Examination of Witnesses (Questions 100-114)
MR BEN
BRADSHAW, MR
DAVE BENCH
AND MR
TIM JEWELL
28 JUNE 2006
Q100 Dr Turner: We have had discussion
in the past about consenting difficulties with respect to offshore
renewables. You intend to bring forward a streamlined consent,
a more rational consenting process. That will presumably be set
in the context of marine spatial planning.
Mr Bradshaw: It would indeed.
I think I would just correct the wording of your question saying
"we will bring forward": Defra's preferred system is
for an integrated consenting regime, but that is not necessarily
the view in every government department and neither is it necessarily
the view among some of the stakeholders. This may be something
that your Committee with to express a view on, if you feel that
you have one.
Q101 Dr Turner: There are several
problems, as I am sure you are well aware. One is that, in drawing
up marine spatial plans sensibly, there is a great dearth of knowledge
about our marine environment. At the moment would-be developers
are paying to acquire much of the knowledge that we have, but
it is on a site-by-site basis rather than all around our coast
lines. It would be a bit sad if creating the marine spatial plans
took so long that we could not speed up the consenting process
in the reasonably near future because that is vital for the development
of our offshore energy industry.
Mr Bradshaw: I absolutely agree
with that. Mine is the department that has the targets on renewable
energy and on climate change and we are dead keen on encouraging
the development of offshore wind and wave and tidal power. My
understanding is that the hold-ups, or some of them at least,
are not at the current moment necessarily at the consenting stage,
because of the price of steel or the difficulty of getting the
cables from offshore onto land, but we certainly would not want
to do anything in this Bill to hold that up. That is why we support
a rolling spatial plan, not one that is rigid, set in stone and
is only reviewed every quarter of a century or whatever.
Q102 Dr Turner: But it will set out
to identify the areas that are best for renewable exploitation.
Mr Bradshaw: Yes.
Q103 Dr Turner: Presumably you will
have to deal with a potential conflict with—and it is the
subject of our next question, which I am going to try to keep
off, but they do relate—marine protected areas. Some people
may see a conflict: if a marine protected area happens to be a
source of very good wave or tidal power, then there could be a
conflict. Do you see it that way? Or do you see that there could
be a synergy between them?
Mr Bradshaw: As I said earlier,
there is always the potential for conflict in some of these areas
but there is also the potential for win-win situations. I think
I am right in saying that there is some evidence to show that
the structures that are involved in putting wind farms in place—and
Dave will correct me if I am wrong on this—encourage the
development of some marine life and shellfish. Rather like, if
you sink a wreck, it is great for fish, there are scenarios you
could imagine where you could combine the uses which were supportive
and positive for each other.
Q104 Colin Challen: Turning to marine
protected areas, we have been told by, once again, the Wildlife
and Countryside Link that the new MPA mechanism should be statutory
rather than voluntary and the primary purpose of these sites should
be to support the recovery and conservation of biodiversity and
ecosystem processes. In a similar vein, the Royal Commission on
Environmental Pollution argues that MPAs should aim to protect
the whole marine environment and not simply to maximise the sustainable
yield of specific fish stocks. Do you share those views? Do you
think it is possible to deliver those ambitions?
Mr Bradshaw: Yes, I do share them
and I do think they are possible to deliver. I agree that MPAs
should be statutory, although there will of course be a range
of the level of conservation/protection in MPAs. There may be
some that one might call a pure marine protected area, where nothing
is allowed to happen. There may be some where there are restrictions
on fisheries at certain times of year or other activities completely
or where some activities are allowed. I do not see this as lots
of absolute protected areas and outside there is a free-for-all.
I think you will have gradations in the types of areas depending
on their character and nature.
Q105 Colin Challen: Earlier on this
afternoon you referred to the problems occurring in Lyme Bay.
I understand that the Devon Wildlife Trust has written to you
and sent you some video footage of the dredging that is going
on. I think they have written to you in the terms that this could
be your "Blue Planet moment—an opportunity to show
that the Government takes the environment and the need to maintain
the planet's life support systems seriously." I hope they
are not suggesting that you have not in the past. I am sure that
is not true. Do you envisage these new MPAs helping to avoid these
instances in the future? In quite what way would that operate?
How would it prevent it and what sanctions might be available
to prevent it?
Mr Bradshaw: I would not want
to pre-judge any decision as to where the new MPAs are going.
Obviously if the particular area we are talking about was a completely
protected MPA, then there would not be any fishing activity in
it whatsoever. But, even if it were not, as I said earlier, the
reformed Sea Fisheries Committees would have a statutory duty
to act in the event of certain environmental excesses or damage
being committed. I am confident that the powers would be there,
without the requirement, thankfully, for ministers to intervene—which
I have always said I am quite prepared to do in the current case
on Lyme Bay—if a new robust voluntary agreement cannot be
agreed.
Q106 Emily Thornberry: I am really
sorry I was not here at the beginning when you gave evidence,
Ben. I think I might be the only person who took literally the
Whip's advice that there was going to be a second vote! I had
a note passed to me saying that you had said the draft Bill was
not likely to be ready for the next Queen's Speech. Are you able
to help us as to what sort of timetable we might be working towards?
Mr Bradshaw: Yes. I think we said
we would not be able to fulfil the commitment we had made at the
time of the last Queen's Speech to publish a draft Bill in this
session. That was the commitment that we made. I will not repeat
the reasons that I gave for it, unless you want me to. You would
probably rather read it in the minutes to this session. I said
that we have not yet decided whether we would have another round
of consultation once we have got more concrete proposals. This
consultation that we have just completed was very much on options
for things. We need now to produce the concrete proposals, and
either consult on them again or work towards a draft Bill on which
we would consult. We would hope to be in a position to do that
early next year.
Q107 Emily Thornberry: Early next
year we are going to know whether you are going to have a draft
Bill or—
Mr Bradshaw: I would hope we would
know which way we were going to do it before then, but I think
we would begin the process . We would hope to be able to publish
a draft Bill.
Mr Bench: Whether it is consultation
on detailed proposals or a draft Bill, we would be looking at
late spring or early summer next year for publication and consultation
on that stage.
Q108 Joan Walley: I think a lot rests
on this. I think there will be a lot of people and a lot of NGOs
really hoping that this draft Bill or the next form of consultation
is going to be in time for the urgent measures that are needed.
Mr Bradshaw: I omitted to answer
the question earlier, when somebody asked me when we were hoping
to have a Bill. We are hoping to have a Bill in the third session.
We are not going to have a Bill in the second session but the
aim is to have a Bill in the third session.
Q109 Dr Turner: A real Bill and not
a draft one.
Mr Bradshaw: Yes.
Q110 Emily Thornberry: The other
questions I had were about the second round of the consultation,
so you are not really able to help us with that. We have heard
from the Crown Estate—and obviously they are major players
in all of this—that they have concerns as to whether or
not the Bill will "provide high level enabling legislation
or whether the intention is for some aspects to be delivered through
secondary legislation." Again, I do not imagine you can tell
us how much is going to be in primary legislation or how much
is going to be in secondary legislation, but, presumably, if there
is going to be secondary legislation, you will be consulting on
that too, will you?
Mr Bradshaw: We would. This is
very much a piece of framework legislation. Again, without repeating
some of the stuff I said earlier about creating a strategic framework
for the marine environment which does not exist at the moment,
and creating the system through which existing jurisdictions and
licensing regimes operate to bring them into it, any requirement
for secondary legislation would be looked at on its merits and
they would be consulted on at the time.
Q111 Emily Thornberry: I have to
say I have been struck by the evidence we have heard that we have
yet to hear anyone who seems to be against, in principle, the
idea of a marine Bill. All organisations that we have had from
all sorts of different backgrounds agree entirely that this is
what we need. There is a certain amount of confusion, though.
We heard from Peter Barham, Chairman of the Sea User Developer
Group. He gave evidence to us last week and he said "more
than anything else . . . what we are calling for is some real
clear understanding of what the legislators, governments, devolved
or otherwise, see as the objectives for the marine system. If
we knew what those long-term objectives were, both in terms of
sustainability implicit in that economic and environmental, then
we could target and steer our developments to meet those."
There is enthusiasm that we are introducing this, but still a
lack of clarity as to where it is the Government wants to go with
this.
Mr Bradshaw: As I have indicated
before, that is because the devil is in the detail. There is widespread
support for it and there are concerns in other government departments
about elements of it; there are devolutionary issues that need
to be resolved. In overall terms, we are trying to achieve sustainable
development in our marine environment and a system which delivers
that in a non-bureaucratic, transparent and acceptable way to
everybody who has an interest in the area. That is a huge challenge.
At the moment, because there is no overarching strategic objective
or planning regime, the conflicts that necessarily do arise have
to be resolved piecemeal using systems that have not changed for
decades.
Emily Thornberry: Thank you.
Q112 Joan Walley: It might be helpful
to know of some of those concerns that other departments are expressing.
Mr Bradshaw: They are not concerns
about proposals, because we do not have any concrete proposals
yet. I think I mentioned earlier that the DTI is not as keen on
an integrated licensing regime as we are. There are concerns in
the Department of Transport over shipping; there are concerns
in the Scottish Executive. I will give you one example. We think
the sensible environmental way to break down the tiers of marine
spatial planning is to have an overarching strategic plan for
the UK as a whole and then to have a regional seas plan below
that and then very localised planning. Regional seas cross political
boundaries, so that is one of the issues that needs to be resolved.
I hope that is giving you some idea of some of the complexities
and some of the challenges that we face. As I said earlier, I
do not think they are insurmountable because the political will
is there, and, as you rightly point out, the overall principles
of this Bill have massive support in all the main political parties
in Westminster and in Edinburgh.
Q113 Joan Walley: In terms of this
being an overarching framework, who would have the trump card?
Would you be looking for someone like, for example, the Sustainable
Development Commission to be the referee over conflicting expressions
of interests from the different interests involved?
Mr Bradshaw: One of the questions
that we posed in the consultation is: Who should have ownership
of the marine spatial plan? Should it be a new marine management
organisation or not? We have not answered that question, in a
way, and we would be grateful for your Committee's view, if you
think you have one, from the evidence you have heard and from
studying the consultation responses. The only thing I would say
is that 70% of our marine area is off Scotland so the overarching
plan would have to take countries that make up the UK into account.
Q114 Joan Walley: You said earlier
on that we are talking about framework legislation and at the
same time we have referred to what we are looking at as very detailed
and very complex. I would like to go back to the question that
David Howarth asked in respect of the fisheries and the statement
that you made earlier this month. I would like to clarify that
with you. We have had many memos that are very explicit that fisheries
must be part of the Marine Bill. Given what you have said about
the proposals to modernise the Sea Fisheries Committees, it would
be helpful if you could confirm that the management of Marine
Fisheries will be a fundamental part of whatever shape the new
Bill takes, draft Bill or the next stage of the consultation.
Mr Bradshaw: Yes, it will be.
Joan Walley: That is helpful. I think
that perhaps this will not be the first exchange that we have,
but we are very conscious that you have to get off to your next
meeting at 4.30. Can we thank you for coming along at this stage,
Minister, and we look forward to hearing from you on the ongoing
development of this Bill.
| 
