Examination of Witnesses (Questions 70-79)
MR BEN
BRADSHAW, MR
DAVE BENCH
AND MR
TIM JEWELL
28 JUNE 2006
Q70 Joan Walley: Minister, thank you
very much for coming along. I think that it is very clear to us,
from a lot of different evidence that we have received, that people
really do appreciate the extent to which Defra and you yourself
have gone in trying to have as far-ranging a consultation as possible,
in preparation for this bill. I think that goes without saying.
All the different issues, the complexities, and the way that some
of those have been communicated, have also been appreciated. In
the course of the written evidence that we have received so far,
however, there have been some question marks about whether the
devil will be in the detail, and how all of this will come through
at the other end of the tunnel with one bill. One thing that we
want to ask you about is the process of the consultation. Would
you like, at the very start of the session, to put on the record
any thoughts or comments you have about the consultation?
Mr Bradshaw: Thank you, Joan.
You are right to identify this as an incredibly complex bill,
not only because no other country tried to do this before—we
are really the first country that is trying to introduce comprehensive
marine legislation of this type—but this is also the first
major piece of legislation since devolution which has significant
and highly complex devolutionary aspects to it. It also covers
a part of our territory over which there has been very little
strategic oversight, and in which a number of government departments
have interests. I think that is the first point I would make,
therefore. That explains why this process has, as these processes
often do, taken longer than we would have hoped; but I think with
good reason in this case, because there have been so many interdepartmental
and devolutionary issues to resolve, and some still remain to
be resolved. We were working from a blank sheet of paper, without
really being able to draw on international experience and best
practice. The consultation finished last week. We will be having
a look at all of the responses over the next few weeks and would
hope to publish a summary of them in September. We have not yet
decided whether we go from there into a draft bill on which we
consult, or whether we have another period of consultation. That
is a discussion that is still going on within government. However,
it may be helpful if I tell the Committee at the outset—and
I do not think that this will come as much of a surprise either
to you or to some of the people sitting behind me—that I
am afraid we will not be able to make the commitment that we made
at the time of last year's Queen's Speech to publish a draft bill
this session. That looks absolutely impossible at the moment.
Q71 Joan Walley: Thank you for that
honesty and for that appraisal of where we are. Can I press you
on one aspect of what you have just said? I was very much involved
in talks at the time when the Environment Agency and the various
nature agencies were being set up some few years ago now, and
I am very conscious that Natural England is being reconstituted,
as it were, along with the Scotland and Wales. I wonder if you
feel that you have the framework through which all these issues
of sustainable development can be addressed, given all the devolutionary
complexities to which you have just referred.
Mr Bradshaw: I think that we have
the framework in the consultation. In a way, because we are devising
a new strategic framework for the marine environment that has
not been there before, I would not have thought that it was a
sensible idea to give ownership of that process to any particular
existing body. Natural England and other bodies have been involved
in the process and in the consultation, but this has been a Government-run
consultation, and I think that was the right way to proceed.
Q72 Joan Walley: One of the things
you have referred to is the large number of people and organisations
with an interest in this. How do you feel about the smaller organisations
and how they can be properly involved in the remaining stages
of the consultation? Is that something that you have catered for,
that you were particularly aware of?
Mr Bradshaw: We have tried to
make the consultation as open and accessible as possible. I believe
at the last count we had had over 1,000 responses, and some of
those would have been from small organisations. In terms of small
businesses and individuals involved in some of the sectors, we
have to go through the Panel for Regulatory Accountability—which,
for anyone who has done it, is one of the more terrifying experiences
if you are a government minister. They have a Small Business Council
representative on that panel and another person who sits on it
is the Executive Chair of the Cabinet Office's Better Regulation
Executive. So there is a strong structure there to make sure that
the interests of small organisations and small businesses are
represented.
Q73 Joan Walley: Any special advice
from you as to how they could make their voices better heard?
Mr Bradshaw: They could contact
directly Julie Kenny, for example, who is the Chair of the Small
Business Council, who sits on the Panel for Regulatory Accountability.
She really is the most powerful voice for them, in that she sits
on the committee through which this bill will have to get. Her
contribution, when I last appeared before it, was certainly very
effective.
Q74 Joan Walley: In respect of what
you have just said about the timing of the Queen's Speech and
what the next stage will be, presumably the report of this Committee
will be able to feed in very constructively, perhaps in terms
of contributing to decisions that will be made at the next stage
and phase of this consultation.
Mr Bradshaw: I do very much hope
so. I hope that this is one of these occasions where the Committee
is on my side, in terms of timing and the importance that you
give to this piece of legislation.
Q75 Mark Pritchard: Thank you for
coming along, Minister. I have three, quite simple questions.
What would you say is the main reason for the delay? Clearly you
are waiting for our report! But, apart from that, what would you
say is the main reason for the delay? When do you think a new
bill might come forward? Also, what discussions have you had so
far with the Ministry of Defence and, in particular, the Royal
Navy?
Mr Bradshaw: It is difficult to
identify a main reason, apart of course from the fact that your
Committee has not reported yet. There have been a number of reasons.
Perhaps the most challenging are the devolutionary issues. I can
leave you a table which you may find helpful, which goes through
all of the various things that happen in the marine environment,
and whether they are reserved or devolved. It is incredibly complex.
It varies, of course, as to whether you are talking within six
miles, within 12 miles, or within 200 miles of the coast. Clearly,
when you have that political backdrop, you have to get buy-in
from all the devolved administrations for what you want to do.
Q76 Mark Pritchard: May I interject
there? Does that devolved element also involve in some way Europe?
Mr Bradshaw: Yes, of course, because
fisheries policy outside 12 miles is subject to the Common Fisheries
Policy—so absolutely. It is even more complex, as you rightly
say. I am not aware of any particular issues regarding the Ministry
of Defence, who tend to be involved at a consultative level on
the use of the marine environment; but they have special powers
and exemptions from some of the existing legislation. I do not
know if my officials are aware of any particular issues.
Q77 Mark Pritchard: To help you,
Minister, it is in relation to sonar elements, vis-a"-vis
underwater radars and also in relation to some of the activities
of our nuclear submarine fleet.
Mr Bradshaw: I think that they
are subject to special provisions which render them exempt from
some of the provisions that we are talking about. Perhaps you
would allow Dave to add to this.
Mr Bench: We do have an MOD representative
who sits on our intergovernmental steering group for the Marine
Bill. So they have been fully involved throughout the whole process
of developing policy, and indeed the process of agreeing the text
across government for the consultation document.
Q78 Colin Challen: Not surprisingly,
Minister, some of the submissions we have had from different organisations
are at odds with each other. For example, the Chamber of Shipping
and such as the British ports feel that socio-economic factors
should be treated at least equally in this bill, and yet the Wildlife
and Countryside Link argue that nature conservation should not
be seen as the bill's secondary goal. It is quite a challenge
to Defra to square these different views and I am wondering how
you will try to reconcile them. Have you come to any conclusions
in that regard?
Mr Bradshaw: Yes, in that sustainable
development is at the core of this bill, or will be at the core
of this bill, which I suppose you could argue takes into account
both of those two interests that you have referred to: both the
economic and social, and the environmental. That is the concept
of sustainable development. This is not just a bill about how
we can exploit the marine environment. It is not just a bill about
how we can protect the marine environment and surround our coasts
with 100% marine-protected areas. This is a bill about how we
can, for the first time, bring together all of the different systems
of governance and licensing in a single, coherent and sustainable
planning and consent regime.
Q79 Colin Challen: I am wondering
if we have learned lessons from the history of, say, conservation
efforts for fish stocks, because, if you go around many of our
ports now—and I have personal experience of Hull and, on
a smaller scale, in Scarborough in North Yorkshire where the fishing
fleets have been decimated in the name of conservation. Conservation
has been put above socio-economic considerations to a certain
extent, because whole sectors, if you like, have been wiped out.
They may have been replaced by entirely unconnected forms of employment,
but, now that we live in a more climate-change aware world, is
there a more complex model you are looking at to assess the impact
of that socio-economic measurement on the nature of the marine
environment.
Mr Bradshaw: Yes. We would hope
that any system of marine spatial planning was based on an ecosystem
approach but you will be aware that the concept of an ecosystem
approach is still a developing one. I think you are right to identify
unsustainable fishing and climate change as probably the two biggest
environmental threats to the marine environment, but I am not
sure I would agree with you that fisheries have been decimated
by conservation measures. Fisheries have been decimated by over-fishing
and have then demanded conservation measures to protect stocks.
In fact, some fisheries in the UK are doing very well. The shellfish
sector is doing very well and some of the pelagic species, herring
and mackerel. Herring, in particular, practically died out in
the 1970s and they have come back. We know from experience that
it is possible to revive fishing industries but we do not have
any illusions that there is the potential for enormous conflict
in the marine environment between different users of that environment
and different interests. That is why we want—and we think
this Bill is so important—to help resolve those conflicts.
|
