Examination of Witnesses (Questions 264-279)
7 JANUARY 2004
MR ELLIOT
MORLEY MP AND
MR JOHN
ROBERTS
Q264 Chairman: Can I welcome Elliot Morley
to the Committee, thank you very much, Minister, for coming to
see us.
Mr Morley: It is like home from
home.
Chairman: We wish you both a very Happy
New Year. We hope you will continue to come and visit us during
2004, we always enjoy our exchanges. I would like to ask Mr Tipping
to commence our proceedings.
Q265 Paddy Tipping: I will follow that
very kind introduction by asking a hard question, in our evidence
this has turned out to be an even more complex situation than
I had originally thought or the Committee had originally thought,
how far is the complexity of the legislation going to continue
to damage the marine environment?
Mr Morley: Before I answer that
I would like to introduce John Roberts from Defra who is accompanying
me this afternoon. It is an important issue in relation to the
changes which have taken place in our marine environment in both
inshore and offshore waters both within our EEZ and outside our
EEZ as well. I understand that the Committee has received a copy
of Wavelength which outlines a lot of the issues which
I think are very pertinent to your investigation and explains
a lot of the work which the Department is undertaking. I think
the short answer is that our seas are becoming a more crowded
place in every sense of the word. There is a lot of offshore oil
and gas activity, there is aggregate dredging and there is offshore
wind farming now. Our knowledge is also improving of sensitive
areas, both marine and seabed, wintering areas for sea ducks and
sea birds and all of these do need to be addressed. We do have
in place in the United Kingdom quite a comprehensive set of regulations
in relation to controlling activities which come within our own
United Kingdom sphere of influence, and that includes a lot of
the offshore work in relation to oil, gas, aggregates and offshore
power. There is also fishing, which is of course an EU competency.
Some of the shipping issues fall within IMO competency, so there
is quite a range of issues and there is indeed a range of regulations
and a range of consents. There are a number of government departments
who have an interest in both marine and coastal issues. We do
have a review underway looking at the issue of consents with the
possibility of streamlining management and making it more open,
transparent, simpler and more effective. That is likely to go
out for consultation some time this year I think.
Q266 Paddy Tipping: This year has just
begun.
Mr Morley: I take your point.
Mr Roberts: I hope it will be
in the spring.
Mr Morley: In the spring.
Q267 Paddy Tipping: You say there is
a lot of activity going on, the regulations and legislation is
taking place, what would you make of people who say that we need
new legislation, there is a need for a new Marine Act, for example?
Mr Morley: That is a distinct
possibility. I think we should look at that issue seriously. We
do have to ask the question that if you want a Marine Act what
do you want in it, what will a Marine Act do that we cannot do
at the present time in relation through the range of regulations
that we have available? There may well be a very strong case for
a Marine Bill, we are considering that issue at the moment in
Defra. Obviously because we are in an area where there are a number
of government departments we have to consult with other government
departments, we have to consult with the devolved administrations,
which are all quite right and proper, but there may well be a
case for it. We do need to be clear that if you are going to have
a bill what it will do, what will go in it and what is justification
for it. It may well be that that case can be made.
Q268 Paddy Tipping: If you cast your
mind back it was not very long ago there was a Private Members
Bill, John Randall's Bill[19]and
I will not press you too hard on it because I suspect that Defra
saw merit in part of it, and it was blocked in the Lords one gets
the feeling through concerns within the department of Trade and
Industry.
Mr Morley: It was blocked by individual
Lords in the House of Lords for reasons which only they can explain,
I cannot speak for them. What I can say to you is that Defra supported
John Randall's Private Bill, it was amended to take into account
the concerns that the Government had and also to make sure it
was workable. On that basis we were happy to support it and we
did. John Randall's Bill was very narrow in what it set out to
do, it was to do with protecting sensitive areas, of which there
is a very strong argument. We can declare marine nature reserves
now but there is an issue of protection and enforcement which
John Randall's Bill quite rightly addressed. That may well be
a relevant aspect of a future Marine Bill. These are the things
that we do take seriously and we are looking at it at the moment.
It is covered in Safeguarding Our Seas, which sets out
government policies and strategies in relation to the marine environment.
Q269 Paddy Tipping: If you cannot get
a narrow bill through, even a Private Members Bill, what is the
prospect of getting a more extended piece of legislation through?
What discussions are you having with colleagues across Government
to try and align all of this?
Mr Morley: We are actively engaged
with colleagues across Government in the whole issue of marine
legislation, marine protection and marine consents. There is also
some quite old legislation and there is a plethora of legislation
where there is always an opportunity for consolidating and streamlining,
and one should always look for those in terms of reducing bureaucracy
and making things more transparent and simple, and so we always
look for those opportunities. There are some key concerns which
I think would merit a Marine Bill. Obviously this is still under
discussion and no decision has been taken on this, as you will
appreciate. I also think that just looking round the Committee
I know there are people here who have been involved in Private
Members Bill and there is a big difference between a Private Members'
bills and a Government Bill.
Q270 Paddy Tipping: We talked about the
national context and touched on the EU, the sea is an international
matter, how are discussions going to try and bring forward a series
of measures that have international consent? Even if you have
that international consent how good is it? How are you expected
to be able to police it?
Mr Morley: We are the first European
country to extend the Protection of the Habitats Directive beyond
our coastal limits, that is the Darwin Mounds. It is currently
under interim protection under EU temporary powers but we will
have it in place this summer, the longer term protection for the
Darwin Mounds, and we are the first European country to do this.
We also very strongly argued at the OSPAR meeting of last year
for a measure for the first time to seek agreement to extend protected
areas into international waters. That was agreed at OSPAR. Obviously
most contracting parties to OSPAR are in the North Atlantic but
there is the Convention on Biodiversity coming up this year, in
fact very soon, and I will be arguing through the EU group, because
it is an EU competency issue, to support calls for extending protected
areas to the high seas. It is a sensitive issue, it is quite technical,
and there is the issue of enforcement, as you quite rightly say,
but I will be asking the UN to look at the feasibility of this
with the possibility of identifying sensitive areas internationally
that would warrant protection. It is being made easier in that
the most damage to sensitive areas is caused by fishing activities.
Most fishing vessels which come within regional fisheries organisations
these days carry transponders, for example that is how we will
enforce Darwin Mounds. I think there is the possibility of enforcement
but of course it is not just fishing, there is also things like
tanker routes and other marine activities which can be damaging
to the environment.
Q271 Paddy Tipping: Who will be the opponents
to the kind of approach that you are setting out?
Mr Morley: I think it is difficult
to say in the international context and the UN context until we
have the debate at the Convention of Biodiversity. I believe we
should have that debate and the United Kingdom will be supporting
it.
Q272 Mr Mitchell: I think you are being
unfair to fishing, are you not?
Mr Morley: They have not been
very fair to me, Austin.
Q273 Mr Mitchell: It is unfair to lump
it altogether because there is some kind of fishing which does
damage, beam trawling and industrial fishing are classic examples
and in a sense should be banned anyway. You would not include
same net trawling or long lining in the same equation.
Mr Morley: Or pelagic.
Q274 Mr Mitchell: So you were in favour
of it?
Mr Morley: I did qualify my statement
to say that it was not just fishing but there are other forms
of marine activities, for example the carriage of hazardous materials,
gas and oil exploration, which can also be damaging. I would not
want to say that it is all fishermen. It is not being unfair to
fishermen to say that just by the nature of their activities,
which is not a deliberate activity, that bottom trawl does cause
damage to a lot of very sensitive features. Because of the pressure
on fish stocks we are seeing the development of new and different
and more efficient kinds of gear, particularly for deep water
trawling, which did not exist in the past. There are also changes
that present new threats.
Q275 Mr Mitchell: I agree with that.
I am an advocate, a supporter of the idea of a Marine Act because
would it not clarify the situation, because we have so many authorities
each with their own area of responsibility, if we had one simple,
clear act setting out responsibility and attributing it to one
department or authority, would that not be a much more sensible
situation than what we have now?
Mr Morley: I think there is a
possibility of that. Obviously different departments have different
areas of responsibility and because they are different it does
not necessarily mean they are not carrying it out effectively
or well. Where we can find opportunities to streamline legislation,
to make it less complicated, to make it more open and transparent
and to make it more effective then we should always take that
opportunity.
Q276 Chairman: Can I just press you a
little bit further about this Marine Act, you have given the Committee
an indication that work is progressing on a piece of legislation,
can you just tell us in a bit more detail where you think the
current arrangements are deficient and in particular what the
Act would do to correct those?
Mr Morley: I would not want to
give you the impression we are as far as advanced as work is progressing
on a Marine Bill. All I am saying is that the issue has been raised.
We are considering the merits or otherwise of such a measure,
we are talking to our colleagues in the other departments in the
normal way and I what I am saying to you is that there may well
be a case for a Marine Bill. I just want to leave it at that for
the moment, this is still under consideration, the arguments for
and against. If you ask me what I would see a Marine Bill doing,
I did mention there are issues of how we apply the protection
of sensitive areas, it does need strengthening and you will probably
need primary legislation to do that. There is an argument for
looking at the very least at the range of consents and bodies
that do it and whether you can consolidate that in a more effective
way. On smaller issues, there are also issues like sea fisheries
committees, of which you will be familiar, and their legislation
is very old. Sea fisheries committees would benefit from more
modernised legislation which also gives an element of much more
local management of fisheries, which I think is desirable. There
are a range of opportunities but I do come back to the point I
think you are hinting at, the justification has to be there, you
do have to look at what would be in a Marine Bill and what it
would do and whether you would need primary legislation to achieve
those objectives compared to the range of powers you have at the
present time. That may well be the case and I am sympathetic to
the argument that we should look at that to see whether or not
there is a case for a Marine Bill.
Q277 Chairman: In that context are you
giving thought to a revised what I would describe as an institutional
arrangement? For example yesterday the Home Secretary made an
announcement bringing together two key parts of the criminal justice
system in terms of looking after prisoners, you might say consolidation
of responsibility is a broad, and given the fact that you think
Mr Tipping's questions indicate there are many players in this
field is thought being given, for example, to some kind of agency
or arrangement that would also help to coordinate all of these
things?
Mr Morley: There is an internal
review going on within Government and there are a series of options
in this review, one of the options is an agency. No decision has
been made on this. There is discussion taking place within Government
and that will form part of the consultation we will want to have
before we come to a conclusion on that.
Q278 Chairman: Could I seek your assurance
that if a piece of marine legislation is produced that this Committee
would be invited to conduct pre-legislative scrutiny of such a
measure?
Mr Morley: Personally I would
welcome that. I have always been a supporter of the idea of draft
bills and of pre-legislative scrutiny and that might be the most
appropriate route for a bill of this kind if that is a decision
that the Government comes to, which it has not at the present
time.
Q279 Mr Lazarowicz: Can I come back to
the effect of deep sea trawling on the seabed. It is encouraging
to hear there are developments in some of the equipment but the
message that came on a number of occasions from the evidence that
we have taken is that the situation is so bad now that action
is needed very urgently indeed and that if we wait for the processes
to go through their full possible duration then as one witness
said, "There will be irreparable damage to the seabed environment".
The argument has been put forward in a number of cases that what
you need now is emergency measures to close the whole deep sea
fishery in the continental shelf, what is your response to that?
Mr Morley: Personally I have not
seen evidence which would justify closing down the whole deep
sea fishery on the continental shelf. I do not doubt that there
are examples of severe damage in certain sensitive areas, which
is why we have taken action to protect the Darwin Mounds, which
we are aware of. Incidentally that was discovered by work done
by DTI in terms of exploration that was taking place. We do need
to identify sites which are at risk. Secondly, we do need measures
put in place to protect them. We are using the Habitats Directive
to protect the Darwin Mounds but we can only apply that out to
our 200 mile zone or our EEZ, which is not 200 miles because it
depends where the boundaries are. That is why we are also seeking
action through international bodies such as OSPAR and also the
UNCBD.
19 Marine Wildlife Conservation Bill (Session 2001-02). Back
| 
