| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
1 Dec 2009 : Column 70WH—continued
1.43 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Huw Irranca-Davies):
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr. Stuart) for raising an important issue
and for securing this debate, which offers me the opportunity to set out the Government's approach to coastal management-specifically, how we manage the licensing of marine dredging to ensure that it does not adversely affect the coastline.
I commend the hon. Gentleman on his approach to the issue. We recognise the strength of feeling among his constituents and others, and I acknowledge his commendably rational approach in wanting to base his judgments, and wanting to see the Government base their judgments, on evidence and rational decision making. We fully appreciate that coastal erosion is a significant problem for the hon. Gentleman's constituents, as it is for other coastal communities who live in vulnerable areas. The Holderness coastline is notoriously susceptible to erosion. The process of erosion along the Holderness cliffs is not new; it has been occurring since the end of the last ice age. Over the past 1,000 years, the Holderness coast has retreated by about 2 km, causing the loss of 26 villages listed in the Domesday survey of 1086.
The English coastline has always been subject to continuous weathering from natural processes. The effects of those processes vary considerably from one part of the coastline to another, depending on the geological nature of the coast, the durability of exposed rocks and materials, and the waves, tides and storm surges to which they are exposed. As we all know, we are increasingly exposed to traumatic events such as storm surges and other incidents. The average rate of coastal change varies from place to place, from close to 0 metres a year in some locations to as much as 1.8 metres in others, although as the hon. Gentleman said, there are other areas where ingress has been much more significant, including along parts of the Holderness coast.
The latest science on climate change tells us that the risk of coastal erosion and flooding will increase over the next 100 years. I do not think that there is any doubt of that in the mainstream of evidence and scientific opinion. That estimate was confirmed by the new climate projections that we launched in June, which show the reality of a changing climate for the UK. We must both reduce our emissions and adapt to the inevitable changes in our climate. I will come to that adaptation in a moment, because the hon. Gentleman made an important point about how we can adapt in coastal areas. It is therefore all the more important to have up-to-date shoreline management plans. That underlines why now, more than ever, coastal areas need to be managed in an integrated and joined-up way.
For the Government's part, we are committed to protecting people and property, both inland and on the coast, where it is sustainable to do so. We are investing record levels of taxpayers' money and need to ensure that we continue to use it to best effect. For example, we have more than doubled spending in cash terms on flood and coastal erosion risk management, to £715 million in 2009-10. Our investment between 2008 and 2011 will total £2.15 billion.
However, there is always an element of frankness to this discussion: there will be some locations where building new defence structures, or maintaining existing ones, is just not viable. That is why the Government consulted over the summer on how communities can start preparing for and managing coastal change. Plans include a new
fund to support community-level adaptation and proposals to enable local authorities to support homeowners who lose a property to erosion with demolition and moving costs. I will come to the announcements made today by my Department, but to clarify things for the hon. Gentleman I should say that we will pursue the issue of demolition costs in parallel with the announcements made today, rather than as part of the pathfinder projects.
I am pleased to confirm that today the Secretary of State announced the selection of 15 coastal change pathfinders. The projects will be driven by local authorities. When I have gone around the coast, I have tried to put the ask down to the local level and say, "Come forward with your ideas." That has been the Department's approach, rather than a man in Whitehall saying, "This is what will best suit you."
The pathfinders are local authorities from around the coast that have been awarded a total of about £11 million to road-test new and innovative approaches to supporting communities in planning for and managing adaptation to coastal change. The East Riding of Yorkshire council is one of the pathfinders, and will receive more than £1 million to explore and test ideas for adaptation on the Holderness coast. The specific question that we face today is whether, in addition to natural processes, the extraction of minerals through marine dredging is having an effect on coastal erosion.
Mr. Graham Stuart: I am delighted that the East Riding has been selected as a pathfinder. I put it to the Minister that the places affected include the community of Aldbrough, where the road will be closed shortly, leaving residents, many of them elderly, trapped in their homes without proper access and dependent on the good will of neighbouring landowners to find a solution. As it will give the local authority greater tools to look after people and ensure that they have access, the funding will be welcome.
Huw Irranca-Davies: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. To add a little flesh to the bone, I should say that East Riding district council will receive just over £1.2 million to provide practical guidance and support, helping communities through the transition associated with coastal change, including piloting a buy-to-let approach to support adaptation in vulnerable communities and developing the council's existing roll-back policy.
I note in passing that my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Wright), who has a great constituency, is here today. Great Yarmouth borough council will also be part of pathfinder projects, receiving close to £300,000 for a joint project with the community of Scratby; I have visited that important community with my hon. Friend. The purpose is to explore and test different approaches to adaptation, such as roll-back and business-support programmes. Different types of innovation are coming forward from different local authorities. There is a wide range of measures and hon. Members will be interested because hopefully some of them will provide some of the tools for how we go forward.
I turn to the specific question of marine dredging and the effect that it may or may not be having on coastal erosion. I state at the outset that marine minerals are an important source of construction materials, meeting
approximately 20 per cent. of the sand and gravel needs in England and Wales and amounting to between 17 million and 27 million tonnes per annum over the past 25 years. The levels of extraction vary between regions, depending on the availability of suitable material and the levels of demand.
The main extraction sites are located off the east and south coasts of England. The Government's stated policy is to see the continued use of marine-dredged sand and gravel to the extent that that remains consistent with the principles of sustainable development. Policy is set out in Government guidance notes, in particular Marine Mineral Guidance 1, which-it is worth pointing out-includes a precautionary approach in consideration of applications for marine minerals dredging.
I shall now give some detail. New permissions for the extraction of marine minerals will be granted only where we are satisfied that all environmental issues, including coastal impacts, have been satisfactorily resolved. Furthermore, it is Government policy that all applications for dredging permissions in previously undredged areas require an environmental impact assessment.
We do not contest the fact that poorly managed aggregate extraction from the marine environment could cause a range of physical impacts, which may ultimately contribute to coastal erosion. That is why all marine mineral dredging applications are required to assess by way of a coastal impact study the physical effects of the proposed operation and its implications for erosion. A permission to dredge will be issued only if the regulator, the Marine and Fisheries Agency-soon to become the Marine Management Organisation-and its advisors, consultees and major stakeholders, are content that the proposed dredging is environmentally acceptable.
In all cases, conservative modelling and assessments of environmental impacts are undertaken and further supported through routine monitoring. I have copious details, and I will be happy to write to the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness to explain them and the continual assessment that goes on, such as routine monitoring of the dredger's location and the volume of aggregate extracted, to ensure that any unforeseen impacts can be identified and mitigated. Additional monitoring of the sea bed allows direct assessment of the impact of dredge on the sediment transport environment and, hence, the impact on the shoreline. If at any time dredging activities are shown potentially to be causing coastal erosion, permission will immediately be withdrawn.
There has been a significant amount of research into the effects of marine aggregates dredging in general and into the question of coastal impacts in particular. In answer to the hon. Gentleman's question, I have no doubt that the research will continue. We welcome that.
Bob Spink: Does the Minister agree that we should take particular care to monitor the impact of dredging when passing the Montgomery, a munitions ship sunk in the Thames estuary near to where the dredging will take place? If that ship were to move and spill its munitions, or even explode, it would cause widespread devastation.
Huw Irranca-Davies: That is a useful intervention and we need a proper precautionary approach to all assessments of the impact of dredging, in all parts of the UK, including the one to which the hon. Gentleman alludes.
We are not aware of any scientific evidence that marine minerals dredging, as controlled by the Government since 1968, has had any effect on the coast or significantly affected the marine environment. Modelling and field studies on the impact of individual offshore dredging licences, and their cumulative impacts, have concluded that UK offshore dredging has not contributed to coastal erosion.
I should be happy to write to the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness, and other hon. Members who have attended the debate, with further details and references to the principal points of research, if that is of help. I recognise that the issue is complex and that there is still a job to be done to reassure communities with more independent, objective and simple advice, set out in lay persons' terms.
Mr. Stuart: MARINET, which is part of Friends of the Earth, an organisation much of whose work I applaud, takes the strong view, which it propagates on its website, that dredging has impacts that are not properly understood. It cites the Sandpit report and others to argue that there is evidence for those effects. What can the Minister do to engage with MARINET? As long as it says that the Government are wrong and are being led more by money than by scientific considerations, there will be people threatened by coastal erosion who will be afraid that the Government are not doing the right thing.
Huw Irranca-Davies: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that prompt, because I have met MARINET representatives regularly about a range of issues to do with the marine environment. Its main concerns include the impact on the marine environment as well as coastal erosion.
We accept that there will be an impact on fauna from offshore dredging. However, before dredging permission is granted, extensive surveys are carried out and they continue for the life of the licence. Surveys are also carried out in certain areas to determine the impact of dredging on shell fisheries, for example. It is worth saying that dredging can be halted, or shifted to another dredge zone in the area, should one of the monitoring reports demonstrate that the dredging is having an unacceptable impact on the flora and fauna or the fishing grounds.
I know that MARINET and others are often understandably concerned about recovery. Dredging areas are often split into smaller zones, one or two of which are dredged at a time, allowing for recovery of the sea bed. The dredging companies must obtain the approval of the Government before moving to a new active dredging zone. When a new dredging area is licensed, dredging companies will often relinquish an older dredging area of a similar size. There are ways, therefore, in which we can alleviate some of the concerns of MARINET.
I want briefly to touch on some of the additional points that were raised. I hope that I made it clear to the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) that we want the appropriate assessments before, during and after the process to be carried out properly, so that everywhere dredging takes place it is properly determined that it is appropriate to proceed.
The hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness raised the contrast with Holland, and the reason for its different approach, and it is true that the approach is different there. I am sorry if I am repeating myself, but our approach involves the need to ensure that dredging, at whatever depth it happens-we do not arbitrarily set different depth levels-is driven by proper environmental impact assessments and continual monitoring. We do not distinguish between levels; we say that on all levels there should be an assessment of whether it is appropriate to go on. We do not adopt different approaches in different regions of the UK; what happens is localised to each individual circumstance, within broad parameters.
To conclude, I have no doubt that parts of the British coastline are under threat, and that the effects of climate change will only increase those pressures on coastal communities. As I have suggested, the Government will continue to respond and engage appropriately. We need to ensure that in doing so we target the right measures and resist the temptation sometimes to use dredging as a scapegoat for processes that can be natural.
2 pm
| Index | Home Page |