| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Geddes: My Lords, if I heard the Minister correctly, he said that the reviews that are under way are complementary to the Bill. I do not understand how he can say that, as the reviews have not come to their conclusion.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Bill provides powers for the competent authorities in this area that they will implement in designating and managing sites and in establishing criteria for the balance in reaching those judgments. The operation of those authorities will be informed by the outcome of those various reviews. In other words, the substance of several of their decisions will be helped by the outcome of those reviews. That should not stop us enacting the powers and, eventually, implementing those powers, in order to carry out those decisions. It is important that the kind of considerations that the reviews address are taken into account when the authorities come to exercise their judgment. Because we are looking for a balance, it is important that they take into account each of those reviews.
Legislation is a complex matter, and it is important that we take account of a wide range of other interests, in addition to conservation issues. In its interim report, the group to which the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, referred emphasised that there must be a maximum community of interest. As far as it goes, the Bill strikes a balance. The amendments made by the Government in another place made that clearer. That is exemplified, in particular, by the clause on sustainable development, to which the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, and my noble friend Lady Gibson of Market Rasen referred. It enables us to take into account all strands of sustainable development—economic and social, as well as environmental.
It is important that we are in a position to evaluate all the dimensions without allowing any of them to override another. The environmental considerations are vitally important, but the other considerations must also be taken into account. In some cases, developments that might, in the first place, be seen to be of economic importance might bring substantial environmental benefits, greater perhaps, in some cases, than those brought by the full powers of protection for the site. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, referred to the issue of sustainable, renewable energy, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer. There are environmental benefits with that, as well as potential economic benefits, and they may outweigh any damage to a protected site caused by construction. We do not want the judgments to be made in such a way as to act to the detriment of the development of renewable energy—offshore wind farms or the other forms of renewable energy suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer.
It is important that we allow port development and other economic activities to continue. However, we must take account of the principles of the Bill. The clause relating to sustainable development means that having protected sites will not create a series of no-go areas for developers—that is not the intention—provided that the development is compatible with the aim of sustainability. It is also true that, in dealing with the marine environment, we are dealing with risk areas, about which there is, sometimes, uncertain knowledge. In such cases, decisions on the likelihood of a negative outcome are not based on sufficient information. We must, therefore, take a precautionary approach.
Under previous legislation, issues relating to the various strands of sustainable development are handled together. Section 37 of the Countryside Act 1968, which deals with the designation of SSSIs—mainly on land—requires the authorities to,
- "have due regard to the needs of agriculture and forestry and to the economic and social interests of rural areas".
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, also referred to international developments and, in particular, to the Bergen declaration, in which process my colleague
Michael Meacher is also heavily involved. That declaration does not imply that states should wait until all the information handled in those proceedings is brought together in international decisions before taking steps to protect sites of national interest. The Government accept that the provisions of the Bill should not be implemented, until the review of marine nature conservation has been completed, but measures to protect sites of national interest need not await the outcome of the Bergen process. We can take steps that are compatible with that before that review reaches its conclusions.The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, also asked about the criteria for notification and suggested, I think, that marine sites of special interest should be notified prior to the publication of the criteria under Clause 3(2). The criteria allow the agencies to identify the sites, so we will publish the criteria before the sites can be identified.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, said, the Bill specifies—mostly in Clause 9—the way in which competent marine authorities should act when they propose to carry out operations or authorise any activity that would be likely to damage a marine site of special interest. Clause 9(1) specifies that, in exercising its functions, a marine authority must take reasonable steps to ensure that, before deciding to undertake or give consent to an operation that is likely to damage an MSSI, it must inform the appropriate nature conservation body, which will then have 28 days in which to comment on the proposal. The authority must make its judgment on the basis of the comments received. My noble friend Lady Nichol asked whether there was also a power to take action if damage had been done. That is not covered by the Bill, which deals with the designation of sites.
Noble Lords also asked why the legislation was not UK-wide. We always tend to get such questions in your Lordships' House. Most of the matters are devolved matters. Although we wish to maintain an overall UK approach to international matters, there may be different legislation for different parts of the United Kingdom.
My noble friend Lord Mason of Barnsley raised the issue of the use of drift-nets. My noble friend Lady Gibson of Market Rasen and the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, raised issues relating to North Sea fishing and the effect of the use of drift-nets on other species. Beyond a limit of six nautical miles, drift-net fishing for salmon is prohibited. It is also the Government's policy to phase out the North-east Coast Salmon Drift-Net Fishery. That was started 10 years ago in 1993, and the number of licences has reduced since then by over 50 per cent. We will continue to phase out that activity. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, asked whether I could report on the research into that matter. I cannot do so today, but I shall make inquiries and get her an answer.
There were several queries about shipping. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, referred to concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, who is not able to be with us today. There is nothing
in the proposals that restricts the general right to navigate the territorial seas. The Bill is fully compliant with our international obligations in that regard.For mapping and identifying sites, it is, as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, said, important that seafarers are made aware of the location of MSSIs and that the conservation body is required to keep that register. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, would want to know why the Bill does not require it to be put on the authoritative charts. The answer is not very satisfactory; it is rather technical and legalistic. We are in discussion with the United Kingdom Hydrographic Office to see how we can ensure that such sites are marked on the appropriate charts. However, in terms of law and statute, I regret that the Bill cannot provide for that because it cannot provide for the Hydrographic Office to mark the sites on Admiralty charts. Despite its great authority in the area, the office has no separate legal identity under any Act of Parliament and therefore cannot have a duty placed on it by any Act of Parliament. That is the technical answer but we hope that Admiralty charts come to identify the sites.
I hope that I have dealt with some of the issues of concern. I believe that the Bill strikes the appropriate balance in the mechanism it proposes. It is part of a coherent whole to the strategy on marine conservation identified by the Government which will take into account other interests in addition to the environmental dimension.
I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, and others who said that 21 years is long enough to wait. There are difficulties in respect of parliamentary time for Private and Public Bills and we ought to seize this opportunity to put the principles of the Bill on to the statute book. I therefore hope that we will bear that in mind in moving to the next stage of the Bill.
1.41 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken today. I am grateful for the kind words spoken from the three Front Benches and I thank in particular noble Lords who have supported the Bill from the Back Benches: the noble Lords, Lord Mason of Barnsley, Lord Judd, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, Lord Hardy of Wath, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, Lord Clinton-Davis, Lord Chorley and Lord Hunt of Chesterton, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Nicol and Lady Gibson of Market Rasen. All made it clear that it is vital to have protection of our marine environment and that we need it now. Others who have their own objections supported the Bill's objectives but questioned whether now is the right time to introduce it, whether it goes too far or not far enough.
Perhaps I may refer as best as I can to some of the issues which were directed specifically at me. If I omit any matters, I shall be pleased to talk to noble Lords about them between now and Committee stage. I begin with the timing of the Bill which is at last being debated at Second Reading. My noble friend Lord Caithness
was offended that the Bill had been "pulled" twice having appeared on the Order Paper. I regret any inconvenience to him with regard to the timing of this debate.It is right that an explanation should be given. On the two previous occasions, the Private Member's Bill, which does not take precedence over the time of government Bills, had been listed at a time which it was hoped would be convenient to your Lordships. On the first occasion, government business had to jump ahead of the Bill and it was estimated that we would finish our debate between 2 and 2.30 a.m. On the second occasion, government business suddenly became longer. A speakers' list, which it was thought by usual channels would extend to only a dozen, finally totalled 35, which would again have meant finishing our debate between 1 and 1.30 a.m. I can only apologise for the delay in reaching Second Reading but I hope that for most noble Lords eleven o'clock in the morning is somewhat more convenient time to start the debate than eleven o'clock at night.
My noble friend Lord Caithness objected to the fact that the Bill had been amended so severely in the Commons and believed that it had become a government Bill. My noble friend Lord Geddes expressed similar concern. I can state only what I know to be true: that it is very much the Bill of my honourable friend John Randall. It is his "baby"—or perhaps as he is such a keen ornithologist I should say that it is his "chick"! If in the other place the Government gave it extra feed to fatten it up, that has made it a healthier Bill but certainly not a government Bill. I was grateful in particular for the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, with her experience of what has happened over many years under both governments, about the assistance which may be given by governments to Private Members' Bills. If it were the position that a government could not amend a Private Member's Bill for fear of it becoming a government Bill, I suspect that noble Lords would find there would be no Private Members' Bills.
My noble friend Lord Caithness asked a specific question about who provided the Explanatory Notes. In my opening remarks, I commented on the fact that they had been written by the RSPB with advice from DEFRA. My noble friend wanted to know the precise name of the person. As is the wont when these notes are produced from someone's computer, the evidence appears in hard print. We see the name of Duncan Huggett, who works for the RSPB, and even the date and the file name on his computer.
The noble Lord, Lord Mason of Barnsley, used this Private Member's Bill debate as an opportunity to raise matters on fishing which are dear to his heart. I feel that that is a legitimate use of this kind of debate and I thank him for his support of the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, referred to the importance of attaining a balance between economic development and conservation. I agree with every word he said on that matter. He questioned the fact that the Bill makes no reference to marine archaeology and referred to a meeting last week with English
Heritage. I, too, attended that meeting as a member of the All Party Archaeology Group, now the second largest such group in both Houses.When I took the National Heritage Bill, a Private Member's Bill, through your Lordships' House, I commented that I had looked carefully at whether it would in any way contradict the Marine Wildlife Conservation Bill. At that stage I received advice from the RSPB that although there had been initial concerns, it decided that the two Bills were complementary and not contradictory. That remains the belief of interested parties. There is therefore no mention of marine archaeology, it having been dealt with as satisfactorily as possible in another Bill.
Several concerns were expressed about the fact that the Bill might pre-empt the results of the review of the marine nature conservation currently being undertaken by the Government. My noble friends Lord Caithness, Lord Geddes and Lord Moynihan raised issues on that and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for pointing out that the provisions of the Bill are complementary to that review and that the Bill can be built into the wider process of marine conservation which is currently under way.
The regulatory impact assessment of the Bill also identifies the fact that it will fit in with the RNMC's continuing work. As Ministers made clear today and in another place, it is envisaged that the implementation of the Bill if passed would be delayed until the review had concluded its work and made its final recommendations. In this way, the work carried out by the review in identifying species and habitats of national importance will be vital in assisting the implementation of the Bill. That appears in paragraph 13 of the RIA, which I should be delighted to make available to noble Lords if they wish. As I mentioned in opening, passing the Bill now will allow the preparatory work to be done so that the Bill can be implemented more quickly when the time comes.
My noble friend Lord Moynihan was concerned about an issue addressed by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty: sites might be notified before the criteria are published. As I hope that I made clear in my opening remarks, the Bill makes it essential that criteria should be drawn up by the Secretary of State and published before a further step of notification could take place. Indeed, there will be consultation at that stage.
Questions were posed by my noble friend Lady Wilcox about the criteria for selecting sites. It is the intention that the ports shall be consulted on the criteria before they are published.
My noble friends Lady Wilcox and Lord Geddes raised the issue of the review of consents. My noble friend Lady Wilcox asked that the Bill should not proceed until after the government review on consents has been completed. I join the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, in believing that the Bill will not prejudice the outcome of that review or the legislation that will flow from it. Furthermore, it is important to take into account the statement made in another place on 16th May by Mr Michael Meacher. When questioned about
the review of the marine consents regime, the Minister said—I apologise for the length of the quote but it is relevant to the point properly raised by my noble friend—
- "The purpose of the review of the regulatory system that affects development in coastal waters is to reconcile the divergence of interest that has been apparent so often in the past between economic development and marine conservation. The Marine Wildlife Conservation Bill that the hon. Member for Uxbridge ... promoted is designed to do precisely that: designate marine sites of special interest and involve all the economic players—for example, those who want port development, offshore oil development and wind farms. They all need to be involved in developing policy. It is not one or the other; we can do far better than in the past in reconciling interests".—[Official Report, Commons, 16/5/02; col. 899.]
I firmly believe that it is important to reconcile those interests. I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for pointing out that the consents review will feed into how the Bill is implemented.
The issue of whether or not this Bill should be UK-wide in its application was raised. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for addressing that matter. The reason that I have looked at this issue in great detail is that on these Benches my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour, who is not in her place today, has always made it clear to me that I should consider in particular the case of Scotland. It was in that respect that I looked very carefully to ensure that where devolution had occurred, the Bill was complementary to it and that the matter of the boundaries between Scotland and England had been properly resolved.
My noble friend Lady Wilcox made the point that this was another piece of the mosaic in legislation and that one ought to wait further. The word "wait" has been used many times today. She quoted Mr Michael Meacher when he was apparently saying, "Do not let us do this. Let us hold off". But, of course, that was at Second Reading before amendments were made which ensured that the Bill could be taken forward in a proper form. By the time the Bill reached Third Reading Mr Meacher said that it is unquestionably an important Bill and listed the reasons why it should go on the statute book as soon as possible.
There was a rightful concern, which I share with my noble friends, that regulation should not be too burdensome. No one likes regulation. Human nature is such that we all want to be able to act as freely as possible, whether in our personal or commercial environment. But I do not believe that the marine environment is any more legislatively complex than the terrestrial environment. The sustainable development clause which underpins the Bill will ensure that there is a right balance and that economic development is not unfairly affected.
If I have missed anything, I shall write to noble Lords. I am aware of the time and the fact that the Minister has had questions addressed specifically to him. It would be wrong for me simply to duplicate some of his answers where they covered my points too.
I believe that the Bill gives us the opportunity to change for the better the way in which we manage our environment without compromising the needs of those carrying out the economic and commercial
development that we all need. It is about achieving a balance between economic development and nature conservation, and improving our knowledge about what is out there and needs to be protected. Marine wildlife may largely be hidden from view—apart from the cormorant, which has had an extremely bad press today—but, however hidden it is, its conservation matters to the public and, I am sure, to all noble Lords. I ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page