely by its ability to hit the ground running. I am concerned that we do not have the correct number of people in place at this stage. Not enough people have expressed a willingness to move to Tyneside, and we do not know how the organisation will be structured at the highest level or what more can be done to encourage the many people who have contributed to marine and fisheries management over the years to join the new organisation.

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

I wish to raise my concerns about the resourcing of the MMO and its staffing, and about the Welsh Assembly Government Departments that will take on the responsibilities of the MMO in Welsh waters.

The hon. Member for St. Ives spoke about the consent process for offshore wind, tidal and wave power. My local authority area’s coastline has four projects in various stages of planning or development. There are two wave projects and two tidal projects, and they all pose different problems for the area. I do not say that that will be replicated around the coast, but it gives an indication of the likely level of development that will take place, not only with large offshore wind farms but with a significant number of smaller renewable energy projects, such as tidal and wave power.

I wonder whether the MMO will have sufficient staffing resources, with the right skills, to deal with such a series of applications. The worst thing for the renewables sector is unnecessary delay. It is good to get the consent process working well, ensuring that the environmental impact assessments are completed. The sector understands that, but it is concerned that inadequate staffing resources will lead to unacceptable delays, particularly when dealing with offshore projects. Time is of the essence. Basically, we do not want things being built at sea in the middle of winter, and almost 12 months can be lost if a project is delayed.

As I said earlier, the MMO functions will be dealt with by Welsh Assembly Government Departments in Welsh waters. Is the Minister satisfied that Wales will have sufficient resources? I have cited the four projects already on the drawing board or in various stages of development in my constituency. We should consider what is happening elsewhere in the world, with offshore wind farms and particularly with renewable energy tidal and wave power. I know that the Minister is well aware of the various developments. Will the Welsh Assembly Government have sufficient resource to deal with such projects?

Finally, will the Minister comment on the fact that, although the MMO will act as a one-stop shop for all such developments, as I understand it, depending on the size of a development, the MMO could become involved in some parts of the consenting process, and the Welsh Assembly Government in others?

Linda Gilroy (Labour, Plymouth, Sutton)

I want to make a brief contribution and add to the various points made by previous speakers. the Joint Committee on the draft marine Bill raised a point about access to data. The MMO will need to be funded adequately to enable it to access both privately-owned and public date alike. When we made our recommendations, we suggested that it should either be a question of the MMO being adequately resourced or else having free access. As a Member representing a constituency with various scientific organisations collecting data, such as the long-term plankton data recording set, I know that such institutions will not be particularly amenable to giving their data for free. That matter needs drawing to the Minister’s attention. The MMO needs to be adequately resourced in that regard.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

Some very good points have been made. First, however, I reiterate that the chairman of the MMO, Chris Parry, whom we appointed today, will be an excellent first chairman; I have no doubt about that. We had a strong field of candidates. Chris Parry has a very strong record in strategic development and management of complex, multi-disciplinary maritime organisations. In fact, it has been difficult to get hold of him over the past few days, because of the work that he has been doing with other countries on marine management. He has a fascinating background. With his agreement—I shall have to clear it with him first—I shall write to all Committee members next week with more background on him.

Members asked about the timetable. The chair designate is now in place, and he will be appointed as chairman after Royal Assent. If the Bill does not receive Royal Assent, of course, the appointment will be terminated, so please keep the good will going! Board recruitment cannot ordinarily commence until after Royal Assent, which is in line with standard Treasury guidance on public expenditure. However, in order to keep things moving, we intend to apply for an advance from the contingency fund. If successful, it will allow early recruitment of the board. So we intend to have a chair and board in place in good time to allow the vesting of the organisation on 1 April 2010.

The hon. Member for Newbury asked about the recruitment process. We will use specialist recruitment consultants to undertake parts of the process, including drawing up specifications, executive search advertising, application sift and interviews. Another point was raised about the lack of proper consultation with staff at the MFA. I understand hon. Members’ concerns. The move could have been to Carrick, Southampton, Liverpool, Tyneside or Plymouth—the latter was a very favourable location and many were attracted to it. However, we have worked intensively with MFA staff; I, myself, have met them at least twice.

We carried out a staff survey on staff preferences and made staff visits to Tyneside with a series of presentations on Tyneside, the living environment, quality of life and so on. Furthermore, a question and answer facility has been provided on the intranet for staff, and we also held meetings with coastal staff. We always recognised that some staff would not want to come—for family reasons and so on—and we continue to engage with them to ensure that they are properly looked after.

Richard Benyon (Conservative, Newbury)

It would be a great help to know whether the Department has yet secured a building as an office and when it expects to announce a shadow chief executive, if not a chief executive.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

We are looking at two or three possible locations for the site of the building. A number of factors are involved, which I do not want to bore the Committee with. They include the environmental status of the building, which is important in ensuring that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs estate keeps its commitment to having buildings of the highest environmental standards. We need to make a decision quite soon. I will return to the other question about the chief executive in a moment, when I have some inspiration.

The MMO will have around 50 more posts than currently and will need to take on additional strength in depth around enforcement, engagement and science. We have already mentioned a chief scientific adviser but it is also about the science base and how it reaches out to other organisations.

Linda Gilroy (Labour, Plymouth, Sutton)

On the science, and the debate we had earlier about engineering, what advice will the chief scientist have at his disposal? How will that be organised? Will it be free-standing? Will there be a Committee? How will it work?

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

The chief scientific adviser will have a panel to work with that reaches outwards from the MMO. Ultimately, the MMO will determine the exact nature of the chief scientific adviser’s role. Lord Hunt said that it would be a very senior role—the fact of the appointment indicates its importance. The MMO chief scientific adviser will not sit in a bunker in Tyneside. He will have to make connections with the marine scientific advisory panel that we have established and that is already extending its work. The panel reaches out to all centres of expertise in the UK, including our own Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science in Lowestoft and elsewhere, Plymouth, Southampton, the Proudman Institute and so on.

Hugo Swire (Conservative, East Devon)

We are surprised that the Minister has managed to hang on to a contingency fund that has not been snaffled to pay for one of the Prime Minister’s new initiatives. The Minister has just announced that the MMO will expand on the MFA by recruiting an additional 40 or 50 new posts. Will he give the Committee an indication of the range of pay scales of the new posts and what the additional cost to the taxpayer will be?

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

No; I do not have that information at my disposal. Ultimately, it will be for the MMO to work within its budget. As we take this forward in Committee and make obligations, for example, to appoint a chief scientific adviser, we are revising as we go to ensure that the MMO has the appropriate resources. When we talk about engineering, we need to ensure that the MMO has a basis of expertise. Let me turn to the other two areas that I did not touch on, which concern statistical analysis and also, crucially, economics and social science. The MMO will be not an MFA-plus, but a very distinct, strengthened organisation. I give an undertaking that the resources will be there.

Roger Williams (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

A number of people are concerned that only one and a half people are going to have the knowledge and expertise to work on the renewable energy responsibilities of the MMO.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

I think I have made clear that, as the Bill goes through Committee and on Report, there will be finessing of the necessary expertise. It is not only to do with one and half, two, five or ten people working within the MMO. It is also to do with the expertise that they are drawing on externally.

Roger Williams (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

Consultants.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

No. We have a body of expertise in the UK within the energy industry, organisations, NGOs and academia that should not be isolated from the MMO; it should be integral to the functionality of the MMO. The MMO is, as it were, the supreme manager and strategist on the marine environment and its success will depend on engagement with other sectors.

Regarding the chief executive, we will be interviewing from an extremely strong and powerful field of chief executive-designate positions next week. Regarding the extra cost for pay, which was mentioned, I can give some indication. We estimate that the additional cost will be about £2.1 million. However, it is up to the chairman and the chief executive to decide the appropriate pay structures and grades for the expertise that they need. It is not for me, as the Minister, to do that; that is what the MMO is all about.

I want to turn directly to the amendment. The members of the Committee will want to know that the Joint Committee of both Houses, which carried out pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft Bill last summer, also raised the issue of staff numbers and expertise. The Joint Committee specifically wanted to see the importance of scientific input reflected in the Bill and that issue was extensively debated in the other place. The Government’s response was as follows:

“We will revisit our analysis of the expected number of additional staff the MMO will require in the light of more detailed understanding of the MMO’s proposed functions and the staff required to deliver them. In particular, in response to the Committee’s comments we need to ensure there will be sufficient scientific expertise within the MMO. In any event, we intend the MMO to evolve, growing into its role - and have provided flexible provisions in the draft Bill to enable this. As and when the MMO takes on further functions, we will review the resources needed to deliver them.”

Members of this Committee will also wish to note that we established an MMO implementation team last year to work with the MFA as it prepares for its transition. Members of that team are currently carrying out a review of staffing and other resources that will be required for the MMO. However, it will of course be up to the MMO board, once it is appointed, to take the final decisions on how the new organisation should be structured and staffed to ensure that it is fit for purpose.

As I mentioned earlier, at launch we expect the MMO to comprise about 250 staff posts in total, which is 50 more than the current number. The MMO will include a range of expertise from the MFA and new staff with appropriate skills will be recruited. A comprehensive training and induction programme is being developed, as well as managed knowledge transfer plans for those staff who are coming from the MFA, the Department of Energy and Climate Change and the Department for Transport, as well as for those staff who will not be relocating to Tyneside.

The structure and format of the new body will not just be the MFA remade. The MMO will not only need to plan for new functions to be resourced but to meet the needs of its existing customers, such as aggregate businesses and offshore renewables. It needs to plan for increasing demands, which will involve working with the IPC on major projects to meet the Government’s challenging targets on renewable energy. As I have mentioned, industry also has a role to play in helping accurately to forecast the demands on the MMO, to ensure that it can deliver the service required. So we are listening, and the chairman of the MMO will be listening and making adjustments as appropriate.

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

The Minister has mentioned the IPC. Is he aware how many staff the IPC will have to deal with questions about the renewables industry?

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

I will try to come back to the hon. Gentleman with some inspiration on that question; I certainly do not have the facts at the front of my mind.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Order. Just before the Minister looks for too much more inspiration, I must draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that the amendment is about a report that is yet to be published and whether or not there should be such a report. I think that I have given a fair degree of latitude to allow members of the Committee to tease out answers to some of the questions that they want to ask. I will now draw a halt.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

Thank you for that guidance, Mr. Gale. I must say to members of the Committee that amendment 30 is neither appropriate nor necessary. However, I hope that I have reassured them that we understand the importance of ensuring adequate resources. As the MMO evolves and takes on more functions, we will keep the resourcing issue under review, and we will augment resources where necessary.

On that basis, I invite the hon. Member for St. Ives to withdraw the amendment.

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

I am grateful to the Minister and to the hon. Members for Carmarthen, West and South Pembrokeshire and for Plymouth, Sutton for their comments and contribution to the debate.

The Minister has mounted a defence of the MMO’s capacity to cope with the new demands that will be placed upon it, but the functions transferred from the MFA to the MMO will be augmented simply by a 20 per cent. increase in the staffing complement available, despite the fact that the new organisation is taking on, in my view, a great deal more than 20 per cent. in additional work load.

Although some of the Minister’s words were welcome, I had hoped that he would say more about, for example, the defence of the MMO’s capacity, on which the industries involved will want reassurance. I had also hoped that he would cover the consequences of accepting the amendment—in other words, the problems that would be created for the organisation were it required simply to make a statement within the report to reassure the industry that it had the capacity to fulfil its function, which would not take a great deal of effort. That is all the amendment asks for, so I do not understand for the life of me why it is not acceptable. What would be the consequences of ensuring that the report includes what the renewables industry is concerned about and wants to be reassured about, namely that the MMO has the necessary capacity? That should be included.

Having heard what the Minister has said, and despite the fact that I am not reassured on the matter, I will not push the amendment to a vote. I hope that he will reflect outside the debate on the issues that have been raised, consult the industry and perhaps find other ways to reassure it before coming back on Report and having another go. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 2

Richard Benyon (Conservative, Newbury)

I beg to move amendment 3, in clause 2, page 2, line 22, at end insert—

‘(3A) The MMO must have due regard to the desirability of mitigating, and adapting to, climate change.’.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause stand part.

Richard Benyon (Conservative, Newbury)

Clause 2 is a vital part of the Bill; it outlines the general objective of the MMO. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that in exercising its functions the MMO has regard to

“mitigating, and adapting to, climate change.”

A moment ago, we heard from the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire that there are at least question marks over the ability of the MMO’s proposed staff structure to reflect the demands of relevant technology in this growth industry. Managing climate change mitigation and renewable energy projects will be key to managing the marine environment. As the MMO will be the primary delivery body in the marine area, it needs to be in tune with such issues. As the significance given to climate change in planning decisions on land grows, so it should at sea.

Our seas are important because they absorb significant quantities of carbon dioxide. Regulating our climate is vital and we need a healthy environment. Activities at sea contribute to carbon emissions and limit the sea’s ability to adapt to climate change. The Bill provides an ideal opportunity to enshrine our commitment to tackling climate change through requiring the MMO to take climate change into account when making planning decisions. The inclusion of such considerations in the Climate Change Act 2008 and the Planning Act 2008 set the precedent for Government legislation to have regard to climate change considerations as a matter of course. Given the MMO’s myriad responsibilities in the marine environment, it is particularly important that we place a duty upon it to consider those issues.

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

I support the hon. Gentleman’s amendment. It is important that the industry has the support it deserves. I refer the Minister to my comments on an earlier amendment and I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on moving the amendment.

Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)

If the amendment were passed, the subsections would have to be renumbered, so subsection (4) would become subsection (5). In effect, the amendment that we just voted on, which we discussed on Tuesday, was also to subsection (4), which would become (5). Whatever one might think about the circumstances of that amendment, the outcome would be that an internally inconsistent Bill would go back to the House. The wording in clause 2(4), and that in 44(1)(a) discussed on Tuesday, concerning “furthering” or “contributing to” the achievement of sustainable development, would be inconsistent. One way or the other, such inconsistencies would be likely to be rectified on Report.

In that context, I was pleased by my hon. Friend the Minister’s comments in the clause 1 stand part debate, although they might have been better in a clause 2 stand part debate. Nevertheless, in response to my suggestion that paragraph 7 of schedule 5 might be strengthened to reflect the issue of “furthering” or “contributing to” the achievement of sustainable development, he said:

“I think that is a very good suggestion.” ——[Official Report, Marine and Coastal Access Public Bill Committee, 30 June 2009; c. 18.]

I was encouraged that later the hon. Member for Newbury added:

“Will the Minister assure us that he will follow the recommendation made by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test to use paragraph 7 of schedule 5 in order to meet the amendment’s objectives?... If the Minister confirms that that will involve the insertion of words into paragraph 7 of schedule 5, I shall not press the amendment further at this stage”.——[Official Report, Marine and Coastal Access Public Bill Committee, 30 June 2009; c. 21.]

Perhaps it was just for procedural reasons that we had a vote a moment ago on an amendment that we discussed, but did not vote on, on Tuesday. Perhaps we voted before we were able to fully clarify where we are with the passage of the Bill. I understand that we now have inconsistency between two parts of the Bill. That is the central issue. My hon. Friend the Minister has now had an opportunity to reflect on what I suggested to the Committee on Tuesday: that an amendment to paragraph 7 of schedule 5 might be an appropriate way to proceed. At that point I did not, of course, have an amendment to hand, nor do we have one before us now—

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Order. I have been trying to follow closely what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but amendments to schedule 5, which the Committee has now agreed to, are not relevant to the current debate. The matter is now one for the Report stage. I am afraid, therefore, that I shall have to rule the hon. Gentleman out of order.

Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)

Thank you, Mr. Gale. I will, of course, appreciate, respect and follow your guidance. Before I strayed, I was attempting to establish that the clause is inconsistent with clause 44, which we have previously discussed. It is material that the Committee recognises and understands that, and considers, at least so that it is on the record of our discussions, how to resolve the issue.

Richard Benyon (Conservative, Newbury)

To clarify the situation, I thought that the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion on Tuesday was a way forward. I thought that what the Committee achieved was better, and I wanted to balance the Bill today. Other legislation, for example the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008, puts a duty on community land trusts to further social, economic and environmental interests in local communities. Other legislation seems to be able to introduce such wording, so I do not understand why the Bill cannot. We now have a problem, which we could have resolved a moment ago, but we did not.

Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Whatever we might think of those circumstances, that is the situation we are now in, and will be in on Report. I understand that my hon. Friend the Minister has reflected on what I said on Tuesday and is willing to consider carefully what wording would reconcile those two positions and make the Bill both internally consistent and consistent with other legislation, notwithstanding the point made by the hon. Member for Newbury. I welcome that, and believe that should we achieve that position by Report, we will not only have rectified the inconsistencies of the Bill, but, on the question of furtherance—

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Order. I am dreadfully sorry, but we are in danger of entering the territory of angels on the head of a pin. Let me try to explain again. We have gone past certain stages of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of amendment 1, which was debated on Tuesday as part of a group of other amendments. It is normal practice during the course of a Bill’s passage through Committee to take a group of amendments, debate them and vote on them separately at the appropriate time in the Bill, which, in the case of amendment 1, is now, and we have just voted on it.

Any amendments that are consequential, but need to be tabled in order to reconcile different elements of the Bill if it is out of kilter, must be tabled on Report. We cannot debate them now, because they are not on the amendment paper. The hon. Gentleman has a choice: he can vote against clause 2 stand part if he feels that it is flawed, or he can vote in favour of it and allow the Minister and those working on the Bill to table further amendments on Report. What he cannot do is try to debate something that has already been debated.

Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)

I understand and accept your guidance, Mr. Gale. I seek not to reopen the debate, but to place on record what I believe is best for the Bill. I have done that and, following your guidance, I believe that clause 2 should stand part and that subsequent amendments should be made on Report to reconcile the Bill with itself. That was what I was attempting to recommend.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

I confirm that my hon. Friend’s interpretation of my earlier comments on what we intend to do is absolutely right. I might be able to help in relation to amendment 3, too. The amendment seeks to require the MMO, in the course of exercising its functions, to have regard to the need to mitigate and adapt to climate change. As those who tabled the amendment might be aware, the issue was raised during Committee in the other place by Lord Greaves and Lord Tyler.

The marine environment plays a vital role in mitigating climate change. I emphasise that the Bill as a whole will help us to meet the challenges of climate change. The Bill will allow us to make better decisions about the activities in our marine area that will help to mitigate climate change—for example, the development of renewable energy projects—and the measures introduced under the Bill will be adaptable to allow us to manage and use new technologies as they come along. Provisions on marine nature conservation and fisheries will also help us to restore and maintain marine ecosystems to ensure that they are resilient to the effects of climate change.

I reassure the Committee that climate change will be one of the important factors taken into account in the UK-wide marine policy statement, which will set out, and prioritise where required, the policies and objectives in the UK marine area that will contribute to sustainable development. Climate change is one of the four agreed priorities in the UK sustainable development strategy, “Securing the future”, published in May 2006.

As Lord Hunt said during a debate on the issue during Committee in the other place on 21 January 2009, managing the different pressures on the marine area will be a challenging task, and one that will be tackled through our high-level marine objectives, which were published in April. The objectives set out our interpretation of sustainable development in the marine area and underpin the development of the marine policy statement. The statement, once adopted by the UK Administrations, will provide the framework within which the MMO will operate, and will guide decision making by the MMO and other regulators in the marine area.

In a subsequent Committee sitting, Lord Hunt said:

“In preparing a marine policy statement, we must consider an extremely wide range of issues and policies. The intention is to bring together all policies capable of having an impact on the marine area. This is the first time that that has occurred and, at the end of it, we want a coherent and integrated statement of policy that will make a real contribution to the achievement of sustainable development in the UK marine area”.

Lord Hunt continued:

To do that, the policy authorities will need to consider a wide range of factors when drawing up the statement, such as the legislative commitments, national policies and targets relating to the marine area covering sectors ranging from fisheries, oil and gas, offshore energy and ports. They will need to consider information and trends on different uses, the resulting pressures and likely changes. They will need to consider how to deal with interactions in uses and what guidance to provide...They will also need to consider the interface between the land and sea and the policy on regional and international interfaces.

Naturally, some policies feature higher in our consciousness than others at any given time. Mitigation of climate change and security of energy supply are foremost in our minds and they will be two major considerations when the MPS is being prepared. As the noble Lord knows, the Climate Change Act imposes a duty to lay before this House and the other place a programme of policies and proposals that contribute to the achievement of sustainable development and set out how we will respond to the risks facing the UK as a result of climate change. Clearly, those policies and programmes will need to be reflected in our marine policy statement.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 28 January 2009; Vol. 707, c. 326-27.]

Rather than imposing a duty on the MMO, therefore, any duties in relation to climate change should, and will, fall on Ministers in their role in drawing up the marine policy statement, which will take account of all relevant policy considerations, including the implications of climate change. Ministers will also be bound by the provisions of the Climate Change Act 2008 and will need to ensure that Government policy achieves the targets it sets out. It is therefore Ministers who must be satisfied that, taken as a whole, the policies contained in the marine policy statement will contribute to the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change and to the achievement of sustainable development.

I hope that this explanation of just how critical climate change is and how we are bound by obligations are reassures hon. Members that climate change is an important issue that will be fully taken into account in the marine policy statement. The MMO must act in accordance with this, so there is no need to make specific reference to it in the MMO’s general objective. To deliver what my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test has suggested, and to give us the time to work on the precise wording, I hope that the Committee will oppose amendment 3, but support clause 2 standing part of the Bill.

Richard Benyon (Conservative, Newbury)

The phrase “foremost in mind” may apply, but climate change is not foremost in the Bill. That is an omission, and it does not sit comfortably with other legislation recently passed by this House, such as the Planning Act 2008. We have many more important discussions to come, but there can be no more important issue than climate change. Tempted as I am to press the amendment to a Division, I will withdraw it. However, I look forward to the resolution of the issue raised by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test, and I will work with the Minister to try to achieve that. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 7

Ann McKechin (Labour, Glasgow North)

I beg to move amendment 20, in clause 7, page 6, line 6, leave out from ‘read,’ to ‘under’ in line 7 and insert

‘in relation to the exercise by the MMO of functions’.

Clause 16

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

I beg to move amendment 27, in clause 16, page 11, line 30, at end insert—

‘(f) any coastal local authority;

(g) the council of the Isles of Scilly.’.

I am sure that the amendment’s purpose is self-evident: to ensure that the eligible bodies that are set out in the Bill are not just Government agencies, as is the case now with the agencies listed in paragraphs (a) to (d) of subsection (1). Harbour authorities are also listed under paragraph (e)—I will come on to them in a moment. Coastal local authorities should also be listed, including the council of the Isles of Scilly—I am pleased to say that the Isles of Scilly are part of my constituency. The council must be specifically named and listed because it is not considered in all legislation as equivalent to other coastal local authorities. By the way, the council of the Isles of Scilly is a unitary authority, and was so before unitary authorities were created.

I listened to what both Ministers said in previous debates in which we attempted to attach a further body to a list of bodies. Perhaps they will refer to subsection (2), which grants the Secretary of State the power to:

“amend subsection (1) so as to...(a) add any body or description of body to the list, or...(b) remove any body”.

With regard to paragraph (a), the Ministers might well say that the Secretary of State could add to that list of eligible bodies coastal local authorities, or indeed named coastal local authorities.

To save time, and in anticipation that a future Secretary of State might be minded to do that by using the provision, the case for including coastal local authorities now is, in fact, very sound. Coastal local authorities should be added to the list of eligible bodies with which the MMO may enter into an agreement so that they are authorised to perform any function of the MMO, because they already undertake a large number of functions that are relevant to the operation of the MMO. There will be a multitudinous interface between coastal local authorities and the MMO.

As I said, the current list of eligible bodies includes harbour authorities. Members such as me with coastline and harbour authorities in their constituencies will know that most of those harbour authorities—most of which will have an Act of Parliament referring to both their functions and powers—are either local authorities themselves, or have local authority representatives on them. Such authorities may also be constituent parts of local authorities when it manages a municipal port.

However, the list in the clause excludes those local authorities that do not manage a port, although they may still have a clear maritime function. I will list some, but not all, of the functions that are relevant to the interface between the role of a coastal local authority and the MMO. The provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, through planning policy formulation and the exercise of development and control as far as the mean low water mark, involve overlaps between local authorities and the MMO. The construction and maintenance of coastal protection installations—sea defences along the coast—involves overlap with the MMO, and certainly with the Environment Agency. A further function is emergency planning powers, which can also involve planning within the marine context, and another is responsibility towards sea fisheries committees, which are already very clear and well-established and also overlap with the future IFCAs set out in the Bill. In addition, overlap is involved in byelaw-making powers relating to the use of the inshore zone, and the management of beaches.

Indeed, those two functions also overlap. A number of byelaws relate to beaches, particularly in the intertidal zone, such as regarding the access of dogs to the coastline, and to beaches’ management and use. Kite-surfing is an increasingly popular sport in my area. That sport, jet-skiing and various other activities are affected by byelaws through which local authorities have influence or powers regarding what can be taken on to beaches, and therefore on to coastal waters.

Many local authorities are also involved in economic tourism and development functions, including regeneration of the coastal area. For example, they support the local fishing industry by investing in future market development. That is integral to marine management. Local authorities are also involved in broader issues of community well-being, which can include maritime matters.

Given the recognised interdependence of land and sea environments and the reliance of local communities on both, local authorities have a clear interest in decisions that might affect the health and well-being of those environments and hence the communities that depend on them. Under land use and marine plans, local authorities are responsible for delivering the local development framework in all its constituent parts, including for the intertidal area down to the low water mark. That area is part of the English inshore region, as defined in the Bill, so local authorities are already performing a clear function when considering developments in that part of the marine environment.

The MMO is likely to be the best place to undertake marine planning on a larger scale than many coastal local authorities can manage independently. However, that might not be the case for the inshore area. For example, a marine plan for a complex inshore area with a multiplicity of users may be more effectively dealt with by a local authority or group of local authorities acting together with the MMO. It would be appropriate in those circumstances to incorporate coastal local authorities as eligible bodies, along with the Government quangos listed under clause 16(1). There is also a need to integrate land-use and marine plans with community ownership. It is imperative to ensure that the spatial plans for both the terrestrial and marine environments are consistent in their approach to the shoreline.

There is a genuine concern among many coastal authorities that, if local authorities are not included as eligible bodies in the Bill, the integration that is clearly necessary between terrestrial and maritime planning may become inconsistent over time. Including coastal local authorities would benefit the MMO and what the Government are trying to achieve. Given the expertise available in local authorities, there are clear advantages in delegating to them plans for estuaries and high-use or sensitive areas. It would ensure that the issues were well managed by those closest to them—those who can engage development stakeholders and secure local ownership at a local level. The two plan systems—terrestrial and maritime—could thereby be reconciled. The transparency of decision making and the ability of local communities to influence decisions that affect them are strong reasons for ensuring that local authorities are explicitly included in the manner proposed in the amendment.

Local authorities also have a number of other marine functions. In conjunction with the Environment Agency, they deliver coastal defence functions, and they have expertise in preparing shoreline management plans and in delivering schemes.

Ann McKechin (Labour, Glasgow North)

The functions that the hon. Gentleman is listing are not functions of the MMO. They are functions that currently exist under statute in respect of the local authority and the Environment Agency. The purpose of the amendment is a delegation by the MMO of its functions to a local authority, so we are discussing something quite different.

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

I disagree with the Minister. As I understand it, we are talking about the capacity to work with local authorities, not the question of whether the sole purpose is to delegate functions to them. In any case, where it is appropriate for local authorities to take on some functions or to work with the MMO in the delivery of its plan and functions, having that capacity in the Bill would allow the MMO a great deal more flexibility than at present. It would certainly be able to take advantage of the expertise available in many coastal local authorities thanks to the experience and talents in their officer structures. They have expertise in working in many of these areas. Local authorities also exercise powers within the marine environment to mitigate shoreline pollution. That is certainly a maritime role, and the hon. Member for East Devon will know about recent incidents such as those involving MCS Napoli, the Ice Prince and RMS Mulheim, the latter of which ran aground in my constituency at Sennen. Those incidents demonstrate the need for clear knowledge of the marine environment within local authorities.

Local authorities undertake a range of additional functions that are maritime in nature, including the management of beaches and the regeneration of coastal towns. The Government already ask local authorities to engage in the market and coastal towns initiative, which the Government clearly want them to drive forward in their own areas. Local authorities have a general duty towards the sustainable management of the environment under the habitats and birds directives, the water framework directive and the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, for example. A key advantage of allowing local authorities to be eligible to work with the MMO, in the same way as the Environment Agency and Natural England, is their public profile and their recognition among coastal communities, as that would bring ownership to marine plans.

I hope that the Minister will reflect on the fact that that in no way undermines the powers of the MMO. Allowing local authorities to be eligible bodies would permit their talents and resources to be employed in the delivery of what the MMO is trying to achieve.

Ann McKechin (Labour, Glasgow North)

As I said in my earlier intervention, the clause is about the delegation of powers by the MMO. It is not intended in any way to detract from the need for the closest co-operation with coastal local authorities or from the value of their work, capacity and resources. Nor is it intended to amend any of their numerous existing powers set out in statute or exercised by the Environment Agency. Nothing in the clause, or in the Bill, takes that away.

The amendments are similar to those tabled in the other place, which sought to add any local authority to the list of eligible bodies to which the MMO may delegate functions. Lord Davies of Oldham made it clear at the time that bodies should only be added to the list if it is intended that the MMO will delegate functions to them. It would not be good practice to add additional bodies to that list if we have no intention of delegating powers to them. For that reason, we have included some specific local authorities: those that are members of the new inshore fisheries and conservation authorities; and those that are members of the current sea fisheries committees. We have also included those local authorities that are also harbour authorities—a point mentioned earlier by the hon. Member for St. Ives. We cannot think of anything further that the MMO would need to delegate to other coastal local authorities.

We are of course aware that the main reason why local authorities wish to be added as eligible bodies is that they would like the MMO to delegate marine planning to them. Members of the Committee will note that the designated marine plan authorities for each part of the UK, under part 3 of the Bill, are: the Secretary of State in England, the Scottish Ministers in Scotland, the Welsh Ministers in Wales and the Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland. Those marine plan authorities may delegate the majority of their marine planning functions to any public body with that public body’s consent. In England, it is the intention of the Secretary of State to ask the MMO to exercise the marine planning function on his behalf, and other arrangements will be made and apply in the other Administrations.

Although the marine planning and marine licensing functions in England will be exercised by the MMO on the Secretary of State’s behalf, the formal responsibility still remains with the Secretary of State. The MMO cannot ask other bodies to exercise the function on its behalf. It may only do so in respect of its own functions—those directly conferred upon it under the Bill or in secondary legislation. We largely expect the MMO to carry out its own functions, but there will be some limited circumstances in which it makes more sense for reasons of specific expertise or geographical remit for it to ask another body to exercise one of its functions on its behalf. That is the context in which the list of bodies in clause 16 was drawn up.

Perhaps it would be helpful if I gave members of the Committee a specific example. Natural England, one of the bodies on the list, currently has the power, should it prove necessary, to issue licences to kill or take seals under the Conservation of Seals Act 1970. As the majority of these licences are issued in the marine area it made sense for the function to be transferred to the MMO, and provision has therefore been made for this under clause 9. However, should such a licence need to be issued on the rare occasions when a seal ventures upriver into fresh waters, that would be beyond the MMO’s remit as it does not operate beyond the high water mark. The MMO would therefore need to ask Natural England to exercise this function on its behalf.

Returning now to marine planning, we are of course aware how vital it will be to secure the involvement of coastal local authorities throughout the planning process. Marine plans in coastal areas will overlap slightly with the area of jurisdiction of local authorities, which runs down to low water mark. We believe that this overlap, as well as statutory duties on marine planning authorities to do all that is reasonable to secure compatibility with terrestrial plans, will further encourage integrated working.

We have been working with the Local Government Association’s coastal issues special interest group for some three years now to help us understand the issues associated with local authority involvement. We recently held a marine planning workshop for local authorities in partnership with that group, which had the aim of establishing how best we can provide for local authorities to be fully involved throughout the process from the early stages of development through to monitoring and review. That work is ongoing and we will be running a similar workshop in Leeds later next month.

Hugo Swire (Conservative, East Devon)

Can the Minister reassure us that the transference of a lot of these roles, particularly licensing roles, will not be an excuse for some of the charges that are going to be applied?

Ann McKechin (Labour, Glasgow North)

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that an increase in charges is certainly not the purpose of any part of the remit of the Bill or of the MMO. The idea is to try to make the bureaucracy as slim and effective as possible and to be proportionate. We see the MMO working in partnership with local authorities and all the users of our marine environment, including the private sector. They should be aware that it is there to help further their work, not to hinder them.

We have consistently made it clear that local authority involvement is fundamental to the success of marine planning and its integration with management and planning mechanisms on the coast. The publication “A strategy for promoting an integrated approach to the management of coastal areas in England” briefly explains the range of methods that will enable the integration of marine planning with terrestrial planning at national, regional and local levels.

I hope that this explanation has reassured the Committee. The fact that we have not added coastal local authorities to clause 16 does not mean that the MMO will not be working closely with them. On the contrary, it is essential that the MMO build close and productive working relationships with local authorities as well as local communities, elected representatives, industries, regulators and other interested people in the preparation of each marine plan. On that basis, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

The Minister seemed to imply that the MMO would be required always to delegate in every circumstance responsibilities to local authorities. That is clearly not the case. Clause 15(1) states:

“The MMO may, with the approval of the Secretary of State, enter into an agreement with an eligible body”.

That is a clear “may”—it is not a requirement. If my amendment were accepted the MMO would not necessarily come under pressure from local authorities to hand over some of its functions and powers to them. Underlying the Minister’s defence is an attempt to create the impression that that is the reality, but that is not in any way likely. I do not see the fear in allowing the amendment to be made. There is no fear at all. In the same way as with a harbour authority or an inshore fisheries and conservation authority, the amendment simply provides the MMO with an opportunity to enter into an agreement with such bodies, with the further check and balance of the approval of the Secretary of State. The agreement would be negotiated between the two parties in advance; the local authority would not be forcing an unwilling MMO to accept the removal of its powers in certain circumstances.

I do not follow the Minister’s logic; she is being unreasonable. The amendment simply gives the Government a further opportunity to demonstrate that they wish to work with coastal communities and not become a remote and rather centralised body, which will always retreat into the powers of the Bill to defend against attack.

Ann McKechin (Labour, Glasgow North)

I remind the hon. Gentleman that we have included local authorities in the list. To put in additional bodies to which we have no intention of delegating powers would be superfluous and bad legislative practice. That would also unnecessarily raise expectations that at some point there would be such a delegation. If we have no intention of doing that, why would we put it in the Bill?

The hon. Gentleman’s argument is illogical. I understand where he is coming from, but I hope that my statements today, specifically pointing out that we want to have the closest co-operation with local authorities and a whole range of other organisations that work and operate within the marine environment, have not given the impression that we do not regard close working as utterly key.

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

The Minister describing my amendment as “illogical” does not help me draw the conclusion to withdraw it.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

Why not, if that is true?

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

That would be true if the amendment were genuinely illogical, because the two bodies that it mentions were in the list. Paragraph (1)(c) refers to

“any inshore fisheries and conservation authority”,

and paragraph (1)(d) refers to “any local fisheries committee”. Therefore the list covers the sea fisheries committees and the harbour authorities, the boards of which may or may not include local authority representatives. However, the list does not cover all the other aspects and functions that I have described. I will not list them again now, but the Minister will remember them clearly. Local authorities are covered to an extent, but not in all those aspects where their powers are relevant and overlap with those of the MMO.

It would be illogical if I were saying that the Minister must not only accept my amendment but add a further power of duress, which local authorities could place upon the MMO to require them to always accept the removal of its powers. That is clearly not the case. There is a process of negotiation, and the backstop will be the Secretary of State being able to permit, and give the necessary approval for, the agreement—after all, it is an agreement—for such delegation. I am afraid, therefore, that I am unable to withdraw the amendment at this stage.

Clause 21

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

I beg to move amendment 21, in clause 21, page 15, line 1, after ‘by’, insert ‘the MMO or’.

Clause 23

Richard Benyon (Conservative, Newbury)

I beg to move amendment 5, in clause 23, page 15, line 14, leave out ‘(6)’ and insert ‘(10)’.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 6, in clause 23, page 16, line 26, at end insert—

‘(5A) After section 60 insert—

“60A Advice from the Marine Management Organisation

(1) Subsection (2) applies where the Commission—

(a) has accepted an application for an order granting development consent, and

(b) has received—

(i) a certificate under section 58(2) in relation to the application, and

(ii) where section 59 applies, a notice under that section in relation to the application, and

(c) the development for which the application seeks development consent would affect, or would be likely to affect, any of the areas specified in subsection (2).

(2) The areas are—

(a) waters in or adjacent to England up to the seaward limits of the territorial sea;

(b) an exclusive economic zone, except any part of an exclusive economic zone in relation to which the Scottish Ministers have functions;

(c) a Renewable Energy Zone, except any part of a Renewable Energy Zone in relation to which Scottish Ministers have functions;

(d) an area designated under section 1(7) of the Continental Shelf Act 1964, except any part of that area which is within a part of an exclusive economic zone or Renewable Energy Zone in relation to which the Scottish Ministers have functions.

(3) The Commission must give notice in writing to the Marine Management Organisation, inviting it to submit to the Commission advice on the principal issues arising on the application which would affect, or would be likely to affect, any of the areas specified in subsection (2).

(4) A notice under subsection (3) must specify the deadline for receipt by the Commission of the advice.”’.

Amendment 7, in clause 23, page 17, line 6, at end insert—

‘(8) In section 104 (decisions of Panel and Council) after subsection (2), insert—

“(2A) The Panel or Council shall take any advice or representations received from the Marine Management Organisation into account—

(a) in deciding whether or not to make an order granting development consent, and

(b) if it does decide to do so, in deciding what (if any) requirements are to be imposed in connection with the development for which consent is granted.”.

(9) In section 105 (decisions of Secretary of State) in subsection (2), after paragraph (c) insert—

“(3) The Secretary of State shall take any advice or representations received from the Marine Management Organisation into account—

(a) in deciding whether or not to make an order granting development consent, and

(b) if it does decide to do so, in deciding what (if any) requirements are to be imposed in connection with the development for which consent is granted.”.

(10) In section 116 (reasons for decision to grant or refuse development consent) after subsection (1) insert—

“(1A) Where the Commission has received advice from the Marine Management Organisation, the reasons for decision to grant or refuse development consent must include a statement of how (if at all) the Commission has taken account of the Marine Management Organisation’s advice.”’.

Amendment 8, in clause 25, page 17, line 31, at end insert—

‘(2A) The MMO must advise the Infrastructure Planning Commission on all nationally significant infrastructure projects that are in or impact upon the UK marine area as defined in section 42.’.

New clause 1—Amendment of Planning Act 2008

‘In section 104 of the Planning Act 2008 (decisions of Panel and Council) at end of subsection (2) insert—

“(b) any advice from the Marine Management Organisation on applications which are in or are likely to impact on the UK marine area.”’.

Richard Benyon (Conservative, Newbury)

Through this group of amendments, we seek to strengthen the role of the MMO in relation to its interaction with the IPC through making it a statutory adviser to the IPC on developments that impact the marine and coastal environment within the Planning Act 2008 and the Bill.

Members of the Committee will be aware that the Conservatives are no lovers of the IPC, a point which we did our best to make in the debates on the Planning Act 2008. We will probably revisit this issue in the near future. However, we are dealing with a situation in the here and now and therefore we must get it right for the framework of planning, as far as the Bill is concerned and at this time.

It is important that there is explicit accountability within the Planning Act 2008 for advice to be sought from the MMO through the planning process, which is what we seek to achieve in this group of amendments. Our amendments seek to weave the role of the MMO into the 2008 Act, so that it has defined involvement at the key stages of the process of assessing applications for marine and coastal developments.

Part 6 of the 2008 Act deals with deciding applications, and amendment 6 would insert a new section into chapter 1, which centres on the handling of applications by the IPC. The new section would be inserted after section 60, which outlines the provision for the IPC to request a local impact report from local authorities. That is the stage at which an application has been accepted for processing by the IPC and the applicant has sent notice of that to all persons required, including the MMO. That would be the opportune moment for the IPC to request advice from the MMO on the principal issues that may affect the marine environment before making an initial assessment of issues and holding a preliminary meeting with relevant parties under section 88.

The MMO is listed as a recipient of the notice to be issued by the applicant and as an interested person. We believe that its role could be further strengthened, specifically by allowing the IPC to request advice at the beginning of the examination process. That is additional and complimentary to the role of the MMO as a participant in the examination proceedings.

In order to clarify the issue, I was going to offer an explanation, but, while contemplating what I was going to say earlier, I found on my desk a useful briefing document from the RSPB, which is one of the key interested parties. The Minister will note that I did not use the S-word, but if I get through the Committee process without using the lexicon of new Labour, I will have achieved something, so I will use the term “interested parties”.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

Socialism.

Richard Benyon (Conservative, Newbury)

No—it is another S-word. The RSPB produced a very good briefing on the Bill. On the issue under discussion, it stated:

“The RSPB wants the MMO to be a true ‘marine champion’”—

I underline those words—

“which is fully and equitably engaged with all marine sectors and interests. To this end, we believe that the MMO, as the body with a marine overview and expertise, should have full responsibility for planning and licensing at sea. However, as the IPC will license larger ports and offshore renewable electricity generating stations, our focus is on improving the MMO’s role in determining these applications. We hope the Committee will support our position that the IPC must actively seek, and take account of, advice from the MMO on all applications for nationally significant infrastructure projects (NSIPs) that take place in or are likely to impact upon the marine environment.”

It is important that those words are put on the record, because they clearly set out our attitude in seeking to strengthen the MMO, as well as our concerns about its relationship with the IPC in the marine environment.

There are all sorts of interested parties, bodies and organisations that get involved in the planning process on land, and the IPC is a new addition to that mix. We have doubts about its democratic accountability, which we believe to be its main problem on land. At sea, the organisation representing the environment and interested parties, such as those involved in fishing interests, tourism and so on, is, has to be, and always should be the MMO. However, sitting over it in some circumstances, alongside it in others, and subjugated to in certain circumstances, is the IPC, sucking power and responsibility from the MMO. We believe that that is wrong.

Amendment 7 would add material to section 104, to which the panel or council deciding an application must have regard, of the 2008 Act. One of the matters listed is the local impact reports prepared by local authorities. We believe that it would be appropriate to also mention the advice and representations given to the IPC by the MMO, so that it is clear that the IPC must take them into account in making its decision. That is an important part of amendment 7. The amendment uses examples from the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which would allow the MMO’s advice to be considered not only in deciding whether or not to grant consent, but also in deciding what conditions should be attached to that consent. That would be another useful way for the IPC to demonstrate how it had taken the MMO’s advice into account.

Amendment 7 would also add to section 105 of the Planning Act 2008, which relates to decisions made by the Secretary of State and sets out matters to be taken into account when deciding an application. Not all the decisions of the IPC will be made by the panel or the council. Some will fall to the Secretary of State, so the amendment to section 105 would require the Secretary of State to take into account advice and representations from the MMO. The amendment would also add to section 116 of the 2008 Act, which requires the IPC to prepare and publish a statement of reasons for its decisions to grant or refuse a consent.

I apologise to hon. Members for the complexity of this, but when talking to amendments to adjacent legislation, one has to get important points on record. It is appropriate to require a statement of reasons to address how the advice received by the MMO was taken into account by the IPC when making its decision. That provides for the final stage of interaction between the IPC and the MMO—please bear with me—by requiring the IPC to justify to the MMO whether it took its advice on board and how that affected the decision. The Minister is nodding, so I can see that he is with me.

Amendment 8 would introduce the MMO’s role as statutory adviser to the IPC to the Bill. The current wording of clause 25 provides some power for the MMO to advise the IPC on request, but it would be stronger and clearer to provide a specific provision for, and reference to, the IPC. The amendment would provide a general power for the MMO to advise and assist the IPC when required. New clause 1 is a consequential provision to the Planning Act 2008 to bring the MMO’s role as statutory adviser in line with the Bill.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

Hon. Members have tabled a range of amendments, with complex interactions, that seek in various ways to require the MMO to advise the IPC on development consents relating to the marine area and to require the decision maker on applications for development consents to take the MMO’s advice into account when making decisions.

Other proposals relating to the IPC-MMO relationship, and similar amendments proposed during the Joint Committee’s scrutiny and on Report in the other place by Lord Taylor of Holbeach and Earl Cathcart, have been debated extensively. Given the importance of the arguments made in support of those amendments, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath undertook to take the matter away to see whether we could come up with alternative amendments that would reflect appropriately the MMO’s role in relation to the IPC.

It might be helpful to the Committee if I start with some background to this complex issue, as I know how important it is for many hon. Members. We are clear that the MMO, as a centre of marine expertise with responsibility for enforcing marine licences, will have a very important role in advising both developers and the IPC on nationally significant infrastructure projects in the marine area, including ports and wind farm developments. The Government brought forward an amendment to the Bill on Third Reading in the other place to reflect that key role, which was welcomed by Earl Cathcart and Lord Greaves.

To reflect properly the MMO’s important role, clause 23 of the Bill now ensures that, through amendments to the Planning Act 2008, the MMO will be involved at three key stages in the Planning Act process. First, at the pre-application stage—under section 42 of the Planning Act 2008—the MMO must be notified when a developer is considering applying to the IPC for consent for any nationally significant infrastructure project that would affect, or be likely to affect, the marine area. That will ensure that the MMO is fully engaged right at the start of the application process. The applicant is also required to submit a consultation report along with the application to the IPC setting out relevant responses and the account taken of any relevant responses. That relates to section 37(3) of the Planning Act 2008.

Secondly, the MMO must be notified when the IPC has accepted an application for examination relating to section 56. Finally, the MMO will be involved as an interested party throughout the IPC’s examination process relating to section 102, thus giving it a key role in advising on any necessary marine licences, which the IPC will deem as part of any consent that it issues. Such licences will be managed and enforced by the MMO, so when new evidence on a particular development comes to light, the MMO will, if necessary, be able to modify licence conditions, add new conditions or even revoke the licence.

Amendment 6 would require the IPC to invite the MMO to submit advice on the anticipated impacts on a marine area of any nationally significant infrastructure development. The amendment would treat the MMO’s advice in a similar way to advice from local authorities, which are invited, under section 60 of the 2008 Act, to submit a local impact report that sets out the authority’s views on the likely impact of a proposed project in its area. Section 60 was added to that Act to give due prominence to democratically elected local councillors who represent local people who will be affected by the proposed project. The MMO does not, despite some people’s wishes, consist of democratically elected members, and neither does it represent specifically a local community, although it will have an important role in marine planning and could, as such, be said to represent the interests of the marine area.

Most importantly, the amendments to the Planning Act that I have just outlined, which we are making through clause 23, already provide for what hon. Members seek. The clause will ensure that the MMO is aware of and can be involved in the examination of any applications to the IPC that are in the marine area. The MMO will, as an interested party, have the opportunity to make appropriate representations to the IPC on those applications, taking into consideration the likely impacts of any proposed development in the marine area. Should the IPC disagree with any of the MMO’s representations, it will have to explain why and give reasons for consenting or not consenting to an application. Simply ignoring the MMO’s representations would leave the IPC’s decisions open to successful legal challenge.

In the other place, we introduced an important amendment that the Secretary of State should give guidance to the MMO on the type of representation that it may make to the IPC. I consider that the kinds of matters that would fall as advice submitted under amendment 6 would be reflected in the content of the MMO’s representation to the IPC on the impact of a proposed development on relevant marine plans and on the relevant part of the UK marine area.

Clause 58 amends the 2008 Act to require the IPC to have regard to the marine policy statement and to relevant marine plans when taking its decisions. There is a further safeguard in that clause 25 enables the MMO to provide advice on any matter relating to any of its functions or its general objective, either on request or on its own initiative, if it considers that appropriate.

I shall move on to amendments 7 and 5, and new clause 1. Amendment 7 would amend the 2008 Act to require the decision maker on development consents under the new regime to take the MMO’s advice into account when deciding whether to grant a consent. It would also require the IPC to include a statement of how it has taken the MMO’s advice into account when giving its reasons for granting or refusing development. New clause 1 would have the same effect as amendment 7.

Amendment 5 is consequential on amendment 7 and would ensure that subsection (1) of the clause, which sets out the subsections that amend the 2008 Act, would refer correctly to all the new subsections that would have been added. As I have already outlined, we made a series of amendments in the other place that give the MMO a clear role, in primary legislation, in the IPC development consent process.

We are resisting the amendments for several reasons. I do not believe that the amendment to section 116 of the 2008 Act would make a material difference to the operation of the IPC. As Lord Hunt explained in the other place, the MMO will be a statutory interested party as part of the IPC’s examination of marine projects. As with advice for any other such party, any advice that the MMO provides to the IPC will be an important part of the IPC’s consideration.

I will now explain why I do not think that amendment 7, which would amend sections 104 and 105 of the 2008 Act, is appropriate. First, as I explained regarding amendment 6, clause 58(5) of the Bill amends section 104 so that when the IPC takes decisions affecting the marine area, it must also have regard to the marine policy statement and to relevant marine plans. It gives the new marine policy framework its rightful place in the decision-making process. Additionally, the amendment would elevate the MMO above other bodies that are also interested parties to the IPC and have a key advisory role, such as the Environment Agency and Natural England.

I have already mentioned amendment 8. It would impose an absolute obligation on the MMO to give advice to the IPC on nationally significant infrastructure projects. What is the point of imposing an absolute obligation on the MMO to give advice? The obligation is on the applicant for the development to seek the advice of the MMO and the IPC will check that that is done.

I hope that my explanations have reassured the Committee that the positions we now have will be effective, that amendments already made will be effective, and that the MMO will have a full role in the IPC decision-making process. I trust the hon. Gentleman will be content to withdraw the amendment.

Richard Benyon (Conservative, Newbury)

The amendments in the Lords were very welcome, but I do not believe that the balance in the relationship between the MMO and the IPC is right. I believe that the MMO’s role should be stronger than that of just a statutory consultee. There should be an obligation on the IPC to make a full account of its decisions. The advisory role for the MMO needs to be incorporated into the Bill. Our amendment would put the MMO on very much the same footing under the Planning Act 2008 as a local authority. It is entirely wrong in these circumstances that the MMO has to jostle for position and to be subjugated to the IPC in certain circumstances, particularly in the important area of energy generation. I put on record our wish to continue our approach—looking at the clock, I am not sure whether we should do that now or another time—and to press the amendments.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Order. I am sorry but I am not clear about precisely what the hon. Gentleman is asking. Amendment 5 has been moved. Does he wish to put it to the vote?

Mr. Benyonindicated assent.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

The procedural situation is that although the amendments were debated together, they have to be taken separately. Two of the further amendments—amendments 6 and 7—relate to clause 23. Amendment 8 relates to clause 25, so that will be taken later anyway, and new clause 1 will be taken at the end of our proceedings on the Bill, when it will be open to the hon. Member for Newbury to move it formally, if he wishes. It will also be open to him to ask for a Division on amendment 8 when we reach clause 25, which we shall not immediately. If he wants to press amendment 6 and/or amendment 7, he will have to do move them separately, formally and now.