The Scope of the Bill: the five themes
20. It was always the intention of DEFRA for the
Marine Bill to replace as much of the current skein of marine-related
legislation as possible. Although this would inevitably mean
a Bill of very great scope, it would have the merit of integrating
and balancing all the various sectors and interests in one legislative
vehicle, and would not allow some of the problems with current
legislation to continue through unnecessary exemptions. All the
various possibilities for powers or duties under the Bill were
grouped under five themes: managing marine fisheries, planning
in the marine area, licensing marine activities, improving marine
nature conservation, and the potential for a new marine management
organisation.[25] These
five themes were broadly accepted by the majority of witnesses
and those submitting memoranda to this inquiry as properly and
reasonably establishing the broad and effective scope of the Bill.[26]
21. Of course, it was well understood from the outset
that the Ministry of Defence (MoD) and the Armed Forces would
continue to be exempted from some provisions of any new law, in
the same way in which they currently have "special powers
and exemptions from some of the existing legislation."[27]
However, the decision to exclude issues relating to licensing
for oil and gas exploration and development on the basis of "national
energy security" was unexpected and disappointing. [28]
The Environment Agency (EA) in its memorandum to us considered
this to be "the main weakness of the current proposals"[29]
while the Chamber of Shipping agreed in its memorandum that "this
exemption diminishes the holistic nature of the document"
and saw " no reason… for a significant player in the
marine environment to have been excluded from consideration".[30]
Concerning the grounds for this exemption, Wildlife and Countryside
Link stated:
"We are concerned that a decision appears
to have been taken that oil and gas licensing should not be integrated
into a new marine licensing regime, and the consultation justifies
this by referring to the need to ensure energy security. Link
does not believe this security would be compromised by the integration
of oil and gas licensing, and we would have welcomed consideration
of this possibility through the consultation. Excluding oil and
gas licensing from a possibly integrated regime runs counter to
the Government's claims that it is committed to better regulation,
including legislative and administrative simplification, and holistic
planning and management at sea." [31]
22. This issue was explored in oral evidence. Mr
Ben Stafford, Parliamentary Officer for the Royal Society for
the Protection of Birds (RSPB), felt that the omission of oil
and gas licensing on the grounds of national energy security was
probably a "post-hoc rationalisation of a decision
already taken".[32]
Mr Barham of the SUDG said in support of the exclusion that the
current licensing system for oil and gas—through the DTI—worked
well and therefore ought to be left alone.[33]
Mr Maf Smith, Chief Executive of Scottish Renewables, felt that
it was illogical that oil and gas should be exempted from a new
system on the grounds of energy security when wave, wind and tidal
power would not be, despite their providing vital (and it was
to be hoped, in the light of the Government's own targets) increasing,
electricity generation to the UK.[34]
23. The other key omission from the proposals for
the draft Bill, one that most concerned conservation and environmental
bodies involved in the discussions that preceded the consultation
proper, is fisheries. The DEFRA consultation paper blandly announced:
"The consultation does not make any specific
proposals or invite responses on managing marine fisheries but
sets out a number of general areas where we consider that changes
to existing primary legislation or new legislation may be required
to deliver Government commitments to strengthen the way we manage
fisheries and develop fisheries policy… As policy is developed
in these areas over the coming months we will consult stakeholders,
including where we aim to take powers in the Bill."[35]
The Minister further—and rather lamely—explained
it thus: "The reason that fisheries were excluded from the
main body of this consultation is that we have had so many consultations
in the last few years on fisheries."[36]
24. However, the Environment Agency described the
absence of fisheries from the consultation paper as a "missed
opportunity" and added that "this consultation provides
the first real opportunity to comment on the complete package
of options for the Marine Bill…. New arrangements for fisheries
management should have been consulted upon as part of the package
of measures to be introduced by the Bill."[37]
Wildlife and Countryside Link encouraged people to write in on
the subject of fisheries as part of the consultation, notwithstanding
the consultation paper's declaration that it was not inviting
comments on that area of marine activity.[38]
Even other parts of industry, for example the British Wind Energy
Association, found the omission of fisheries troubling. As Dr
Joe Jarrah, its Technical Director, argued:
"The fishing industry is of its nature an
extractive industry. It does have an environmental impact of
its own…. Going back to comments made earlier about a coherent
plan for the marine environment that covers all legitimate users,
I think it would be very sensible to make sure that fishing is
integral in that, with other industries."[39]
25. It is clear, however, from the wording of the
consultation document and from the Minister's own announcement
about Sea Fisheries Committees and his evidence before us, that
omission from the consultation paper does not necessarily imply
omission from the draft Bill, when it comes. Evidently, some
areas at least relating to fisheries will in all probability be
brought into the draft Bill, after separate consultation connected
with the future of the Sea Fisheries Committees.[40]
The Minister also gave a welcome assurance that views submitted
on fisheries as part of the first consultation will be
read and will feed into whatever further consultations follow.[41]
26. In relation to oil and gas licensing, a guarantee
was given before the consultation began that those industries
"would not be included in any new licensing regime".[42]
However, the Minister added that "some within the industry…
taking … a more enlightened view" believe that they
might have "something to benefit from being part of an integrated
licensing regime" and that "if the industry itself suddenly
decides that it wants to [be part of the new regime for licensing]
then we would be happy to do that."[43]
27. It is disappointing that the consultation issued
by DEFRA in March does not suggest that the future Marine Bill
will be as holistic a piece of legislation as so many hoped for,
or as really appears to be needed. While a new consultation may
lead to more areas than just the modernisation of Sea Fisheries
Committees being brought from the domain of fisheries into the
draft Bill, DEFRA needs seriously to consider how successful a
Marine Act will be which fails to integrate something as central
as fisheries into the rest of the marine environment. The Minister's
comments about "consultinitis" are just not good enough.[44]
We press DEFRA to inform as much of the second consultation as
possible with the substance of the responses on matters relating
to fisheries received from the first consultation: and to extend
the proposals for the Marine Bill to cover as many fisheries issues
as possible in order to ensure legislative and administrative
integration.
28. It is unsatisfactory and counterproductive that
the oil and gas industries were given a veto over whether or not
they would be part of the new, so-called integrated licensing
scheme. As with fisheries, if one of the key purposes of the
Marine Bill is legislative and administrative integration, then
the oil and gas licensing veto frustrates that purpose. While
going back on his assurances to the industry might be difficult
for the Minister, he must work with those within the industry
who can see the benefits of belonging to the new scheme in order
to explain to the rest of the industry why he now must integrate
them into the scheme—something which so many other users
and marine groups wish to see. In terms of the provision of UK
energy, renewables will increasingly be of strategic importance,
as oil and gas are currently, and the same scheme, so long as
it is sufficiently flexible, ought to apply to all conventional
and renewable forms of energy supply. We look to the Government
to ensure that this is the case in the draft Marine Bill when
it is introduced to Parliament.
25 A Marine Bill, http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/marinebill/index.htm,
para 6.1 Back
26
For example: Ev2, para 6; also Ev57, para 3 Back
27
Q76 Back
28
A Marine Bill, http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/marinebill/index.htm,
para 9.26 Back
29
Ev54, para 2.9.1 Back
30
Ev45 Back
31
Ev5, para 29 Back
32
Q12 Back
33
Q34 Back
34
Q55 Back
35
Marine Bill, http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/marinebill/index.htm,
para 7.1 Back
36
Q80 Back
37
Ev53, Summary, and Ev54, para 2.1.4 Back
38
Ev2, para 6 Back
39
Q14 Back
40
Q80 Back
41
Q82 Back
42
Q84 Back
43
Q84-5 Back
44
Q80 Back
|
