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 MMOs 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 cats 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
Chancellors concerns, to which she referred. I am sure that the
post could be financed from DEFRAs budget, probably to the
enormous pleasure of interested parties across Britains
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withdrawn.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 remotealthough importantGovernment
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. Gentlemans 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 designationI 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 IFCAsinshore 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?
Andrew
George: 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 (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 satellitesI believe that there are
18 of them around the coastof 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
MMOs 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 amendmentthat may answer the hon.
Member for East Devons pointand 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 constituenciesabout
as far from the sea as one can getwho 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.
Mr.
Benyon: 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: 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 UKin
Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales, Plymouth, Southampton, Liverpool and
so onand in Brussels and Strasbourg. I understand that there is
a lot of focus on the MMOs 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 partand it will only be partof 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.
|