Mr.
Walker: I promise that this is the last time that I will
interrupt the Minister, because I know that he wants to make progress;
I am sure that all parties want to make progress. He said that
decisions will be based
on sound science. On that basis, I cannot see how the Severn estuary
barrage can progress beyond the point where we are now. The Severn
estuary is one of the most precious environmental sites in Europe and
indeed the world, and he has just acknowledged that that status will be
a major factor in the decision-making process. Can he therefore tell
the Committee here and now that the Severn estuary barrage, as
currently envisaged by the DTI or whatever it is called now, will not
go ahead?
The
Chairman: Order. Nice try, but
no.
Huw
Irranca-Davies: All I can say is that the hon. Gentleman
will know that, under European habitats directives, our concerns are to
ensure that if any of the five and a half ideas on the proposals that
exist were to proceed, they would do so in the light of the very
special environmental status that the Severn estuary has.
I wanted to
address the issue that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for
Plymouth, Sutton about the legal status of the high-level objectives.
The statement of the UK Government with the devolved Administrations
within those high-level objectives is a statement of policy, and the
MPS will be based on the framework laid out within that. It does not
have the legal status, as she will know, of being part of primary
legislation, but that is material to the debate that we are having. It
is pertinent that we have chosen to bring that statement forward during
the course of our proceedings, to clarify our
intentions. I
want to turn to the amendment 9. Beyond the philosophical arguments
about sustainable development and the wording of
“furthering” and “contributing to”, there
is a concern about the legal precedent that would be set by the
proposed amendment. The drafting of clause 44 will almost certainly be
familiar to members of the Committee from more than 70 other Bills and
Acts, including, most recently, the Planning Act 2008 and the Local
Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill, which will
shortly return to this House on Report. The drafting is a consistent
use of a legal formulation relating to sustainable development that has
developed over many years to form a legal precedent. I therefore have
deep concerns that a different formulation in relation to the marine
policy statement would imply to the courts that this Committee and
Parliament intend the MPS to have a different purpose from the
terrestrial planning documents, with which the statement needs to
integrate and synthesise. There is therefore a genuine concern relating
to legal
precedent.
Martin
Salter: I am listening to the Minister’s argument
with care. Will he quote the part of the Government’s response
to the Joint Committee in which deep concerns were expressed, as I
suspect that they were not expressed? If there are deep concerns, they
relate to the advice given to us by the Environment Agency, which we
charge with helping us develop policy, and to the concerns of the
Committee
itself.
Huw
Irranca-Davies: I will try to respond to my hon.
Friend’s question if I am able to drag the Government’s
response from some inspired corner. Certainly, our strong
advice is that, if the Bill took a different approach from the clear and
well-understood legal precedent that has been established over a number
of years, that would lead to a potential legal interpretation that the
intention behind the provision differs from our interpretation of
“contributing to” sustainable development in 70 other
measures.
Following the
concerns raised in the other place, we amended the Bill to place an
express requirement on the policy authorities to carry out an appraisal
of the sustainability of the policies proposed to be included in the
MPS. That is significant, because the new requirement means that
policies in relation to marine plans may only be included if the
sustainability appraisal indicates that it is appropriate to do so. I
can also confirm that, having carefully considered the points raised by
their lordships during their debates, and in the light of the
advice of our lawyers, the UK Government and devolved
Administrations are now able to commit to undertaking a strategic
environmental assessment of the draft MPS within the terms of the
European Union directive on the strategic environmental assessment of
plans and programmes. That is significant, because it bolsters and
strengthens our approach to sustainable development. It also puts it in
the context of the Bill and does not jeopardise it by overstepping the
mark and setting up what would be a diversion from what has been
established by legal terminology. I hope that I have clarified our
commitment to ensuring that the MPS contains policies that, taken
together across the board and individually, make a genuine and positive
contribution to sustainable development in marine
areas.
Mr.
Walker: A final point. The Minister is again rightly
focusing on sustainable development. What will happen in those areas in
which development has already been proven not to be sustainable? I am
thinking in particular about fisheries. What will he do to redress the
balance in such areas? Has he provided for that in his opening
statement?
Huw
Irranca-Davies: Not in respect of the amendments under
discussion, but we will come to that issue, not least when we discuss
aspects of conservation. Running through the Bill is the intention to
protect our most special habitats and all the different types of flora
and fauna on the sea bed. Socio-economic factors may also be taken into
account. The hon. Member for East Devon has spoken about issues such as
wind and tidal energy, and we must also consider marine stream energy,
dredging, the laying of cables, oil energy and so on. The protection of
the very best of our marine environment runs through the Bill; we will
turn to that again later, but the Bill allows for socio-economic
factors to be taken into
account. The
issues covered by amendment 29 relate to the discussion that we have
just had. The amendment was tabled by the hon. Members for St. Ives and
for Brecon and Radnorshire, and seeks to place a definition of
sustainable development in the Bill. It provides, for the purposes of
part 3, that sustainable development means the conservation of marine
flora or fauna, marine habitats or types of marine habitats, or
features of geological or geo-morphological interest. Since the marine
policy statement to be prepared under part 3 sets the context for all
marine plans and all decisions by public authority, whether those
decisions are taken under the Bill or
under the exercise of any other powers—that is what the Bill
does—the amendment would effectively mean that the objectives of
any marine plan or any decision that could affect the marine
environment should be conservation and conservation alone. The policy
of conservation alone would apply to the whole UK marine area, not just
those areas identified as requiring designation as a marine
conservation zone. Naturally, in the light of the discussions we are
having—and this goes to the meat of the Bill—what I
cannot do is support an amendment that would undermine the entire
purpose of the marine planning system and, perhaps, even the entire
Bill, which is meant to help us ensure that the marine area is managed
in a way that is sustainable over the long term. That cannot simply
mean conserving or enhancing natural features, important as that is.
The marine resources around the UK are also vital for our economy, and
it is not necessary or appropriate to cease our exploitation of them.
That would not benefit anyone. If all
decisions, as proposed in the amendment, had to be taken in accordance
with documents concerned only with maintaining or enhancing the
conservation of existing natural resources, how could we in future, for
example, license any fishing activity, or dredging, or the development
of renewable energy installations that might cause limited damage to
existing natural resources? As an illustration, even the installation
of a farm of wind turbines, to help us reduce our carbon footprint and
combat climate change, involves activity that does not conserve or
enhance the natural geology and geo-morphology. Clause 58(1) requires
public authorities to take decisions in accordance with the MPS and
with marine plans
“unless relevant
considerations indicate
otherwise”. We
have carefully structured these provisions on the MPS and marine plans
so that it should rarely be appropriate for public authorities to rely
on this exception. Licensing and other authorities must in appropriate
cases be able to take account of the economic and social needs of the
UK, and they would need to rely on relevant considerations and
exceptions, as well as the MPS and the marine plans, but that would be
increasingly undermined if the amendment were accepted. That issue was
considered extensively in the other place and I stand by the arguments
made there by my noble Friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. There are many
different definitions of sustainable development, and there have been
quite a few attempts to define what it is. I do not believe that the
absence of a definition in the Bill is a problem. Having a definition
in the Bill that might differ from how the term is used, for example,
in international law might lead to inconsistency and
challenge.
If
development is to be sustainable, it must be sustainable not only for
the environment but within the triangle I described earlier, which
provides the basic parameters of sustainability and sustainable
development. It has be sustainable for those humans who live and work
in it, not least hon. Members’ constituents who rely on that
environment. That is why the policy set out in the marine policy
statement should contribute to environmental sustainability, including
the need to designate an ecologically coherent network of marine
conservation zones and other designated sites, and protect our rare,
threatened and representative species and habitats. It must also
contribute to the sustainability of the UK’s economy and
society. As my noble Friend said in Committee in
the other place, the UK’s present understanding of the meaning of
sustainable development is set out in the UK sustainable development
strategy. There are five shared principles which provide the framework
for sustainability: living within environmental limits; and achieving a
just society, a sustainable economy, good governance—in this
respect, in a marine environment—and sound science. Those are
good principles to underpin sustainable
development. 11.15
pm
Andrew
George: The Minister will understand that the purpose of
the amendment relates to marine conservation zones, not marine planning
as a whole. This is the most appropriate part of the Bill in which to
mention sustainable development, so a definition is clearly required.
My problem with the Minister’s response thus far is that he now
appears to be replacing one piece of conceptual
language—“sustainable development—with five
competing pieces of conceptual language, which make the whole thing
even less pin-downable, for want of a better expression. Whether we are
“contributing to” or “furthering”
something, the fact that that something is a set of five competing
conceptual issues makes the whole process a great deal more
frustrating—the Minister must understand that. It would be
enormously helpful if he would at least attempt to pin this matter down
a little
more.
Huw
Irranca-Davies: I understand what the hon. Gentleman says,
but this goes to the very heart of what we mean by sustainable
development and how we articulate that in the Bill. Going forward on
the principles that underpin sustainable development is a good
approach. It would be a retrograde step to pin down one concept of
sustainable development at the moment. Over the past 20 years, the
definition of sustainable development has changed. Alternative
definitions have been tried, then put back in the cupboard as new ones
have come forward. However, the underpinning principles, difficult as
they are, are the right ones. Those principles were originally defined
in terms of the social, environmental and economic triangle and are
enshrined in the agreement between the four Administrations. Here we
have a different language, but it is about balancing the protection of
our habitats and the protection of the constituents off the Welsh coast
and the north-east of England who might want to bring forward energy
projects. That is what sustainable development is all about; it is not
purely
conservation. Mr.
Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD): Surely what
the Minister says about the five principles that underpin sustainable
development is similar to saying that the whole of a building is the
foundations. The foundations are important, but we have to see what the
building looks like and how we can use it. That is the point that was
made by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives. The underlying
principles are one thing, but what sustainability is is another, and
that is where we are trying to get
to.
Huw
Irranca-Davies: I sort of see where the hon. Gentleman is
coming from, but the foundations are critical here. As has been
mentioned in the opening
comments, this is very much a framework Bill that puts in place the
right mechanism to take forward the sustainable development of our
marine environment. That is the core part of the Bill. We are not
trying to paint the house, but to allow the marine plans to be brought
forward, and the inshore fisheries and conservation authorities and the
MMO to introduce byelaws. We have sound foundations and the Bill and
the guidance that supplements it articulate exactly what we mean by
sustainable development. I suspect that we might be dancing around a
concept here—whether it is better to say “contributing
to” or “furthering”—when actually we are
aiming at the same end.
In terms of
this second amendment, going down that line would lead to the
opportunity of challenge, because it goes against what we have in 70
Acts. The agreed form of words, and what we mean by sustainable
development, is well enshrined in law. I genuinely understand the
purpose of the amendment. We are trying to get to the same end, but I
am arguing that the measure will give us that end, particularly when it
is underpinned by those
principles. On
amendment 1, as I said on Second Reading, we already have a strong
objective for the Marine Management Organisation. In the other place,
Lord Hunt went into great detail about why we feel that amendments such
as this, which require the MMO to further rather than to make a
contribution to sustainable development, are not appropriate. I do not
want to repeat what Lord Hunt said, but I will make a few key points to
reinforce the reasons. First, we already have a strong objective for
the MMO, which received much attention in the other place and was
strengthened as a result of that scrutiny. We have brought in a new
power that allows the MMO, in pursuit of its general objective, to
contribute to the achievement of sustainable development and take any
actions it considers necessary or expedient for furthering its social,
economic or environmental purposes.
Secondly, the
Secretary of State will give guidance to the MMO on how it is to ensure
that it makes its contribution to the achievement of sustainable
development. That guidance is currently being drafted, and it will be
agreed by the cross-Government sponsorship group for the MMO. That
guidance will then be subject to scrutiny by Parliament, ensuring that
the MMO acts on behalf of all those with an interest in the
seas.
The
Chairman: Order. I really cannot have Members wandering
about the Room chatting to each other—there are lovely green
benches outside provided for that.
Huw
Irranca-Davies: Thank you, Mr. Gale. The
guidance will be drawn up in the context of the high-level marine
objectives and the draft marine policy statement, which will set out
the four Administrations’ agreed policies for contributing to
the achievement of sustainable development in the UK marine area. I
therefore believe that it is through statutory guidance that the
MMO’s role in relation to sustainable development will be laid
out in detail.
Finally, I do
not think that the amendment will make a practical difference to how
the sea is managed. The words “making a contribution to”
are appropriate, given that the MMO, working within a framework of a
UK-wide marine policy statement, will not be able to achieve
sustainable development on its own, as I said earlier. Although the MMO
has a critical role, the actual achievement of sustainable development
in the marine area will be the focus of a partnership effort by all the
agencies and authorities concerned with how the seas are managed. That
includes other delivery bodies, regulators, devolved Administrations
and the vast range of users of the sea and its resources. The
Government are confident that the package of amendments made on Report
in the other place significantly strengthened the Bill, and we were
pleased to hear those amendments being generally welcomed by all
parties at that stage. Indeed, the hon. Member for Arundel and South
Downs (Nick Herbert) said on Second Reading that he and his colleagues
were pleased that the duty to require the guidance relating to
sustainability criteria to be consulted on and laid before the House
had been added to the Bill and that those criteria would be
strengthened as a result. I think that those were appropriate words to
say.
I understand
why the amendments have been raised again, not least because Lord
Taylor of Holbeach and Earl Cathcart in the other place put their names
to the Government amendments on the MMO’s general objective. On
those amendments, which strengthened what we have done, Lord Taylor
said: “It is
clear from the addition of my name and that of my noble friend Lord
Cathcart to them that they have our support... The other
amendments in the group are also extremely welcome and go a long way
towards addressing our concerns about the drafting of Clause 2. The
Government have also decided that legislative consistency means that
they cannot accept “furthering or promoting sustainable
development” in the MMO's duties, but, as the noble Lord, Lord
Greaves, said, the new power to further the three pillars of
sustainable development will be critical to ensure that the MMO can
make a real difference to our marine
environment.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 5
May 2009; Vol. 710, c.
458.]
| 
