Richard Benyon (Shadow Minister, Environment, Food & Rural Affairs; Newbury, Conservative)

May I seek your guidance, Mr. Gale? I have a clause stand part query. We had a very good debate on Tuesday about the planning side of the legislation. The Committee came to a decision that needs to be reflected in this part of the Bill. I very much hope that that will happen so that the Bill is kept balanced.

Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)

I will take that as a point of order. I will allow the Minister to make an observation in a moment. However, if I understand the hon. Gentleman correctly, I have to say that we must consider the clause as it is, not as we would like it to be, because there are no amendments tabled.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Marine and Natural Environment), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Ogmore, Labour)

Thank you for giving me some latitude, Mr. Gale. I will try to be helpful and to bring some clarity.

Following our debate and subsequent vote on Tuesday morning, I have had some time to reflect on the strong views of the Committee on some of the proposals, including those put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test. In response to our discussion about furthering sustainable development, which is material to the clauses we are coming to, he said:

“My hon. Friend makes a strong point about the comparative read-across of wording in the Bill, with other pieces of legislation that have or may not have a bearing on it. Schedule 5, however, is only relevant to the Bill and does not read across to other Acts. An amendment to that schedule, particularly to paragraph 7, could reflect the substance of this amendment. If he tabled such  an amendment on Report he might secure a great degree of cross-party support.”——[Official Report, Marine and Coastal Access Public Bill Committee, 30 June 2009; c. 18.]

I can report to the Committee what has happened in the very short period since that debate. An amendment of such scale and potential impact would read across to Whitehall Departments and devolved colleagues—of course this is a UK Bill. On reflection, I am minded to take constructively my hon. Friend’s comments and to work with other Departments, devolved colleagues and members of the Committee in the weeks ahead to try to introduce something on Report that will satisfy my hon. Friend.

We need to make sure that the Bill maintains the right balance. The question surrounding a reporting function on the furthering of sustainable development is important, but placing such a duty on the Marine Management Organisation or making it part of a marine policy statement would risk causing an imbalance among the various interests under the Bill.

Mr. Benyonrose—

Huw Irranca-Davies (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Marine and Natural Environment), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Ogmore, Labour)

I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)

Order. The Minister cannot give way on a point of order—and I take it that he is making a point of order. If the Minister has finished, I will be quite prepared to call the hon. Member for Newbury, but the Minister cannot give way.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Marine and Natural Environment), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Ogmore, Labour)

My apologies, Mr. Gale.

As I have said, I am willing to work with members of the Committee, and across Whitehall Departments and the devolved Administrations, to consider how to address genuine concerns about furthering sustainable development, but we are looking for an appropriate place to put it in the Bill. Given the constructive comments that were made on Tuesday morning, I urge hon. Members not to imbalance the Bill by imposing such a duty on the MMO or in the MPS. I might have to address those issues at a later stage, but I urge hon. Members to explore the constructive approach, as I am willing to do, of introducing a measure at a later stage, rather than imposing something elsewhere in the Bill.

Mr. Benyonrose—

Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)

Further to that point of order.

Richard Benyon (Shadow Minister, Environment, Food & Rural Affairs; Newbury, Conservative)

Yes, Mr. Gale.

I am interested by the Minister’s development of the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test, but we have the opportunity of balancing the Bill later and accepting the Committee’s earlier decision. My worry about this part of the Bill is that the MMO will not be as strong as many of us would like. If we do not balance the Bill—I am choosing my words extremely carefully, as I do not want to re-enter a debate that we concluded on Tuesday—we will further weaken it. I want a strong MMO, so I believe that we have to reflect the decision that the Committee made on Tuesday.

Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)

All that might be true, but none of it is a matter for the Chair. When I say that it might be true, I mean that it might not be as well—I do not wish to take sides in this argument. It is for the usual channels to sort this out and to table such amendments as may be necessary. I repeat that it is not a matter for the Chair. The only question for the Committee at the moment is whether clause 1 should stand part of the Bill.