Clause 2
Marine and Coastal Access Bill [Lords]
2:30 pm

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

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.’.

Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause stand part.

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

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 (St Ives, Liberal Democrat)

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.

Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test, Labour)

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—

Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)

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.

Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test, Labour)

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.

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

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.

Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test, Labour)

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—

Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)

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.

Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test, Labour)

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

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”.

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.

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

The phrase “foremost in mind” may apply, but climate change is not foremost in the Bill. That is an omission, and it does not sit comfortably with other legislation recently passed by this House, such as the Planning Act 2008. We have many more important discussions to come, but there can be no more important issue than climate change. Tempted as I am to press the amendment to a Division, I will withdraw it. However, I look forward to the resolution of the issue raised by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test, and I will work with the Minister to try to achieve that. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.