Linda
Gilroy: 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: Yes, indeed. As I say, I will happily work
on the issue and write to my hon. Friend about
it.
Dr.
Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab): As the assistant
Minister for nowhere, may I add the location of Southampton to the
interesting discussion that we are having this
afternoon?
Nick
Ainger: 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: 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.
2
pm 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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.
Mr.
Williams: 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: 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. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Andrew
George: 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. 2.15
pm 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.
| 
