Clause
2General
objective Amendment
proposed: 1, in
clause 2, page 2, line 5, leave
out ‘making a contribution to the achievement of’ and
insert ‘taking
reasonable steps, consistent with the proper exercise of its functions
to further’.—(Mr.
Benyon.)
The purpose of this amendment is to
ensure that the MMO has a duty to ‘further’ sustainable
development. This gives the MMO a sufficiently robust objective to be
responsible for ‘furthering’ and not just ‘making
a contribution to the achievement of’ sustainable
development. Question
put, That the amendment be made.
The
Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes
8.
Division
No.
2] Question
accordingly
negatived.
2.45
pm
Mr.
Benyon: 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.’. The
purpose of this amendment is to ensure that in exercising its
functions, the Marine Management Organisation (MMO) has regard to
mitigating, and adapting to, climate change. This should ensure that
the MMO is also aligned with the biggest threat against the marine
environment.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss
clause stand
part.
Mr.
Benyon: 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: 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. Dr.
Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab):
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—
The
Chairman: 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.
Dr.
Whitehead: 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.
Mr.
Benyon: 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.
Dr.
Whitehead: 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—
The
Chairman: 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.
Dr.
Whitehead: 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: 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”. 3
pm 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.
| 
