Ann
McKechin: I thank the hon. Members for Newbury and for St.
Ives for raising points that are live and important for a number of
operators. There has been some uncertainty on the part of industry
about whether the new licensing system will place disproportionate
burdens on operators that regularly carry out vital dredging
activities, which is why it is seeking an exemption for maintenance
dredging. The
noble Lords in the other place rightly sought assurances from the
Government that any exemptions from the licensing regime would be made
with regard to the need to protect the environment and human health,
and prevent interference with legitimate uses of the sea and other
relevant factors. I may not be able to offer a general exemption for
maintenance dredging today, but we are actively exploring the extent to
which we can exempt low-risk dredging activities from the need for a
marine
licence. We
want to ensure that operators doing the necessary work of keeping
navigational channels clear of silt and other debris can continue to do
so without unnecessary regulatory burden, but still with adequate
regard to the impact of their activities. Under the Bill, all forms of
maintenance dredging will become licensable for the first time.
However, the Bill is about applying regulatory controls proportionately
to the risk and impact of the marine activity on the environment and
human health, and on other uses of the
sea. In
many cases, maintenance dredging has gone on in the same place for
years without discernible impact, and we do not want unnecessarily to
burden industry in those instances. It is right that maintenance
dredging carried out by or on behalf of a harbour authority, and in
accordance with a local Act or harbour order, should not have to be
licensed under the Bill. As competent authorities, harbour authorities
have a statutory duty to undertake activities in accordance with the
relevant environmental obligations, and they are able to carry out such
activities without the need for consent under the current
regime.
However, we
want to ensure that all other operators who are not subject to those
statutory duties carry out maintenance dredging and other activities
safely and with sufficient regard to the environment and other
risks. We want to ensure that a licensing authority has the information
it needs to make sound and sustainable decisions on the licence
applications it receives, including determining whether activities
being undertaken in its area—whether they are licensed or
exempt—are likely to have a cumulative
impact. Therefore,
we are looking to use the exemptions order-making power in clause 74 to
find a middle ground—an appropriate mechanism that will keep the
regulatory burden to a minimum, while maintaining proper and
appropriate standards of environmental protection, which was the
concern raised by the hon. Member for St. Ives. Those standards include
controls to ensure that activities will not compromise the achievement
of other environmental objectives, such as those under the water
framework directive. The exemptions order will come into force at the
same time as the new licensing regime.
However, the
licensing regime is not just about excluding or including activities.
The Bill provides flexibility so that, if we choose to exempt an
activity, we can place conditions on the carrying out of that activity
that must be satisfied before it can be considered exempt. For example,
we may want to look at whether we can exempt maintenance dredging
carried out using lower-impact techniques such as hydrodynamic
dredging, which involves the use of water jets to move sediment along
the sea bed.
We will be
looking to make use of the Bill’s flexibility and we will
explore whether mechanisms such as registration or authorisation are
appropriate to use where we choose to exempt low-risk activities, so
that a licensing authority can retain sufficient overview of the
activities being carried out in its
area. As
the hon. Member for Newbury rightly pointed out, we are just about to
launch a public consultation on our approach to those exemptions,
including proposals for potentially low-risk activities such as
maintenance dredging, which may be appropriate for exemption from the
need for a marine licence. We are also looking to find the best ways of
regulating those low-risk activities, whether through a form of licence
or through a general or conditional exemption. Any decisions will be
made in light of the responses to that consultation, further discussion
and sound evidence.
Andrew
George: In the definition of what may or may not be
considered “dredging”, the Minister referred to the use
of water jets as a means of simply moving sediment on. As far as the
definition of dredging is concerned for the purposes of the Bill
itself, am I therefore right in understanding that sluicing might also
be considered dredging, or have I misunderstood
that?
Ann
McKechin: Yes, it would. I have been advised that, under
the maintenance dredging protocol for England, that would be the
case.
Andrew
George: Would sluicing be considered dredging?
Ann
McKechin: Sluicing would be,
yes. We
also have to pay regard to our European environmental obligations when
we are considering licensing, as well as the other relevant
international conventions to which the UK is a signatory. I welcome
the participation of people and organisations in the consultation when
it is launched; it will be a great opportunity to have an input into
the Government’s policy. I now turn to
amendment 12. As hon. Members are perhaps aware, maintenance dredging
is not a legally defined term. Some have sought to define it for the
purposes of implementing various measures or controls, and I am aware
that there are two such definitions. One is in the maintenance dredging
protocol for England, which is an informal industry code of practice,
and the other is used by the Marine and Fisheries Agency in the course
of its existing consenting functions. The agency defines maintenance
dredging
as: “Material
(generally of an unconsolidated nature)
arising: from
an area where the level of the seabed to be achieved by the dredging
proposed is not lower (relative to Ordnance Datum), than it has been at
any time during the preceding 10 years, or from an area for which there
is evidence that dredging has previously been undertaken to that level
(or lower) during that
period.” It
will not surprise hon. Members that that definition is slightly
different from the one used in the maintenance dredging
protocol. If
a licensing authority considers it appropriate to exempt maintenance
dredging generally or conditionally—I have said that the
Government’s intend to use exemption orders made under the power
in clause 4 to do that—we will of course be looking to define
the activity more precisely. In doing so, we may want to determine more
exactly who should and should not be allowed to carry out maintenance
dredging operations without a licence. That may or may not be the
approach taken.
The current
exemption in clause 74 allows dredging and associated deposits to be
carried out on behalf of harbour authorities in accordance with the
local legislation or harbour order. As competent authorities, harbour
authorities have a statutory duty to undertake these activities. The
Bill is about regulating proportionately and in accordance with the
risks that each activity poses. It would be a backward step if we gave
operators who have no statutory duties regarding environmental
protection a carte blanche to carry out those dredging activities
without any kind of environmental control.
Some dredging
disposals bound for sea disposal may contain contaminated sediment, and
it is vital that proper environmental assessments be undertaken and
adequate measures subsequently taken to prevent harm to the environment
and human health, or to prevent interference with other users of the
sea—a point raised by the hon. Member for St. Ives. We will need
to consult thoroughly and take all scientific evidence into
account before making an exemption order. If maintenance
dredging is thought to pose a low risk, I hope we can come to some
consensus on how to define it. On that basis, I ask the hon. Gentleman
to withdraw his
amendment. Mr.
Benyon: The hon. Member for St. Ives made a good point
about the potential impact on the hydrology of the area in question,
but what we are talking about here is often small-scale dredging
operations, which are vital for local businesses. He made a point about
spoil disposal, where it is done and how it relates to other areas.
Again, that is important, but I urge the Committee not to legislate on
the basis of the most indolent and stupid managers of marinas or
similar environments. Otherwise, we will go down a regulatory path that
could limit the rights of sea anglers to fish in certain areas. I know
how that would excite certain members of the Committee. One or two sea
anglers might do some stupid things, but 1.3 million of them do
not.
We must be
careful how we regulate. We also have to bear in mind the costs for
small marinas and other leisure activities. These are not large
income-yielding businesses. These are often highly marginal and if we
over-regulate, it could impose a burden that could make some of them
unviable. With this Bill we should be encouraging leisure and tourism
activities. We have to think of the path of least resistance when it
comes to regulation such as this. To impose levels of bureaucracy on
very small-scale operations would be a
mistake. The
Minister’s comments are well made. Here we are again in a slight
state of flux as the Government go out to consultation. Clearly, it
would be the wrong time to press the amendment. She talked about the
need for proportionality: that is a key word. As for the definition of
maintenance dredging, I urge her to look at the definition we have
provided, rather than the current opaque one, which seems to entail
looking at more than 10 years of data on the sediment in the estuarial
environment. That seems an extremely complex way of defining
maintenance dredging. With those thoughts in mind, I beg to ask leave
to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 75
ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Clauses
76 to 97 ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Schedule
7 agreed to.
Clauses 98
to 112 ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Schedules
8 and 9 agreed
to. Clauses
113 to 116 ordered to stand part of the
Bill. 1
pm The
Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put (Standing Order
No.
88). Adjourned
till this day at Four
o’clock.
| 
