Mr.
Benyon: For the benefit of the Gallery, we all need to
keep our voices up. Any of us who attend the 1922 committee in this
room know that it is impossible to hear from the back, and I shall
therefore try to ensure that people in the Gallery can hear
me. Clause
44 outlines precisely what a marine policy statement is and our
amendment seeks to ensure that it includes a duty to further
sustainable development, rather than merely contribute to it.
“Contributing to” infers a finite involvement in
sustainable development, while “furthering” signifies a
continuous effort towards its achievement, which is what is needed for
the effective management of, and planning for, our seas. As the marine
policy statement is to be the overarching policy that will inform
marine planning in all UK waters, it is crucial that we endow it with a
sufficiently robust
objective. The
purpose of amendments 1 and 2 is similar to that of amendment 9. They
relate to part 1 of the Bill, but have been grouped with amendment 9
because they refer to exactly the same wording, but in the context of
the creation of the Marine Management Organisation. They will ensure
that the MMO has a sufficiently robust objective to be responsible for
“furthering” rather than
“making a
contribution to the achievement”
of sustainable
development.
“Making a
contribution” is relatively benign wording, and
“furthering” would make it a more important statement in
the context of sustainable development. The MMO is being marketed as
the one-stop shop for marine management, and as such should take a
leading rather than a contributory role in sustainable
development. 10.45
am
Andrew
George: Amendment 29 has been tabled in my name and that
of my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire, and its
purpose is to probe what we mean by sustainable development. While I
appreciate and very much support the intentions behind amendment 9, it
presupposes, as does the Bill, that we know what we are asking the Bill
to achieve in terms of sustainable
development. On
the DEFRA website, sustainable development is defined very much in
global
terms: “The
goal of sustainable development is to enable all people throughout the
world to satisfy their basic needs and enjoy a better quality of life,
without compromising the quality of life of future
generations.” I
agree that we need some basic conceptual terminology that can take us
forward in a debate without having constantly to redefine what we mean.
The term “sustainable development” is broadly understood,
albeit that it is rather fluffy at the edges. The concept is that it
does not compromise the ecology of the resource that we are trying to
protect while at the same time allowing some development within the
environment. However, nowhere in the Bill is there any definition of
how we achieve the balance between development and conserving that
ecology resource.
The
Minister’s argument for not including a definition of
sustainable development is that it would lock the Bill into one
definition, which could not be updated in the light of future
developments. I understand that, but it must be possible
somewhere at least to establish a
benchmark below which sustainable development will not allow the
ecological resource to fall. I hope that the Minister will be prepared
to acknowledge that sustainable development must mean that we are
trying to achieve at least the maintenance, if not the enhancement, of
the marine conservation zone. We
have to begin by acknowledging that the purpose of designating a marine
conservation zone is to protect something that it is there and, because
past activities within it may have degraded the marine biodiversity of
the area, to enhance it. We certainly do not want to allow that marine
ecology to fall below its current level. It is not asking too much to
expect the Minister to acknowledge that that is what we are trying to
achieve. If he is not prepared to accept a definition in the Bill
itself, I hope that he will at least reassure me that there will be
strengthened wording in the guidance that will accompany the
Bill.
Martin
Salter: None of us wants to see almost the first decision
of this Committee to be caught up in controversy or unnecessary
division, but the Minister will have to give some ground on this issue.
I remind the Minister and the Committee what the Joint Committee said
about this issue. The Whips may also want to bear in mind that the
names of three Labour Members are attached to the recommendation. Page
22 of the Joint Committee report reads:
“The
Environment Agency argued that the MMO should have a duty to further
conservation of marine flora and fauna and to secure compliance with
the Water Framework Directive requirements and objectives in
transitional and coastal
waters.” Britain
has signed up to the water framework directive, so we are going to have
to go down this road anyway. The Government really should not be
willing to push back on the issue. On page 22 of the Joint Committee,
recommendation 39, which a number of us put our names to,
states: “We
have no doubt, from the weight of the evidence received, that the
statement of purpose of the MMO is ambiguous both in terms of the draft
Bill and in the policy framework which the Government
envisages.” I
do not believe that anybody here wants the statement of purpose to
remain ambiguous. It may be, as the hon. Member for St. Ives has said,
that that can be resolved in guidance. It may be that that can be
resolved if the Government accept the amendment which stands in the
name of the hon. Member for Newbury, and to which my name is
attached. Finally,
recommendation 40
states: “Beyond
this high-level objective, we also consider that clear duties should be
set out on the face of the Bill to ensure that the new organisation
works to meet the aspirations which Parliament has set for it. We
recommend that these include a duty to further sustainable development
and we suggest that this be based on the eco-system approach to
managing the marine
environment.” The
arguments are overwhelming, and I will be very interested to hear the
Minister’s response.
Mr.
Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con): The proof of the
pudding is in the eating, and the Bill needs to have real teeth. The
Bill needs to be the champion of the marine environment. In the future,
when we see projects that may make perfect economic sense, we want
to
be able to say, “No. They make economic sense, but the cost to
the marine environment is too high.” That is what I, and the
hon. Member for Reading, West, are seeking to achieve as part of the
Committee. The sea— the marine environment—needs
a real champion. It is time for the House and its Members to step up to
the plate and ensure that that is exactly what
happens.
Huw
Irranca-Davies: I am very glad to begin with the part 3,
which concerns the new system of marine planning. That is a key
manifesto commitment, and the marine planning proposals form the heart
of the Bill. This strategic approach to how we manage what goes on in
our seas is absolutely fundamental to our deliberations. Let me recap,
because the issue goes to the heart to the debate that we have just had
and the very worthwhile contributions that we have just
heard.
What
we have done in the Commons and the other place is clarify the
arrangements for scrutiny of the draft marine policy statement by the
approved legislatures, including Parliament. We have placed a
requirement in the Bill for the draft marine policy statement to
undergo an appraisal of sustainability. We are also able to commit to
carrying out a strategic environmental assessment, as the hon. Member
for Broxbourne has mentioned, of the draft marine policy statement as
part of that appraisal of sustainability. We have placed new reporting
duties on marine plan authorities. As we will discuss, in the other
place we decided to accept the duty placed on marine plan authorities
to seek to ensure that marine plans are prepared for all marine
regions, where the marine policy statement governs
planning.
Mr.
Walker: One concern relates to the Severn estuary barrage.
I am afraid and concerned that, very early on, the MMO will be
overridden to allow the barrage, in its worst construct, to go
ahead.
Huw
Irranca-Davies: Within the Bill there are provisions to
ensure that that sort of cross-border working operates effectively. We
also need to ensure an effective relationship between the marine
planning system and the terrestrial planning system, and between
national infrastructure projects and what we need to do to conserve the
very best of our seas. We will return to point, which is valid, as the
Committee
proceeds. I
return to the amendments, which are worth while and which explore the
crux of the issue. Amendment 9 relates to whether we use the words
“contributing to” or “furthering”, which
was subject to a great deal of debate in the other place. The
amendment, tabled by the hon. Members for Broxbourne, Clwyd West, East
Devon, Newbury and Upminster, proposes replacing
“contributing to
the achievement of sustainable development”
with
“furthering”. Committee members will be aware of the
extensive discussions in the other place on very similar amendments,
which related to the MMO’s general objective in clause 2. I
accept that this context is slightly different—we are talking
about wording that defines the permitted content of a document rather
than an objective intended to inform an organisation’s actions.
However, to some extent, that is part of the problem with the
amendment.
To explain,
policies set out in a document cannot themselves further sustainable
development, unless applications are made and decisions are taken in
accordance with those policies that result in real changes in activity
in the marine area. In the same way, the MMO alone will not be able to
achieve sustainable development, because there are so many other actors
and regulators in the marine area that also need to contribute. We need
to do this together, and that is part of the essence of the
Bill. The
purpose of the marine policy statement, which we are talking about
here, is to ensure that the actions of all those public bodies and
regulators are aimed at the same objective. We share that same
objective here, which is each organisation making its
individual contribution to achieving sustainable development in the
marine area. Clause 44(1)(a) makes it clear that each and every policy
in the MPS, if implemented, contributes to sustainable
development
Mr.
Walker: Will the Minister, at some stage in Committee,
define “sustainable development”? We have sustainable
communities and all sorts of “sustainables” but it is
almost becoming a glib phrase. What is
it?
Huw
Irranca-Davies: Indeed. That goes to the heart of the
problem with putting a definition of sustainable development in the
Bill. Years ago I was lecturing on the subject and we looked at various
definitions. Everybody knows the triangle of sustainable
development—economic, environmental and social—but there
are varying definitions of what it means. Do we have weak or strong
sustainability? Jacob’s definition varies from others. The
problem is defining it now, when sustainable development is a changing
concept. We understand the broad parameters, and I can give the hon.
Gentleman and Committee members our definition.
What do we
mean by sustainable development? The UK Administrations have adopted
five shared principles that set out the basic framework for
sustainability: first, living within our environmental limits;
secondly, achieving a just society, which means a just society for all
those concerned with marine conservation and for those whose
livelihoods depend on the sea; thirdly, a sustainable economy;
fourthly, good governance of the marine environment, which is what the
Bill is about; and, finally, there is sound science. Those five
principles underpin what the UK Administrations have collectively
signed up to. Hon. Members may not have seen the document yet, but we
have also expressed those principles in our high-level objectives for
the marine area, which we set out recently and will underpin the marine
policy statement.
Linda
Gilroy (Plymouth, Sutton) (Lab/Co-op): I have been looking
at “Our seas—a shared resource. High level marine
objectives”, which seems to set out what the Minister is saying.
What status do the objectives have? I am struggling to understand what
harm there would be in accepting the
amendment.
Huw
Irranca-Davies: Indeed. I am happy to proceed on that
point because it is a vital argument that needs fleshing out. I shall
turn to the legal status of the
objectives in a moment. As my hon. Friend knows, we have tried to bring
forward a lot of guidance as we have debated the
Bill. 11
am The
debate over “furthering” or “contributing
to” the achievement of sustainable development is, in some ways,
a misunderstanding of what sustainable development means. It is not a
state of being in one time; we cannot say, “Today we have
achieved sustainable development, so we’ve done with it,”
or, “Our seas are in a state of sustainable development,
let’s sit back.” Instead, sustainable development must be
seen and defined as an ongoing process of ensuring that all our
actions, including decisions on development and conservation in the
marine area, are sustainable in the long
term. The
wording of the Bill makes it clear that each policy and each action by
all public authorities must pull in the same direction, making its own
individual contribution, right across the board to ensure that the
marine area is used in a sustainable way.
Concerns were
expressed in the other place that the obligation for a marine policy
statement
to “contribute
to the achievement of sustainable
development” could
be met simply by including policies on the establishment of marine
conservation zones. I want to make it clear that that is neither our
interpretation nor our intention. Members of the Committee should have
received a copy of the high-level marine objectives, to which I have
referred. As I pointed out, those objectives have now been agreed by
all the various UK Administrations and Ministers, and they will
underpin the MPS as we take it forward.
Mr.
Hugo Swire (East Devon) (Con): I am sure that the Minister
agrees that the harnessing of wave power and tidal power is in its
infancy in this country but it is likely to grow. Those forms of power
would be regarded as sustainable development and sustainable energy.
However, does he not see that, further down the line, there will be
increasing tension between the commercial needs of the developers of
wave power and wind power and the marine conservation
zones?
Huw
Irranca-Davies: No. What I see in the Bill is the
opportunity to streamline decision making. The agreed marine policies
for the high-level objectives and marine policy statements, followed by
the marine planning from the four Administrations around the UK, will
give clarity and certainty. In addition, the MMO and the way in which
we are reforming licensing will provide a much more streamlined
process, so that people will know where marine conservation zones are
and where there are areas in which we need to protect important flora,
fauna and so on. The Bill should enable better, more streamlined
decision making and that is why it has been broadly welcomed
by those who are interested in development, as well as by those who are
interested in conservation.
| 
