Examination of Witnesses (Questions -40-47)
MR PETER
BARHAM, MR
MARK RUSSELL,
DR SALLY
BANHAM AND
MR MIKE
WARD
21 JUNE 2006
Q40 David Howarth: Do you have anything
to add?
Mr Russell: Yes. Through my sector's
interest we have a slightly different take on the situation, largely
because we do operate further off shore. We have some practical
examples which have occurred in recent years which, effectively,
illustrate how the current way that we try to plan and manage
the marine environment is not functioning as perhaps it should.
Sites for off-shore renewable development have been proposed on
top of existing marine aggregate production licence areas, a pipeline
has been laid directly through an existing marine aggregate extraction
licence area, sand and gravel resources to an asset value of £700
million have been sterilised because a series of cables have been
laid through an area. In each of these cases the developers concerned
are not actually to blame. They cannot be to blame. The real illustration
is the fact that we know where most of these issues and interests
lie, we are just not making effective use of the information and
the knowledge to manage them effectively. The other aspect, I
think, which we have not really touched on yet is the issue of
nature conservation. As an industry that is developing off-shore,
it is virtually impossible to avoid the areas of potential nature
conservation interest simply because nobody can tell us where
they are. In many cases the first information that is gathered
about these potential sites is when development is taking place
and the developer is undertaking the necessary research to try
to inform their development. So, in that respect, any greater
certainty than that can be delivered as far as sites of nature
conservation importance is concerned would be of great benefit
to the industry, because it would remove that development risk
or certainly mitigate it.
Q41 David Howarth: The whole system
is having very great potential benefits because of sorting out
who can do what?
Mr Russell: I think so. There
are limits to how far it can go given the state of our knowledge
at this moment in time, certainly off shore, that is a limiting
factor, but that can change, assuming that government is prepared
to commit the necessary resourcing to actually improve that base-line
level of information, but even in terms of making better use of
the information that exists across all the integrated uses and
pressures on the marine environment, that, more than anything
else, is the place to begin.
Mr Barham: I think, in broad terms,
the industry is in favour of marine spatial planning. There will
be a number of conditions associated with that. One, obviously,
is that it is about sustainable development rather than for a
particular interest. Really following on from Mark's point, I
think the thing that we want to see and we want to see recognised
is that different uses can live alongside each other within an
area, and there may not yet be sufficient information as to how
that can be and how that can happen and how that can be made to
be improved; so there are requirements for information in marine
spatial planning. I think industry is generally agreed that it
will play its role, it will probably have to play its role anyway,
but there are real opportunities to see mechanisms worked out
whereby different interests can live alongside each other, which
is the opposite of the examples that Mark has given you.
Dr Banham: I know I have had my
first go, but just picking up on that, it is absolutely crucial
that the MMO have adequate resources in order to be able to do
proper marine spatial planning and increase the knowledge-base,
and that also means that you need the right people who are given
the clout to make decisions: because one of the problems with
the existing system is that often where you have conflicting advice
those decisions do not get resolved, and we have got illustrations
and examples of where that has happened. We really do need an
organisation that has some real clout to make difficult decisions.
Mr Ward: Again, we expand on that
example in the issues about proportionality.
Q42 Mr Chaytor: You are all concerned
about the impact on SMEs but the marine environment is no different
from the land environment in terms of the proportion of SMEs to
large companies, is it, or is there any significant difference?
You have got big oil and big gas and big shipping, so it is not
all SMES, is it?
Mr Barham: No. Certainly the Sea
User Developer Group represents the whole range of industries,
as you say, some of which are very big, others of which, the fill-ins
to the BMF, are very small; so there is a range.
Dr Banham: To say it is no different,
in terms of the environment they are operating in, I think working
within the coastal zone brings a particular set of difficulties
in terms of how much regulation there is, keeping up-to-date with
all the regulation, but if you think about working in a small
business employing ten people, to have an environmental adviser
or somebody that tracks all that regulation is incredibly difficult.
Q43 Mr Chaytor: It is no different
for a marine-based company than a land-based company. If you are
working in mineral extraction in the mountains somewhere and you
only have ten people, you have still got the same costs, have
you not? What am trying to get at is what is your fear about costs
and are there specific things in the consultation paper that have
got you concerned about excessive costs that may fall on SMEs?
Dr Banham: Yes. Certainly in terms
of the move towards 100% cost recovery, at the moment Defra have
literally just finished consulting on the FIPA life applications,
and Mike has been very heavily involved in all those discussions,
and I think there is a concern about passing on 100% cost recovery
where there are definitely inefficiencies that are widely acknowledged
within MCEUs, as things currently stand.
Mr Barham: To put some scale on
that, we are now seeing increasing maintenance dredge licensing,
for example, anything upwards of 25%, and that is on top of nine
per cent for last year and nine per cent for the year before that.
That affects all industries, small or large.
Q44 Mr Chaytor: These are costs that
are currently incurred?
Dr Banham: Yes.
Q45 Mr Chaytor: Not anything to do
with what is in there?
Dr Banham: No.
Mr Ward: Without those there is
an opportunity that we will be able to strip away some of the
layers of legislation and this cross-consultation to aid the process
and actually hopefully reduce costs and reduce that administrative
burden that sits with small business at the moment. The difference
between an SME and a terrestrial environment, if I want a small
extension to my factory, I have got to deal with the Planning
Authority, that is it. At the moment, as an SME in the marine
environment, I have got to deal with Defra, DFT, the HARP Authority,
the Environment Agency, English Nature. If I have got to lead
that process, it is very, very difficult for a small business.
You are not only touched by the legislation.
Q46 Mr Chaytor: Some of those costs
can just result in costs incurred by somebody else five miles
down the coast-line. This is the complexity of it. It is not a
simple issue of just eliminating certain forms of legislation
to reduce costs on one particular set of businesses, because the
whole thing is more integrated in the marine environment.
Mr Barham: I think part of the
point we are making, going back to your question about the consultation
document, is that there are opportunities, and it goes back to
previous questions about does the Bill represent opportunities?
Yes, it does, because there are a number of areas where we are
working with regulators to find better ways of doing things. Mike
and I are both involved on a thing called the Maintenance Dredge
Protocol. We would hope that that would have benefits for not
just the companies that we work for but everybody else involved
in using those bits of legislation. Therefore, in terms of the
consultation document, we feel, yes, there are real opportunities,
and one of the things that we are saying is that there are good
examples where regulators can work with industry and where industry
is proactively working with legislators. We would like to see
those looked at and more of those used and developed through the
Marine Bill.
Q47 Mr Chaytor: Have you done any
research specifically on either additional costs that could be
imposed as a result of some of the proposals in there or opportunities
for reducing cost? You have not done one of these things the CBI
are always doing, saying this would cost X billion and lose four
million jobs?
Mr Barham: Coming back to the
point that we have made collectively, without the concrete proposals
on which to carry out that assessment it is difficult to do so
at this stage, and, clearly, once we move to the next stage of
consultation, where we do start to see some more concrete proposals,
then we can do that.
Dr Banham: There are some elements
in here. For example, three of the options talk about the CPA
(Codes of Protection Act) also being charged as well as FIPA,
so there are some costs associated with that.
Chairman: I am sorry, we have been cut
off by the division, but we are very grateful to you for coming
in and any further information you have will be very useful as
well. Thank you very much indeed.
| 
