Nick
Ainger: I am grateful for the explanation, but it gives me
cause for concern, because a local planning authority may be asked to
account for a decision but the fact remains that that decision is made
and has gone ahead, thereby causing damage to an MCZ. I suggest that
before such a decision is implemented, the Welsh Assembly Government,
the Scottish Executive or a Government Department should be able,
first, to insist that they are notified if there is a departure from
conservation objectives and, secondly, to call the decision or
application in and hold a public inquiry if they remain concerned. That
is the situation under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. There do
not seem to be such provisions in this Bill. My concern, and the
concern of the Countryside Council for Wales, is that without those
provisions, we may see unnecessary damage to MCZs. It is all very well
for the planning authority to have to account for its actions, but such
a provision, which exists in land-based planning, should apply to
marine planning as well. I am not going to push for a Division on the
clause, but I suggest that the Minister take the idea away, look at it
and bring something back on
Report. Question
put and agreed to.
Clause 126
accordingly ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
127Advice
and guidance by conservation
bodies
Mr.
Benyon: I beg to move amendment 19, in clause 127,
page 87, line 21, at end
insert—
‘(2A) The appropriate statutory conservation
body must give advice on the requirements for monitoring the impacts of
a permitted activity within a MCZ. The costs of this monitoring should
be reasonable and proportionate with respect to the scale, costs and
environmental benefits of the
project.’. This
amendment aims to minimise the cost of environmental impact assessment
and subsequent
monitoring. This
is a short but important amendment. The text is there for hon. Members
to see. It aims to minimise the cost of environmental impact
assessments and subsequent monitoring. The key sentence
is: “The
costs of this monitoring should be reasonable and proportionate with
respect to the scale, costs and environmental benefits of the
project.” One
of the marine renewables industry’s greatest concerns is the
cost of environmental impact assessments and the subsequent monitoring
of them, as it could potentially destroy the UK’s wave and tidal
energy sector. In my opening words this morning, I said that it was
important that the Bill stand the test of time. Developing technologies
are going to be fundamental and vital in how we progress our approach
to climate change and development of renewable energy systems. On
Second Reading, the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner)
spoke about the situation in Strangford loch. The marine current
turbine development in Strangford loch provides a concrete example of
the disproportionate costs for small firms, with £4 million
attributable to the stipulated environmental monitoring programme for a
project with an initial budget of less than £10 million. This is
a really important emerging technology. If we constrain that kind of
development and technological advance through prohibitive costs we have
a
problem.
Andrew
George: The hon. Gentleman is making an important point
that certainly affects the experimental wave hub project, which the
Government are keen to promote off the north coast of my constituency.
That highlights the fact that two arms of Government policy are in
conflict, but the Government can resolve that conflict by requiring the
MMO to co-operate as much as possible in providing information, data
and support to any body or industry seeking to provide the necessary
data for the environmental impact assessment of the type the hon.
Gentleman says is going to be costly. Surely it demonstrates the need
for co-operation between one arm of Government and
another.
Mr.
Benyon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his
comments and support for what I am seeking to achieve. The amendment is
reasonable and would be greatly welcomed by a lot of people seeking to
develop emerging technologies that will be important to us in future. I
hope that the Minister will recognise that in his remarks, because this
is something I feel strongly about and will push, if required, to a
vote.
Huw
Irranca-Davies: I hope the hon. Gentleman does not push it
to a vote because, while the amendment is well intentioned, it might
not do what it is intended to do. The approach we have taken with MCZs
is based on achieving conservation objectives in a focused and
intelligent way. That is what is in the Bill. We want a conservation
mechanism that is an easy tool for everyone to work
with and, as the hon. Gentleman said, does not impose unnecessary
burdens on any sector or interests. I agree with the thrust of the
amendment which, as he has just explained, is concerned to ensure that
statutory conservation bodies advise on monitoring activities in MCZs
and that the costs of such monitoring should be reasonable and
proportionate. I do not think that anybody will disagree with
that.
Clause 127
outlines the scope of the advisory role of the statutory conservation
bodies. It gives the bodies a power, and in some circumstances a duty,
to give advice and guidance on a range of matters in relation to MCZs,
which could include marine monitoring requirements where appropriate.
These bodies also have general powers to offer advice to public
authorities and make representations to them. Public authorities would
have to take such advice and representations into account when making
decisions. I fully expect the conservation bodies to carry out the
advisory functions under the Bill, like all their functions, in a
reasonable manner without specific requirement in the Bill. The
amendment would require that an advance assessment be made of the costs
of monitoring requirements, as well as overall project costs and the
value of any environmental benefits. That would probably be an
impossible obligation for conservation bodies to fulfil in their
advisory capacity. It is important that we do not blur the distinction
between the responsibilities for giving advice and for making
decisions—between advisory bodies and those who take the
decisions. It is for the licensing authority, rather than conservation
bodies, to determine what conditions need to be attached to any licence
that they issue.
Licensing
authorities, such as the MMO, which will issue marine licences under
part 4 of the Bill, will receive advice from conservation bodies, but
will also take into account a number of other factors, including
socio-economic ones, when determining whether to grant a licence and,
if they do, what conditions should be placed on it. That could include
environmental monitoring. Any environmental monitoring conditions in a
licence granted by a licensing authority should be proportionate to the
environmental risks posed by the development, and not proportionate to
the total costs of the
project.
Mr.
Benyon: I entirely agree that it needs to be
proportionate. Will the Minister tell me where that appears in the
Bill? This is
important.
Huw
Irranca-Davies: I shall indeed return to that point.
Monitoring will not always be necessary, but it is likely to be more
important for larger developments, those in environmentally sensitive
areas and where the impact of experimental technologies is difficult to
predict. For example, the MFA has approved three pilot wind and tidal
developments in England and Wales, two of which do not have any
environmental monitoring conditions attached. The third has limited
monitoring conditions because of its location right next to a special
area of conservation protected under European habitats
legislation. It
is important to recognise, however, that we are not creating a one-way
process. Monitoring will often be required, but I want to see a proper
two-way dialogue between the authorities and the developers about how
best to carry out that monitoring. That will include ensuring that the
costs are reasonable. It is a process
that often takes place now, as I just illustrated, but I want it to be
strengthened and built on in future. We have the capacity to deliver
that in the Bill. It is happening on the ground in many places, and I
hope that my words of assurance on how I want this measure to b taken
forward will allow the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment. It is
well intentioned, but it would place a burden on conservation advisers
that they are not equipped to deal with. For the reasons that I have
laid out, it is probably not appropriate to have to estimate in advance
the costs of every proposal and its
monitoring. Mr.
Benyon: The difficulty is that the Minister’s
points are relatively subjective. Unless we have a commitment that
binds future Ministers and authorities, together with a proportionate
approach, the kinds of difficulties faced in Strangford lough could
happen elsewhere. I am not in the business of limiting environmental
accountability and protection. I believe that environmental impact
assessments, certainly for large-scale wind-powered developments are
necessary. However, he has yet to provide any evidence of
proportionality in the Bill. I think that inspiration might be on its
way, in which case I am very happy to allow him to intervene. That
might encourage me to withdraw the amendment. I look forward to his
intervention.
Huw
Irranca-Davies: I might be able to provide some clarity on
two aspects. First, clause 71(1) enables the MMO to put conditions into
licences as it thinks fit. If those conditions are unreasonable, an
appeals mechanism
is in place for developers to challenge them. Secondly, I want to flag
up what would happen if a statutory conservation body was to give
disproportionate or unreasonable advice. I hope that will not happen,
but if public authorities must have regard to the advice received from
a statutory conservation body, it is not bound by it, and the authority
would be very unlikely to follow any advice deemed inappropriate for
whatever reason. One improvement that we have made to the licensing
system is to introduce an appeals mechanism that will give applicants
the ability to appeal any decision made by the licensing authority, so
if a developer thinks that the conditions attached to the licence are
too onerous or unjustified it can challenge that decision before an
independent
body.
Mr.
Benyon: I am grateful for that inspired response, which
will give the necessary comfort to those seeking to develop different
types of wave and sea energy, who will be reassured to know that they
have the comfort of a full independent appeals process and that some
wording on proportionality exists in the legislation. I beg to ask
leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn. Clause
127 ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Ordered,
That further consideration be now
adjourned. —(David
Wright.) 7.1
pm Adjourned
till Thursday 2 July at Nine
o’clock.
| 
