Schedule 1
Marine and Coastal Access Bill [Lords]
1:15 pm

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

I beg to move amendment 4, in schedule 1, page 227, line 11, at end insert—

Hugo Swire (East Devon, Conservative)

I rise to support the amendment. I would have thought that the proposal was fairly uncontentious; indeed, I am rather surprised that such a measure is not in the Bill. If the MMO is to function properly, it must take into account all competing demands and certainly the development of green energy. I wonder whether I am losing the Minister’s attention, Mr. Gale—[Interruption.] Ah, the Under-Secretary of  State for Scotland will respond to the debate, which just shows the importance of having two people. That is why we need a chief engineering advisor and a chief scientific advisor—in case one or the other is off.

Offshore technology of one sort of another will be in demand in a lot of the areas we are talking about. We have already touched on offshore wind farms and wave projects, and a good wave project down in Plymouth is being funded by the South West of England Regional Development Agency, as the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton will know. Such projects will require infrastructure and cabling—the energy must be brought onshore—but a chief scientific advisor is not necessarily the correct person to make judgments on those things. He would be well backed up by a chief engineering advisor, and the two people working together would cover almost every conceivable eventuality. The disciplines are different, and an engineering adviser would add to the MMO. I hope the Government will accept the amendment.

Andrew George (St Ives, Liberal Democrat)

I support the amendment. Given the strategic importance of the UK’s marine energy resource, the timely delivery of renewable energy targets should surely be part of the MMO’s remit and objectives. The fact is that some in the renewable energy sector are concerned that the MMO will be answerable solely to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and not to other Departments, and therefore that the organisation might have too much of an environmental base and might not be sufficiently considerate of the Government’s climate change objectives. Those wider, global conservation considerations must surely be part of the MMO’s activities.

The hon. Member for East Devon mentioned the South West of England RDA’s wave hub project. In fact, it is not in Plymouth; it has been proposed and recently licensed for the north coast of my constituency. The cable will be set out from Hayle and anchored about 10 km off the north coast of my constituency. It is an exciting and experimental project, and it is vital that the UK takes the opportunity to lead the world in that aspect of scientific and engineering development. Such a window of opportunity has been provided by the licensing and preparatory work that is in place. I would be significantly reassured, not only on offshore wind facilities, which hon. Members have mentioned, but on tidal and wave renewables facilities, if the MMO had the capacity to consider not only the science, but the vital and complex engineering challenges that many stakeholders must consider. I hope that the Minister will take the amendment on board. Extending the appointments from science to engineering and ensuring that the organisation has such capacity is something that the Government should support.

Ann McKechin (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Scotland Office; Glasgow North, Labour)

Thank you, Mr Gale, good afternoon. Everyone will have welcomed the announcement early this morning that Christopher Parry will be chair designate of the Marine Management Organisation. That shows that we are making progress on the necessary preparations.

I do not accept the contention in the explanatory statement to the amendment:

“Science and engineering are very different disciplines.”

My late father spent many years lecturing thousands of engineering undergraduates in physics, and I am sure that he would say that science underpins an understanding of and is the basis of engineering. Engineering today requires knowledge of mathematics, physics, geology and biochemistry, particularly in the field of renewable energy, which, I fully accept is key to our economic growth and potential. Our chief scientific adviser, Professor Sir John Beddington, is not only the head of science in Government but of engineering, and represents the interests of both. The understanding has always been that chief scientific officers in Government encompass both disciplines, including engineering skills and the practical application of the sciences.

I do not know whether the shadow Chancellor, who keeps saying that the Government need to consider cutting bureaucracy and costs, would consider the appointment of yet another highly paid and pensioned civil servant a positive step. I shall leave that to one side.

Serious and genuine points about offshore renewable energy licensing have been made today. To be seen as a credible marine regulator, the MMO must be able to draw on its expertise to inform decision making, and we recognise that energy expertise must be part of that skill set.

Clause 2 requires the MMO to take account of all relevant facts and matters when making decisions and carrying out its functions. Where engineering expertise is relevant, the MMO will, of course, draw upon it as and when needed. It is not necessary to require the MMO to appoint a chief engineering adviser specifically. We have amended schedule 1 to require the MMO to appoint a chief science adviser in recognition of the cross-cutting and truly fundamental role that science will play in the new MMO.

I am not disputing the fact that engineering is important, not only for renewable energy, but for many other areas, such as oil and gas marine structures and the move to carbon capture, which require specialist engineering skills. It is important, not to justify and advise, but to ensure that we have in the MMO the necessary expertise and can call upon it. We are confident that the issue can be addressed as part of the MMO’s wider recruitment and that the MMO will be able to bring in expertise through other means, because, depending on the type of application, special consultancy, rather than full-time staff, may be more appropriate.

The MMO will need to recruit new staff and develop them through training and interchange to ensure that the appropriate expertise is available from day one. Interchange is also a mechanism whereby the MMO can build its knowledge base through exchanges and strengthened links with partner organisations and industry. In addition, if the MMO decided that it needed to bring in further engineering expertise, it has the flexibility to do that without the specific power being included in the Bill.

Paragraph 16 of schedule 1 allows the MMO to appoint other employees. That could include specialist engineering staff, but that would be a decision for the chair and board, based on an analysis of the requirements at the time. To make prescriptions such as those in the amendment would be to micro-manage and remove the MMO’S responsibility for regulating its own staffing  and resource requirements. As an independent non-departmental public body, those decisions should be left to the MMO.

I hope that I have reassured hon. Members that the necessary plans are in place to ensure that the MMO has access to engineering expertise. I do not believe that that should be specified in the Bill, so I urge the hon. Member for Newbury to withdraw his amendment.

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

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 MMO’s 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 cat’s 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 Chancellor’s concerns, to which she referred. I am sure that the post could be financed from DEFRA’s budget, probably to the enormous pleasure of interested parties across Britain’s 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.

Andrew George (St Ives, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendments 28 and 26.

Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)

Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot move them both at this stage.

Andrew George (St Ives, Liberal Democrat)

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.’.

Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)

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 (St Ives, Liberal Democrat)

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 remote—although important—Government agency unaccountable to coastal communities, and the coastal communities affected by the decisions and actions of the MMO.

Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire, Liberal Democrat)

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 (St Ives, Liberal Democrat)

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.

Hugo Swire (East Devon, Conservative)

The amendment suggests that there should be at least one committee. In the hon. Gentleman’s 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 (St Ives, Liberal Democrat)

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 designation—I 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 IFCAs—inshore fisheries and conservation authorities.

David Jones (Shadow Minister, Wales; Clwyd West, Conservative)

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 (St Ives, Liberal Democrat)

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, Labour)

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 satellites—I believe that there are 18 of them around the coast—of 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 (St Ives, Liberal Democrat)

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 MMO’s 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 amendment—that may answer the hon. Member for East Devon’s point—and 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.

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

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.

Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire, Liberal Democrat)

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.

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

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 constituencies—about as far from the sea as one can get—who 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 (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Marine and Natural Environment), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Ogmore, Labour)

And coastal forums.

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

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

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 UK—in Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales, Plymouth, Southampton, Liverpool and so on—and in Brussels and Strasbourg. I understand that there is a lot of focus on the MMO’s location in Tyneside.

Linda Gilroy (Plymouth, Sutton, Labour)

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 part—and it will only be part—of making this meaningful to coastal communities?

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

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.

Hugo Swire (East Devon, Conservative)

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

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.

Linda Gilroy (Plymouth, Sutton, Labour)

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

Yes, indeed. As I say, I will happily work on the issue and write to my hon. Friend about it.

Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test, Labour)

As the assistant Minister for nowhere, may I add the location of Southampton to the interesting discussion that we are having this afternoon?

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

Yes.

Nick Ainger (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire, Labour)

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

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.

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 (St Ives, Liberal Democrat)

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

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 (St Ives, Liberal Democrat)

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

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 (St Ives, Liberal Democrat)

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.

Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire, Liberal Democrat)

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 (St Ives, Liberal Democrat)

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.

Andrew George (St Ives, Liberal Democrat)

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.

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.

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

The amendment gives the Minister an opportunity to tell the Committee a little more about the structure of the new organisation, particularly at the higher levels. We have heard about the appointment of the chairman, but I do not know what the process was or what skills he will bring to the job. We have not had time to find out much about him, and I look forward to the Minister enlightening us. We also want to know the make-up of the board. We want to be sure that it has a broad range of skills that reflect the demands made on the new organisation.

There is unhappiness among the MFA staff about the degree of consultation on the move to the new headquarters. That is a matter of great concern, as is the lack of incentive for the staff to move. It is crucial to the success of the organisation that as many staff as possible make that move. They are highly skilled and many have years of experience, but they are being required to make a major, life-changing move to a different part of the world—one of which many have no knowledge and with which many have no connection. It is important that their concerns are met.

The credibility of the organisation will be measured largely by its ability to hit the ground running. I am concerned that we do not have the correct number of people in place at this stage. Not enough people have expressed a willingness to move to Tyneside, and we do not know how the organisation will be structured at the highest level or what more can be done to encourage the many people who have contributed to marine and fisheries management over the years to join the new organisation.

Nick Ainger (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire, Labour)

I wish to raise my concerns about the resourcing of the MMO and its staffing, and about the Welsh Assembly Government Departments that will take on the responsibilities of the MMO in Welsh waters.

The hon. Member for St. Ives spoke about the consent process for offshore wind, tidal and wave power. My local authority area’s coastline has four projects in various stages of planning or development. There are  two wave projects and two tidal projects, and they all pose different problems for the area. I do not say that that will be replicated around the coast, but it gives an indication of the likely level of development that will take place, not only with large offshore wind farms but with a significant number of smaller renewable energy projects, such as tidal and wave power.

I wonder whether the MMO will have sufficient staffing resources, with the right skills, to deal with such a series of applications. The worst thing for the renewables sector is unnecessary delay. It is good to get the consent process working well, ensuring that the environmental impact assessments are completed. The sector understands that, but it is concerned that inadequate staffing resources will lead to unacceptable delays, particularly when dealing with offshore projects. Time is of the essence. Basically, we do not want things being built at sea in the middle of winter, and almost 12 months can be lost if a project is delayed.

As I said earlier, the MMO functions will be dealt with by Welsh Assembly Government Departments in Welsh waters. Is the Minister satisfied that Wales will have sufficient resources? I have cited the four projects already on the drawing board or in various stages of development in my constituency. We should consider what is happening elsewhere in the world, with offshore wind farms and particularly with renewable energy tidal and wave power. I know that the Minister is well aware of the various developments. Will the Welsh Assembly Government have sufficient resource to deal with such projects?

Finally, will the Minister comment on the fact that, although the MMO will act as a one-stop shop for all such developments, as I understand it, depending on the size of a development, the MMO could become involved in some parts of the consenting process, and the Welsh Assembly Government in others?

Linda Gilroy (Plymouth, Sutton, Labour)

I want to make a brief contribution and add to the various points made by previous speakers. the Joint Committee on the draft marine Bill raised a point about access to data. The MMO will need to be funded adequately to enable it to access both privately-owned and public date alike. When we made our recommendations, we suggested that it should either be a question of the MMO being adequately resourced or else having free access. As a Member representing a constituency with various scientific organisations collecting data, such as the long-term plankton data recording set, I know that such institutions will not be particularly amenable to giving their data for free. That matter needs drawing to the Minister’s attention. The MMO needs to be adequately resourced in that regard.

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

Some very good points have been made. First, however, I reiterate that the chairman of the MMO, Chris Parry, whom we appointed today, will be an excellent first chairman; I have no doubt about that. We had a strong field of candidates. Chris Parry has a very strong record in strategic development and management of complex, multi-disciplinary maritime organisations. In fact, it has been difficult to get hold of him over the past few days, because of the work that he has been doing with other countries on marine management. He has a fascinating background. With  his agreement—I shall have to clear it with him first—I shall write to all Committee members next week with more background on him.

Members asked about the timetable. The chair designate is now in place, and he will be appointed as chairman after Royal Assent. If the Bill does not receive Royal Assent, of course, the appointment will be terminated, so please keep the good will going! Board recruitment cannot ordinarily commence until after Royal Assent, which is in line with standard Treasury guidance on public expenditure. However, in order to keep things moving, we intend to apply for an advance from the contingency fund. If successful, it will allow early recruitment of the board. So we intend to have a chair and board in place in good time to allow the vesting of the organisation on 1 April 2010.

The hon. Member for Newbury asked about the recruitment process. We will use specialist recruitment consultants to undertake parts of the process, including drawing up specifications, executive search advertising, application sift and interviews. Another point was raised about the lack of proper consultation with staff at the MFA. I understand hon. Members’ concerns. The move could have been to Carrick, Southampton, Liverpool, Tyneside or Plymouth—the latter was a very favourable location and many were attracted to it. However, we have worked intensively with MFA staff; I, myself, have met them at least twice.

We carried out a staff survey on staff preferences and made staff visits to Tyneside with a series of presentations on Tyneside, the living environment, quality of life and so on. Furthermore, a question and answer facility has been provided on the intranet for staff, and we also held meetings with coastal staff. We always recognised that some staff would not want to come—for family reasons and so on—and we continue to engage with them to ensure that they are properly looked after.

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

It would be a great help to know whether the Department has yet secured a building as an office and when it expects to announce a shadow chief executive, if not a chief executive.

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

We are looking at two or three possible locations for the site of the building. A number of factors are involved, which I do not want to bore the Committee with. They include the environmental status of the building, which is important in ensuring that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs estate keeps its commitment to having buildings of the highest environmental standards. We need to make a decision quite soon. I will return to the other question about the chief executive in a moment, when I have some inspiration.

The MMO will have around 50 more posts than currently and will need to take on additional strength in depth around enforcement, engagement and science. We have already mentioned a chief scientific adviser but it is also about the science base and how it reaches out to other organisations.

Linda Gilroy (Plymouth, Sutton, Labour)

On the science, and the debate we had earlier about engineering, what advice will the chief scientist have at his disposal? How will that be organised? Will it be free-standing? Will there be a Committee? How will it work?

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

The chief scientific adviser will have a panel to work with that reaches outwards from the MMO. Ultimately, the MMO will determine the exact nature of the chief scientific adviser’s role. Lord Hunt said that it would be a very senior role—the fact of the appointment indicates its importance. The MMO chief scientific adviser will not sit in a bunker in Tyneside. He will have to make connections with the marine scientific advisory panel that we have established and that is already extending its work. The panel reaches out to all centres of expertise in the UK, including our own Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science in Lowestoft and elsewhere, Plymouth, Southampton, the Proudman Institute and so on.

Hugo Swire (East Devon, Conservative)

We are surprised that the Minister has managed to hang on to a contingency fund that has not been snaffled to pay for one of the Prime Minister’s new initiatives. The Minister has just announced that the MMO will expand on the MFA by recruiting an additional 40 or 50 new posts. Will he give the Committee an indication of the range of pay scales of the new posts and what the additional cost to the taxpayer will be?

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

No; I do not have that information at my disposal. Ultimately, it will be for the MMO to work within its budget. As we take this forward in Committee and make obligations, for example, to appoint a chief scientific adviser, we are revising as we go to ensure that the MMO has the appropriate resources. When we talk about engineering, we need to ensure that the MMO has a basis of expertise. Let me turn to the other two areas that I did not touch on, which concern statistical analysis and also, crucially, economics and social science. The MMO will be not an MFA-plus, but a very distinct, strengthened organisation. I give an undertaking that the resources will be there.

Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire, Liberal Democrat)

A number of people are concerned that only one and a half people are going to have the knowledge and expertise to work on the renewable energy responsibilities of the MMO.

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

I think I have made clear that, as the Bill goes through Committee and on Report, there will be finessing of the necessary expertise. It is not only to do with one and half, two, five or ten people working within the MMO. It is also to do with the expertise that they are drawing on externally.

Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire, Liberal Democrat)

Consultants.

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

No. We have a body of expertise in the UK within the energy industry, organisations, NGOs and academia that should not be isolated from the MMO; it should be integral to the functionality of the MMO. The MMO is, as it were, the supreme manager and strategist on the marine environment and its success will depend on engagement with other sectors.

Regarding the chief executive, we will be interviewing from an extremely strong and powerful field of chief executive-designate positions next week. Regarding the extra cost for pay, which was mentioned, I can give some indication. We estimate that the additional cost will be about £2.1 million. However, it is up to the  chairman and the chief executive to decide the appropriate pay structures and grades for the expertise that they need. It is not for me, as the Minister, to do that; that is what the MMO is all about.

I want to turn directly to the amendment. The members of the Committee will want to know that the Joint Committee of both Houses, which carried out pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft Bill last summer, also raised the issue of staff numbers and expertise. The Joint Committee specifically wanted to see the importance of scientific input reflected in the Bill and that issue was extensively debated in the other place. The Government’s response was as follows:

“We will revisit our analysis of the expected number of additional staff the MMO will require in the light of more detailed understanding of the MMO’s proposed functions and the staff required to deliver them. In particular, in response to the Committee’s comments we need to ensure there will be sufficient scientific expertise within the MMO. In any event, we intend the MMO to evolve, growing into its role - and have provided flexible provisions in the draft Bill to enable this. As and when the MMO takes on further functions, we will review the resources needed to deliver them.”

Members of this Committee will also wish to note that we established an MMO implementation team last year to work with the MFA as it prepares for its transition. Members of that team are currently carrying out a review of staffing and other resources that will be required for the MMO. However, it will of course be up to the MMO board, once it is appointed, to take the final decisions on how the new organisation should be structured and staffed to ensure that it is fit for purpose.

As I mentioned earlier, at launch we expect the MMO to comprise about 250 staff posts in total, which is 50 more than the current number. The MMO will include a range of expertise from the MFA and new staff with appropriate skills will be recruited. A comprehensive training and induction programme is being developed, as well as managed knowledge transfer plans for those staff who are coming from the MFA, the Department of Energy and Climate Change and the Department for Transport, as well as for those staff who will not be relocating to Tyneside.

The structure and format of the new body will not just be the MFA remade. The MMO will not only need to plan for new functions to be resourced but to meet the needs of its existing customers, such as aggregate businesses and offshore renewables. It needs to plan for increasing demands, which will involve working with the IPC on major projects to meet the Government’s challenging targets on renewable energy. As I have mentioned, industry also has a role to play in helping accurately to forecast the demands on the MMO, to ensure that it can deliver the service required. So we are listening, and the chairman of the MMO will be listening and making adjustments as appropriate.

Andrew George (St Ives, Liberal Democrat)

The Minister has mentioned the IPC. Is he aware how many staff the IPC will have to deal with questions about the renewables industry?

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

I will try to come back to the hon. Gentleman with some inspiration on that question; I certainly do not have the facts at the front of my mind.

Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)

Order. Just before the Minister looks for too much more inspiration, I must draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that the amendment is about a  report that is yet to be published and whether or not there should be such a report. I think that I have given a fair degree of latitude to allow members of the Committee to tease out answers to some of the questions that they want to ask. I will now draw a halt.

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

Thank you for that guidance, Mr. Gale. I must say to members of the Committee that amendment 30 is neither appropriate nor necessary. However, I hope that I have reassured them that we understand the importance of ensuring adequate resources. As the MMO evolves and takes on more functions, we will keep the resourcing issue under review, and we will augment resources where necessary.

On that basis, I invite the hon. Member for St. Ives to withdraw the amendment.

Andrew George (St Ives, Liberal Democrat)

I am grateful to the Minister and to the hon. Members for Carmarthen, West and South Pembrokeshire and for Plymouth, Sutton for their comments and contribution to the debate.

The Minister has mounted a defence of the MMO’s capacity to cope with the new demands that will be placed upon it, but the functions transferred from the MFA to the MMO will be augmented simply by a 20 per cent. increase in the staffing complement available, despite the fact that the new organisation is taking on, in my view, a great deal more than 20 per cent. in additional work load.

Although some of the Minister’s words were welcome, I had hoped that he would say more about, for example, the defence of the MMO’s capacity, on which the industries involved will want reassurance. I had also hoped that he would cover the consequences of accepting the amendment—in other words, the problems that would be created for the organisation were it required simply to make a statement within the report to reassure the industry that it had the capacity to fulfil its function, which would not take a great deal of effort. That is all the amendment asks for, so I do not understand for the life of me why it is not acceptable. What would be the consequences of ensuring that the report includes what the renewables industry is concerned about and wants to be reassured about, namely that the MMO has the necessary capacity? That should be included.

Having heard what the Minister has said, and despite the fact that I am not reassured on the matter, I will not push the amendment to a vote. I hope that he will reflect outside the debate on the issues that have been raised, consult the industry and perhaps find other ways to reassure it before coming back on Report and having another go. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.