| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Between then and the 1980s, however, when I was a consultant to the Countryside Commission on national park policy, that changed. The National Parks Board in the 1980s and since has had a clearer hierarchy of priorities. It is critical that the MMO has that sense of priority, because no one else will. There will be plenty of other people fighting for causes that we are all aware of; there are competing claims, such as the fishing industry or the extractive industries, and other people will be able to fight the good fight on their behalf. However, only the MMO will have that sense of clear guidance—if it is in the Bill. Unless Clause 2 is specific, in the way that noble Lords on all sides of the Committee have been indicating in this debate, it will be difficult to have that sense of guidance. Also, the expectations of the many organisations that have campaigned for this legislation for many years now will not be met unless that sense of priority is built into the Bill. I strongly support the noble Baroness’s amendment.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: This has been an interesting and informative debate. I say in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, who found Clause 2 “woolly”, that I know that Members of the Committee feel that Clause 2 in particular does not quite capture the critical role of the Marine Management Organisation. Although they are rather critical of the drafting of this part of the Bill, I should say that the reason why it is drafted in this way is by no means a lack of ambition regarding the MMO’s importance and role. As the Committee will know, drafting legislation is a complex art in itself and the complex nature of the various functions that we need this body to perform makes it difficult to give it a simple, punchy purpose.
I understand what the noble Baroness is saying about wishing to give a clear message, but we have to reflect that the MMO is not a single-sector organisation
12 Jan 2009 : Column 1099
I turn to the amendments that would replace “making a contribution to” with “further” and “promote”. Those words were carefully chosen when the Bill was drafted and they run through our proposals. As the noble Lords, Lord Greaves and Lord Greenway, suggested, this wording was chosen in part because the MMO, even working within a UK-wide marine policy statement, will not be able to achieve sustainable development of the marine area on its own. While the MMO will have an important role to play in contributing to the achievement of sustainable development, it will also be dependent on the actions of others, including other regulators, delivery bodies, devolved Administrations and the many users of the sea and its resources.
The noble Lord, Lord Greenway, suggested a way out for me in being much more precise about what guidance the Secretary of State will give, because Clause 2 contains provisions for the Secretary of State to give guidance to the MMO on its responsibilities in relation to sustainable development. However, he also anticipated that I am not really in a position to go very much further forward, partly for the good reason that the guidance will be informed by debate in your Lordships’ House and the other place. I can assure noble Lords that the guidance will be robust and make abundantly clear to the Marine Management Organisation its responsibilities.
On the question of “making a contribution to” as opposed to “further” or “promote”, I make it clear that achievement of sustainable development of the marine area will be a partnership effort by all with a stake in our seas. It will be guided by policies in the marine policy statement and ultimately the relevant marine plans, both of which have sustainable development at their core. These policies will then be implemented through the decisions that determine whether something happens in our seas.
Plans will guide decisions taken not just by the MMO but by all the public authorities operating in the marine area to ensure that the net effect is that all decision-makers pull in the same direction towards sustainable development—a partnership effort by all with a stake in the marine environment.
Baroness Byford: I am grateful to the Minister for explaining that, but if the various players who have responsibility are pulling in different directions, where does that leave the MMO? Does the matter in question come back to the Secretary of State to decide? Who carries the ultimate responsibility to try to make sure that all the players are working towards the goal that they are trying to achieve?
12 Jan 2009 : Column 1100
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: That is a fair question, to which I was going to come later, but I am quite happy to answer it now. In addition to its duties laid down in the Bill, the MMO will operate in accordance with the new marine policy statement, which we will discuss under Part 3. That will set out policies and priorities for the marine area and how it should be managed to achieve sustainable development. In addition, as I have indicated, the MMO will be given guidance by the Secretary of State on the contribution that the Government expect it to make to achieving sustainable development.
The noble Baroness made the valid point at Second Reading and earlier in our debate today that a number of government departments will be concerned. She is absolutely right on that. Advisedly, I said that the guidance by the Secretary of State will be on the contribution that the Government expect the Marine Management Organisation to make. The marine policy statement will be a statement by the Government, so it will be informed by cross-government working to ensure that there is a co-ordinated government response, advice and statement. My understanding is that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will be advised by a cross-government sponsorship group, to include senior officials from all departments with policy interests in the marine area, and will consult Cabinet colleagues as appropriate. The intent is clear: it is—to pick up the point that the noble Baroness raises—to ensure that there is consistency. She is right to make that point.
9.30 pm
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I thank the Minister for giving way, but there we have it: the marine policy statements can vary from Government to Government, and no doubt they will, and will have different emphases from different departments, as one has more clout than another. However, what we are talking about now is the legislation that is going through Parliament to protect marine areas and to guide subsequent government policy as to the will of Parliament on this legislation. That is why we cannot just sit here and wait for guidance to come from the Secretary of State on what is at the heart of the Bill.
I believe that the Minister’s department’s heart is in the right place and that he has to be guarded because of the cross-government interests, as he says. The Minister’s colleague Huw Irranca-Davies writes in the introduction to the recently published Defra report, Managing Our Marine Resources—Licensing Under the Marine Bill:
“The changes we are making to the licensing and enforcement systems through the Marine Bill will ... provide a clear proportionate regulatory system to protect the marine environment and allow low risk activities to take place where appropriate”.
It does not say “allow them to take place anyway” but puts the emphasis on protecting the marine environment. I gently ask the Minister to stick to Defra’s guns and to come down on the side of protecting the marine environment.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I do not think that anything that my colleague wrote in that report is at all inconsistent with the aim in the Bill that the Marine Management Organisation should contribute to
12 Jan 2009 : Column 1101
Lord Greaves: Does the Minister not understand that we are saying that we want more of that policy construct in the legislation and less of it to be dependent on the whims of a particular Secretary of State at any given time?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I do not know anything about Secretaries of State and whims—I do not recognise that. There is always a balance to be struck between what should be in legislation and what should fall to guidance and secondary legislation. The Government believe that we have got the balance right and that the broad principles are here. We have the construct of the marine planning statements and guidance from the Secretary of State, which allows flexibility, which is also desirable. With the very strong statements that we are making and the duty laid down on the MMO to contribute to sustainable development, we think that we have got the balance right.
We believe that the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, in seeking to give the MMO an expressly environmental purpose, would alter the character of the Marine Management Organisation. Our view is that the focus on sustainable development will ensure that that enjoys the confidence of all those with an interest in the sea. I have already debated with the noble Baroness, Lady Young, the question of the MMO acting to some degree as a referee. I am quite happy to accept that point. However, the provision has to be seen to be objective and to weigh up these different interests and balances within the guidance and within the marine policy statement.
Baroness Young of Old Scone: Would the noble Lord give way for a moment? I know it is late at night. I will give an example that I was thinking of giving when supporting my amendment to crystallise for him in a practical way the situation that the Marine Management Organisation might find itself in. I will ask him to put himself in its shoes and think through what help he would need to be able to reach a decision that would not be hugely challenged and unsubstantiated. I hate to say that the ghastly example is the additional runway at Heathrow. Here is a real issue of major requirement and major demand—although, with the credit crunch, perhaps not for the next few years. There is a prediction that there will be huge requirement for additional air transport and the proposition is to create another runway at Heathrow. There are massive air pollution issues associated with that, apart from the amenity problems of additional flights and so on.
12 Jan 2009 : Column 1102
There is another proposition that says it should not be built at Heathrow but in the Thames estuary. I simply want to say the word “Maplin” for those noble Lords who are old enough to remember what trying to build an estuary airport involves. Just do not go there. There are other propositions that have good economic benefits and go for a more dispersed system—perhaps to build it at Gatwick and have a much more train-based feeder system into any additional airport. This is just the sort of debate that the Marine Management Organisation will be in with some very complex environmental, economic and social issues and no good answer. The only way that that decision will be adequately made in terms of Heathrow is by saying, “Look, we have to do this in a way that does not screw up the environment because that is not just for once, that is for ever”.
The Marine Management Organisation will be in that situation. The Minister Huw Irranca-Davies is very keen for this organisation to be a consensus-developing body, but when push comes to shove at the end of the day, as we have shown at Heathrow, there is sometimes a point where you cannot get a consensus and you have to have an overriding principle that says the first thing we have to protect for the long term is the environment. That is what is missing here.
Lord Glentoran: The noble Baroness is laughing. We are old adversaries. I could not let the noble Baroness, Lady Young, get away with that. I understand where her heart is, and we have had many battles across the table in the past. To bring the third runway at Heathrow into this debate is stretching things a little. The noble Baroness is brilliant. She has done some fantastic work with the environment and I am a great admirer of hers, but I think that even by her standards that is raising the balloon a little high. I think that we should go to the Thames estuary for the third runway. Let us put that away; it is a personal issue. I think she knew that that is what I was going to say.
Lord Greaves: If it went to the Thames estuary, surely the MMO would be deeply involved.
Baroness Byford: Perhaps I can give a slightly better, more relevant, example. The huge proliferation of wind farms has been concerning some of us. Some, who are keen on them, say that wind farms are a good renewable source of energy. However, Dr John Constable, research director of the Renewable Energy Foundation, was saying only on Saturday that wind farms grind to a halt; it has been too cold, so they did not circulate. He said that they are currently only generating to one-sixth of their capacity. In future, as we need more renewables, we will need more sources of back-up for when they are not working.
That is perhaps a better example than that of the noble Baroness, Lady Young. It will be quite testing. Should we continue to build offshore, or even onshore, wind farms when there are alternative sources of energy to meet our needs? I was certainly taken by the article, and suspect that it is one of many that will appear. On this occasion it was because it was cold; normally it is
12 Jan 2009 : Column 1103
There are real issues for the MMO to look at with regard to energy and renewables. Wind farms will in some ways bring benefits, and be considered sustainable development. On the other hand, they may jeopardise some wildlife and natural habitats that we are trying to conserve. I offer that to the Minister for another round-up.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: As I was saying, I will not respond on Heathrow at all; that is way above my pay grade. No doubt we will come back to discuss it in due course. Indeed, given the Bill’s progress, it is quite possible we will have a decision on Heathrow before we come to the end of deliberations in your Lordships’ House.
The fact is that the judgment that must be made on sustainable development should be the prime consideration. Of course the MMO will need to make each decision that it is called upon to make based on the available evidence, but that will be in line with its general objective and polices set out in the marine policy statement. As Members of the Committee have suggested, the weight that different policies are given may change over time as our understanding of human natural processes and needs, and their effect on us and each other, increases. The MMO will need to be flexible and adapt to difficult circumstances as they arise.
Of course, determining where environmental consideration should take priority, or where social or economic matters should take precedence, must take place. Ultimately, however, a Government, accountable to Parliament, should make that decision. Part 3 of the Bill provides for a marine policy statement and a series of marine plans. These documents will determine what our priorities and objectives should be for any area of the sea at any given time.
implies a new function for the MMO: pressing others to ensure that they carry out their functions in line with sustainable development principles. This takes us back to our debate on the first group of amendments. Of course, the MMO will be a highly responsible organisation. It will, as I have said, work on the basis of the best evidence available and have access to the best scientific advice it can get through its advisory board, staff it employs and my own department’s scientific resources as well as others.
9.45 pm
As the Bill says, we think that it is reasonable, appropriate and proportionate to say that the MMO’s role is to make a contribution in this regard. The definition of sustainable development is highly relevant to this issue. Noble Lords seek to define that term. The noble Lords, Lord Greaves and Lord Tyler, seek to insert in the Bill a reference to the UK’s sustainable development strategy. My answer to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, and the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, is
12 Jan 2009 : Column 1104
Although I prayed in aid the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, in arguing against the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, that the same argument applies to his amendment. However brilliant the UK sustainable development strategy is, it is likely that the Marine and Coastal Access Act will outlive it. Who is to say that there will always be a policy document with that name? If the terminology changes, the reference could be confusing or become redundant. For that reason we are not keen on either of the amendments.
The noble Lords, Lord Greaves and Lord Tyler, wish to require the MMO to have regard to the desirability of mitigating and adapting to climate change. I am entirely sympathetic with what they are seeking to do. I reassure them that the desirability of mitigating and adapting to climate change and the other issues listed in the amendment are among a large number of factors that will be taken into account in drawing up the marine policy statement.
Noble Lords who enjoyed taking part in deliberations on the then Planning Bill will know that the Planning Act 2008 places certain duties on Ministers in relation to climate change when drawing up and designating national policy statements. Noble Lords will also be aware that the Climate Change Act 2008 sets legally binding targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the UK. To meet those targets the Government have to ensure that if a policy results in greenhouse gas emissions going up in one area, they must go down in another. We have to assess all new policies for their potential carbon impacts. Under the Act the Government are required to publish policies and proposals that will enable them to meet their five-year carbon budgets. During the passage of the Climate Change Bill we argued that the global nature of the challenge makes it hard to see how a general mitigation duty on a public body could be meaningfully applied. Therefore, we believe that within the context of this Bill and other legislation recently passed there is sufficient provision to understand and take account of the climate change issues the noble Lord raised.
This is a very important debate. It is almost a Second Reading debate because it goes to the heart of what the Bill is about and the role of the Marine Management Organisation. I understand the points noble Lords are making about the critical nature of the environment, but we have to be aware of the difficulties and tensions inherent in taking decisions on the use of our seas. We think that the reference to contributing to sustainable development places the Marine Management Organisation in the proper place to make its decisions within the overall context of guidance by the Secretary of State and the marine policy statement.
12 Jan 2009 : Column 1105
Lord Taylor of Holbeach: I thank the Minister for that response and for his good-natured tolerance of the discursive nature of our debate. This has been perhaps the most important issue that we have discussed in Committee today. Unresolved, I think that it will continue to trouble us throughout the Bill, as it lies at the heart of so many of the other amendments that we are to consider in the future.
It has been a good debate, not only making a formidable critique of the current wording of the Bill, but exposing, if I might quote my noble friend Lady Byford, the wooliness with which the Minister has tried to deal and has attempted to firm up. The debate has also exposed that there are subtle differences in various noble Lords’ positions. It does the Bill and your Lordships’ House credit that we are honest about these things but, notwithstanding that, there is a need to return to this wording. I hope that the Minister will accept that.
I listened very carefully to what the Minister said. At one point, he used the phrase, “does not quite capture”. The general objective should be a source of inspiration; it is “the vision thing”, as we are so often
12 Jan 2009 : Column 1106
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The noble Lord should not take too much encouragement from that.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach: I was just about to depart feeling rather good. Let us hope that perhaps it is the wording for the moment, because while I shall withdraw the amendment, I am fairly certain that the Committee will wish to return to this issue. As I said, I think that we will find it cropping up throughout many of the amendments that we have ahead of us. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendments 22 to 30 not moved.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |