[back to previous text]

Mr. Benyon: 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.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Andrew George: I beg to move amendments 28 and 26.
The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot move them both at this stage.
Andrew George: 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.’.
The Chairman: 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: 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.
Mr. Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD): 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: 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.
Mr. Swire: 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: 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.
Mr. David Jones (Clwyd, West) (Con): I am intrigued to know why the consultation process has to be via a committee. Why cannot the consultation process simply be direct?
Linda Gilroy (Plymouth, Sutton) (Lab/Co-op): 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: 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.
1.45 pm
Mr. Benyon: 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.
Mr. Williams: 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.
Mr. Benyon: 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: And coastal forums.
Huw Irranca-Davies: 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: 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: 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.
Mr. Swire: 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: 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.
 
Previous Contents Continue
House of Commons 
home page Parliament home page House of 
Lords home page search page enquiries ordering index

©Parliamentary copyright 2009
Prepared 3 July 2009