| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
12 Jan 2009 : Column 1033
Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, the noble Earl is correct about the centuries of injustice, for which we all carry our share of responsibility. That is why the Middle East keeps on pressing its way back on to the global stage, not as an annoying regional problem but as something that separates us all globally and whose solution similarly would unite us all globally. Let us all hope that the change of Administration in Washington, coming as it does on the heels of the start of this conflict, offers a chance for us all to combine to address the fundamental, root causes of this conflict.
Baroness Tonge: My Lords, I was in Gaza six weeks ago. Now, as a result of the impotence of the international community, not just in Gaza, but, as my noble friend said, over 40 years of occupation of Palestine by Israel, those institutions that I visited are rubble and many of the children with whom I played are dead. Is the Minister aware that Mrs Pillay, the new UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, has spoken of war crimes being committed in Gaza? Will the Government, therefore, show leadership and call for the immediate—and I mean immediate—establishment by the United Nations Security Council of an independent fact-finding commission to Palestine to investigate all breaches of international law?
Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, let me say to the noble Baroness, Lady Tonge, that I did say, when repeating the Statement that the Foreign Secretary made in the other place, that there would need to be an investigation of these allegations. Let me be clear that Mrs Pillay’s charges seem to refer to some very specific actions; they refer not to the general conduct of the conflict but to particular incidents that have been reported. Those incidents, as the Foreign Secretary said, cause great concern and will require investigation. The issue is the timing of that investigation. In 2002, the incidents in Jenin similarly provoked an international investigation. In a sense, that investigation failed, because it was denied access and became politicised as a propaganda tool in the conflict, used by both sides. There is a question of timing and of hard evidence needing to be assembled, but I can say confidently that clearly some of the incidents in this conflict on both sides will be the subject of intensive international human rights investigation.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend about the current political impact of what is going on within the region, from which I returned late last week? I was struck by the fact that many people thought that the role of Hamas was being strengthened by Israeli action, that the outcome of all this undermined moderate Palestinian opinion, which would talk to Israelis sensibly about the future, and that this action has put much more opinion behind the very extreme views held by Hamas. Does my noble friend agree that that is happening not only within Palestine, but on a broader basis throughout the Middle East, because moderate Arab opinion is enraged by the constant television pictures? We do not see on our televisions the sorts of pictures of broken bodies that I witnessed last week; we see them camouflaged. However, in the region you see the unalloyed horror of what is going on, which has enraged opinion
12 Jan 2009 : Column 1034
Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, my noble friend brings to us all an important observation from her week in the region. This has been a terrible time for moderates in the Middle East, whether they are Palestinian, Arab or Israeli. You are seeing the classic consequence of conflict. Everyone is reverting to hard-line positions and we need to regroup before some point of no return is passed. Therefore, I absolutely endorse the insights that my noble friend gathered during her visit.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords—
Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords—
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, it is the turn of the Cross Benches.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, will the Minister not go a little further in relation to the US vote on the resolution and admit that it was pretty deplorable that the US abstained at the last moment? That sent completely the wrong signal, particularly to Israel but also to Hamas, that the United States will not press very hard on a resolution. Will the Minister accept my gratitude for the Statement, which I thought excellent? Will he say whether the encouragement for a national unity Government, which I very much welcome, implies that, if a national unity Government are formed, the British Government will not again refuse to talk to the Hamas members of that Government?
Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, in response to the noble Lord’s first point, of course the resolution would have had greater authority if the US had voted for it and it had been passed 15:0. It is disappointing that ultimately that was not the case. However, with the mood of both parties, I am not certain that even with a 15:0 result we would have achieved the end of hostilities that we so deeply desired. We very much hope that, as we move forward, we will be able to demonstrate a united international community. As the noble Lord, Lord Wright, observed, the United States has moved significantly, as reflected in this resolution, and the challenge now is to keep everyone moving in the same direction. The United States is working as strongly as the other partners mentioned in the Foreign Secretary’s Statement to bring pressure to bear on all parties in the region to end the conflict as soon as possible. In that sense, behind the vote, whatever its result, lies an international community devoted to securing a ceasefire at once if it can do so.
12 Jan 2009 : Column 1035
Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords—
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, it is the Conservative Party’s turn and I think that the House would probably wish to hear the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe.
Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords, I apologise that I was not present at the outset of these proceedings—all the more so because of my present intervention. I congratulate—if that is not too strong a word—the Minister on the way in which he has skilfully reflected the near unanimity from all corners of this House, from Front Bench and Back Bench alike. Many noble colleagues must have been put in mind of an event that occurred almost exactly 30 years ago. The Venice declaration was the first time that the European Union, under the leadership of my noble friend Lord Carrington, drew itself together and expressed a unified view on what needed to be done, reaffirming the integrity of the state of Israel but reasserting that Palestinians also had rights. The tragedy is that there has been insufficient unity since then to carry matters forward. Of course, we should like to see the United States play a stronger and more positive role, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, identified, but so too should we like to see a truly united expression of opinion from the European Union, with our country playing the leading part in putting across the strong, unanimous judgment of this House.
Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, I think that there has been a great growth of unity during the past few weeks, as was implied in some of the opening comments in this debate. The international community was rather all over the map when we began this crisis, but we have come together to form a solid and strong position. I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, very much for his observation on that. So that I do not lose my reputation for frank speaking, I should respond to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, concerning Hamas involvement in a Government of national unity. Were that to come about as a result of Egyptian or other mediation, I have no doubt that we would welcome such a Government and deal with their membership.
Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL]
Information about this Bill
Copy of the Bill as Debated
Explanatory Notes
Today's Amendments
Delegated Powers Committee 1st Report
Committee (1st Day)(Continued)
4.35 pm
2: Clause 1, page 1, line 7, at end insert—
“(1A) The purpose of the MMO is to represent the public interest in the marine environment.”
12 Jan 2009 : Column 1036
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I begin by declaring some interests that should stand for the whole Committee stage. I am vice-president of Wildlife and Countryside Link and vice-president of the Council for National Parks. I am a member of Devon Wildlife Trust and my husband is a member of Devon County Council, representing it on the sea fisheries committee. He is also the Environment Agency’s flood defence chair for Wessex and chairs its coastal partnership for north Devon and north Somerset. Further, I apologise for being unable to speak on Second Reading, and I hope that the Committee will forgive me for that.
This debate is now about the general objectives of the Marine Management Organisation. I have taken the wording for my amendment from the statement of the Joint Committee on the draft Marine Bill, of which I was honoured to be a member, which states paragraph 39:
“In our view the MMO should be, and be seen to be from the outset, the owner of the public interest in the UK marine environment”.
That objective should be in the Bill. It is important that the MMO represents the public interest in the marine environment. The previous debate was helpful in setting the scene for what the MMO’s objective should be and I hope that the Conservative Front Bench will see merit in debating these issues as they are at the heart of what this Bill is trying to establish.
The Minister explained that the overarching role of the MMO is to resolve the tensions that exist in the marine environment. He is right that there are a lot of tensions. He mentioned a few and I am sure that noble Lords are well aware of them. Some are historic, to do with a healthy ecosystem and the issues over fishing, and some are new—for example, issues of renewable energy. Marine energy has a very strong future, as it should, because after all the UK has some of the best renewable energy resources in the world. At a time of climate change it would be totally irresponsible to squander them. Their exploitation will bring a lot of new issues to the fore; that new tension will have to be managed. The scale of dredging is phenomenal, which I am sure we will discuss later. It has been licensed in the past, more or less satisfactorily, but the advent of the MMO and a new licensing regime will be helpful.
There are lots of other slightly lesser issues but nevertheless, there are tensions around recreation and the water-based sports that are often the public’s first introduction to the sea. I do not think that the MMO can just be a manager of bureaucratic processes. Contrary to some of the opinions expressed in the debate on my noble friend’s first amendment, I think that the body needs a vision. Whether we call it a champion or a steward it needs to have the objective of making the marine environment as valued to the people of the United Kingdom as the special—terrestrial—landscapes that exist.
In 2007, a Natural England survey produced some shocking conclusions: 44 per cent of the population of this country think that the area under the sea is utterly, generally or mostly barren and only 10 per cent expect a rich landscape including plants, animals and features. That 2007 survey gives us a starting point for why the MMO needs to be far more than the Bill envisages. I
12 Jan 2009 : Column 1037
“Life itself arose from the oceans ... Not only has the oceans always been a prime source of nourishment for the life it helped to generate, but from earliest recorded history it has served for trade and commerce, adventure and discovery. It has kept people apart and brought them together”.
I shall not continue to quote the website, except to say that it regards the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea as,
- “the most important international achievement since the approval of the United Nations Charter in 1945”.
It has generally been hailed as that by world communities.
This important, landmark Bill is the UK’s version of that convention, which is why the body tasked with overseeing it deserves better than the current wording. If we were dealing with a perfect marine environment, the wording would be satisfactory, but we know that it is not perfect. It is exploited well beyond its limits in some ways. Fishing is an issue that will raise tensions very high. However, it is not the only issue; there are also issues of renewable energy and pollution. On many beaches, there are as many bits of plastic as there are pebbles, which gives an idea of the extent of the pollution. The Marine Conservation Society has done some good survey work that has highlighted the extent of macropollution, which involves buckets and bits of plastic that one can see washed up, and micropollution—tiny bits of plastic that are ingested by living organisms and have begun fundamentally to change the environment in which such organisms live. We have all of that to contend with.
The MMO needs to be visionary. It needs to engender knowledge in the public, who have an innate love of the sea. We need to move to a position where everyone is able to take a strong part in the improvement of the sea. That includes an educational role and an international role. In evidence to the draft Bill Committee, the then Minister, Jonathan Shaw, and Hilary Benn made the point that it is ultimately for the Government to represent the UK’s marine interests abroad, but I am sure that the Minister will agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Chesterton, who has championed this point vociferously, particularly in the committee, that a lot of fundamental work needs to be done at international and EU level, and the head of the MMO will be well placed to undertake that role. None of that is envisaged in the Bill.
In summary, the Bill needs to lay down in the strongest possible terms a general objective for the MMO. For that reason, I hope that noble Lords will consider supporting the amendment. I beg to move.
4.45 pm
Lord Eden of Winton: I have much sympathy with what the noble Baroness has said and understand why she wants in the Bill reference to the public interest in the marine environment. However, I am worried about that and want to explain briefly what my worries are.
I regard the primary purpose of the Bill to be the establishment of marine reserves. I hope that nothing is done during the passage of the Bill that weakens that primary objective. It is urgent that we press on
12 Jan 2009 : Column 1038
I know that it is important that we consider the impact of renewable energy, of dredging and of public enjoyment of the marine environment—all matters about which the noble Baroness spoke—but we must also consider their impact on the establishment of marine reserves to try to rescue from extinction many species of fish and marine animal life which are now placed at real risk.
The biodiversity policy officer of the Marine Conservation Society stated in a report in the Daily Telegraph of 9 December:
“We have dithered while Rome burns. Marine reserves are a cost-effective way to achieve benefits for wildlife and the fish species that rely on habitats are being protected for the long term”.
That is so vital and so important that I hope that nothing that happens during the passage of the Bill will detract from our pursuit of that objective.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My noble friend is quite right: one could quite easily expand the purposes of this body until it bursts. It must have clear purpose; we must be clear what that is; and the Bill must say so early on. A quango is not the right body to represent the public interest; that is Parliament's job. Elected people represent the public interest. A quango may argue until the cows come home about what is the public interest, and there is no way to resolve it. I am not sure that this is the right answer, although I understand what the noble Baroness and her colleagues on the Front Bench are so keen to achieve. We must be careful. This is a management body—that is what it says here. It either is or is not a management body. If we do not want it to be one, we must say so, but the matter clearly needs management and it seems to me that the Bill is not far off in saying so.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach: It is hard to argue with the noble Baroness’s introduction of the amendment, but the MMO has such a multiplicity of functions that to single out this aspect, however key, may give it a focus while limiting the range and scope of the issues which the MMO will address. My noble friend Lord Eden gave voice to similar sentiments, and we heard similar expressions from the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy. I am sure that we will return to many issues throughout our debates that will show the breadth of the Bill and the issue of marine conservation zones, as my noble friend Lord Eden mentioned.
It may help to consider exactly what we mean by the public interest. More to the point, how can the public interest be determined in a democracy other than by Parliament? We therefore return again to the relationship, which we discussed during the passage of the Climate Change Act, between people, Parliament, government and a public body. We drew attention to this because we wanted to get right the relationship with the Committee on Climate Change. How right the noble Baroness was to draw attention to the key
12 Jan 2009 : Column 1039
Baroness Hamwee: The criticism of my noble friend’s amendment is that the term “public interest” may not be sufficiently wide. There can be only one alternative to public interest, and that is private interest. Private interests are certainly involved in this area—fishing, the development of energy resources and so on—but surely the MMO’s purpose is to deal with those private interests on behalf of the public and therefore to represent the public interest.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: It is a great pleasure to welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, to our debates. In a sense, this discussion has followed on very well from the discussion on the first amendment and the essential nature of the Marine Management Organisation and its appropriate accountability through Ministers to Parliament.
There can be no doubt that it is in the public interest that we bring the Bill to Parliament today. That is why we want a marine management organisation to be established. It will make an important contribution to protecting the wider public interest, and will do so by discharging the responsibilities that are laid down in legislation. It will have to work within the parameters set by both the marine policy statement and the guidance that the Secretary of State will give to it, as described in Clause 2. There is no doubt at all that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, and the noble Lord, Lord Eden, are right. The noble Lord referred specifically to his legitimate concerns about marine reserves, which are among the very important issues and pressures with which the Marine Management Organisation will have to deal. The noble Baroness raised two other issues: dredging and renewable energy. All those matters are important.
The Marine Management Organisation will be faced with a number of competing users and interests in the marine environment. That is why we believe the public interest is served by creating this new organisation, which will work within a new strategic framework for marine planning, with new bodies to deliver it, together with a range of other functions.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |