| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
That does not seem to be an unreasonable statement. It does not mean that conservation issues have to be overridden. To suggest that the fundamentalist approach that conservation, and only conservation, in these circumstances should be considered seems a dangerous
9 Mar 2009 : Column 1026
Baroness Young of Old Scone: I wonder whether I could try again to clarify the provision that I was aiming for, which is not fundamentalist. The aim would be for sites to be designated on the basis of their conservation interest according to scientific evidence. That does not mean that there would be an absolute requirement for that conservation interest to be predominant in subsequent decisions. It would be open to people, through the normal processes of decision-making about development and socio-economic development and planning, to take the view that the economic proposition is more important than the nature conservation interest.
My worry was that if socio-economic issues were taken into account at the time of designation, the poor Minister would be bombarded with every possible socio-economic argument and it would be difficult for him to see his way through to protecting what, by abstract criteria, would be the optimum range of protected sites. However, that does not mean that by simply designating on the basis of their nature conservation interest, you have to be stuck in a straitjacket of protecting that nature conservation interest irrespective of any other consideration. That is the case when a planning application on an SSSI goes ahead, as a result of a planning process conducted by the local authority, which ultimately goes to planning appeal for the Secretary of State to make a decision.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach: Does the noble Baroness agree that bringing in the socio-economic consequences in the original designation process avoids the risk to a conservation zone at a later date? She appeared to advocate a formula for an assault on marine conservation zones, post their designation, for socio-economic purposes. I do not follow her logic. If marine conservation zones are meant to be properly established and protected, we need a process that takes all factors into account and makes them much easier to defend against future assaults.
Lord Judd: Before the noble Lord spoke, the noble Earl made a severe comment about the noble Baroness. I had the privilege of serving for several years under his chairmanship of committees, and there are few people in this House—I say this genuinely—for whom I have a greater admiration. However, because I admire him, I have to tell him that he is living in cloud-cuckoo-land. Would that the world were populated by people such as the noble Earl or those of the quality speaking for the Opposition on the Front Bench. But the world is not populated by such people. When the going gets going on these issues, it is ruthless. There are some real tykes out there who have no sense of the deeper issues to which we are committed; they are just out to make money. Let us call a spade a spade. They are ruthless. Unless there are firm safeguards in place, before we know where we are, everything will have been eroded and we will end up with a lovely urban development
9 Mar 2009 : Column 1027
The noble Baroness has done a great service to the House in reminding us of what we should be about. I am not asking my noble friends to accept her amendment simply as it stands but I am asking them to take seriously her concern—one that I share deeply—about the realities with which we may be dealing in the future and the need to stand firm.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: We have such a blueprint for how to do this with SSSIs on land, which, after all, we have never designated other than because they are sites of special scientific interest. Yet it is in the way that they are managed afterwards that they succeed or fail. It will be similar for MCZs. The fact that they should be designated because they have some features that are worth protecting, as decided by the scientists, is surely unarguable. To continue with the land analogy, you could have a SSSI that was grazed, with a number of farming activities and recreation for the public, which might be closed some of the year—all the arguments that we heard during the passage of the CROW Act. Nevertheless, it is an SSSI and is designated as one. That is the model that we should be following, which is exactly what the amendment proposes.
8.15 pm
Lord Howarth of Newport: The noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, is surely right to make her case as she has on the analogy of protection of SSSIs—as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, has just underscored—but also on the analogy of our well established system of heritage protection, where the principle of the designation of heritage assets is made simply and solely on the basis of the historic or architectural importance of those assets. We then establish their value, which becomes a subsequent factor under consideration in the planning process. In the end, democracy is about the reconciliation of conflicting interests, but we need to establish securely what those interests are so that we can proceed to wider judgements about which interests the Government, on behalf of society, think should prevail. The approach of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, is right in principle and clear in practice. Moreover, it is based on very well tried and tested principles that are long established in planning law.
Lord Greenway: There is a danger that several noble Lords are speaking about sites that need maximum protection. That is all well and good, and we all agree with that. However, there will be a range of different sites. In those where less protection is needed, socio-economic interests will need to be taken into account.
Baroness Byford: I hesitate to enter this debate as it has clearly shown the difficulties that we face with this Bill. I cannot support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, to delete subsection (7) from Clause 114. I have worked alongside her many years
9 Mar 2009 : Column 1028
I hesitate to say it, but over these past 12 or 15 years, those who are interested in pure conservation and have strong feelings about it have become very articulate, and I have no doubt that they will fight their corner with the Minister or whoever gives approval. They are not the underdog in this. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, was perhaps suggesting that they might be overridden, but I think that they are very robust people who rightly take a great interest in nature conservation. I do not fall into the camp which says they will not have their voice heard. On some of the other Bills that we have taken through this Chamber—the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, mentioned the CROW Act—I have been inundated with lobbying, and very vocal those representations were, too. It is not as though those people do not love nature or wish to conserve it—I ask noble Lords not to think that I am not one of them. But—and it is a big “but”—there needs to be a balance. Removing subsection (7) from Clause 114 would tip the balance too far the other way.
In some of the conservation zones, there may be no difficulty or conflict for the person taking the decision. In some areas, conservation may come up as a priority; in others, socio-economic factors will obviously override it. That balance will have to be struck whatever we do. If we removed subsection (7), I would be very concerned about it. I hope that people do not think that I am not keen on conservation, because I am, but if we remove subsection (7) we run the risk of creating a slightly unbalanced view in this part of the Bill.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: This has been a very interesting debate. I recall this as one of the central parts of our debate at Second Reading those many months ago, and understandably so. We have heard differing views expressed around the Chamber. It is always tempting in that situation to say that it shows that the Government have got the balance right. I shall certainly not resist that temptation, but I clearly accept that this is in a sense one of the most important debates that we shall have on the Bill. It goes to the heart of marine conservation zones, our marine environment and what it is for, and our intent to protect it. However, it also recognises that important socio-economic matters need to be taken into account when we consider the marine environment. In a sense, Clause 114 seeks to encapsulate that balance. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, thinks that we have not got it right. He would like to see Part 7 moved up and become a factor in the work that is taken forward to consider in the first place whether a particular part of the sea should be conceived as a marine conservation zone. I shall say in a minute why we think it is rather better to do it in the way in which the Bill is constructed.
However, I want first to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Eden, who made an eloquent speech. He recognised the potential for conflict. I think that we have always understood that there are inherent tensions in the management of the marine environment. The Bill to
9 Mar 2009 : Column 1029
I very much enjoyed the contributions of my noble friend Lord Judd. I understand entirely what he meant when he said that we need around the decision-making table the presence of people who can say, “Well, it’s all very well for today, but what about future generations?”. Of course, the protection of our marine environment is very important for the future but so, too, are socio-economic issues. They are important and at the very least ought to be taken into account when the decisions are made.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Byford—
Lord Judd: I am sure that my noble friend would agree that we have to keep in mind that the force of his economic and social arguments for the future well-being of society is for a decent society worth living in, of which environmental elements are a central part.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My noble friend Lord Judd seemed to have an image of a network of marine motorways. He did not suggest that we should put our Titans there—he and I have debated Titan establishments in previous debates. That is not how I see it. Of course, it is about our future. All noble Lords who have taken part in the debate are concerned about the environment and understand the need for conservation. But we cannot ignore the fact that other activities that are also important to the future take place in the marine environment.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, suggested that having received proposals and then having to look at Part 7, Ministers would be swamped by business interests that would make it very difficult for them to make a decision on designation. I do not underestimate the challenge of the decision-making that will fall on Ministers. That is surely why we believe that it is they who must make those decisions. We would hardly be bringing this legislation before the House were Ministers not determined to ensure that we do the right thing by the marine environment and that we designate zones and networks.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, that I do not see conservation bodies as being some sort of mild supplicants or underdogs in this process. I have seen the power of these organisations during the ever-lengthening debates on this Bill in your Lordships’ House. Ministers will make proper balanced decisions, and the way in which the Bill is set out allows them to do that.
Clearly, we want to provide more protection for some areas of our sea. We want to build consensus as far as possible among those with an interest in the sea,
9 Mar 2009 : Column 1030
Of course, there will be cases when the need for conservation will carry the greatest weight, but we should take decisions in the knowledge of what the impacts are likely to be. That is why in implementing the Bill, Ministers will expect an impact assessment to accompany each proposal for designation. There will be cases when there will be other options, when the conservation constraints are fewer, and it will be sensible to take account of socio-economic considerations in deciding where a site or group of sites should be designated.
For example, we might be considering a large area of representative habitat of which a small proportion is geologically suitable for wind-farm development. In that situation it might be appropriate to exclude that area from the proposed marine conservation zone area, particularly if it makes no difference in conservation terms. This part of the Bill is constructed so that we start with the case for conservation. I must admit that I disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Miller; maybe we shall come on to debate this in future.
8.30 pm
Clause 114 seems quite clear to me about the objective, because it clearly sets out how,
“The appropriate authority may make”
and goes on to name those areas. I refer again to Clause 119, on the,
“Creation of network of conservation sites”,
which sets out the condition. I realise that we have not set out a general objective, if the Committee likes, in drafting but it is quite clear from those two clauses what this is all about and what we seek to do.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I thank the Minister for spelling out how he sees it. I agree that the clause says what it is doing, but it does not say why. I simply said that it would be stronger if it were quite clear on the purpose of designating the MCZs. As the debate on the socio-economic angles and so on has shown, that purpose can tend to get lost in all of the arguments that must be balanced. That balance would actually be helped by having a clear purpose at the beginning, against which the arguments could be weighed.
Baroness Hamwee: Perhaps I may follow my noble friend. I have listened with interest to this debate, having been able to come back to this Bill after something of a gap. Clause 114 starts, as the Minister says, with a
9 Mar 2009 : Column 1031
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I am grateful to both noble Baronesses for those contributions, but I am quite clear on the designation of MCZs and I think I just read it differently from them. It is quite clear to me what this is all about, and from reading the Bill,
- “it is ... for the purpose of conserving ... marine flora or fauna ... marine habitats or types of marine habitat ... features of geological or geomorphological interest”,
et cetera. No doubt we can debate that; I think a later amendment goes into it in more detail. My point is that a clear process is described here, about the grounds under which an appropriate authority may make an order. We think it better that that authority goes through the proper process of considering that and then, in coming to a view on whether it is desirable to designate an area as a marine conservation zone, it may have regard to any economic or social consequence for so doing.
In other words, it is much better that the rigorous process is gone through in order to come to a view on designating a particular MCZ; at that point, “the appropriate authority” must, at least, “have regard to” the socio-economic impact. It is probably better to do it that way, in a sense, than to say right up front that that impact needs to be considered alongside conservation issues. I realise that there is room for argument here, but that is why we have constructed the Bill as we have.
This has been an interesting debate, but very few of the Committee have spoken to the detail of the amendments in the group. Unless I am pressed, I intend to conclude my remarks at this stage. However, if it would be helpful, I should be happy to write to noble Lords with detailed responses on those amendments unless noble Lords wished me to go through them.
Lord Tyler: I was going to suggest that the Minister might like to respond to the particular point about the Sandford principle, under Amendment A140. There is a general view that as that has been a constant thread during previous discussions in Committee, we should seek to find some way in which to incorporate it in the Bill. Perhaps the Minister would like to address that amendment.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: While I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, on that, I must pray in aid the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, on that point, because I thought that he responded to it very well. The problem of adopting the principle in Amendments A140 and A140A is that, as I understand it—and I am happy to look at this further between Committee and Report—it implies that conservation objectives should always outweigh socio-economic considerations. From all that I have said, I do not believe that I can go down that route. There must be some discretion to be able to take account of socio-economic considerations. There may be some cases in which the socio-economic—
9 Mar 2009 : Column 1032
Baroness Young of Old Scone: I shall make one last attempt. The process of designation happens at a single point in time. It will happen once and then the site will be designated for many years, one assumes. At that point, the Minister will be expected to take into account socio-economic issues as they currently exist, whatever the propositions are to use the site for extraction, fishing, power generation, or whatever. The designation will last for however long. I do not know how old the SSSIs are, but they may be 30 or 40 years old, and there are economic propositions coming up that we could not have had any inkling of at the time of designation.
If you take the socio-economic conditions into account at designation time, you will be forced to try to project forward and anticipate the economic needs that are unthought-of at the time of designation. That is why it is quite dangerous to take socio-economic conditions into account at the point of designation. Yes, it can be done at the point of deciding what kind of management is going to be permitted and, yes, it can be done whenever a planning application comes up. It is perfectly possible for the Minister to make such balanced decisions in that regard—but the point of designation is absolutely the wrong time for socio-economic conditions to be taken into account. That is why to some extent either my amendment or something close to it needs to be brought in, along with amendments later in the Bill that make it clear that MCZs are not no-go zones.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I fully understand what the noble Baroness means about MCZs not being no-go zones. I agree with her on that, but I do not agree with her on her general point—that because you cannot at any one point project years ahead, or at least it is very difficult to do so, this should not be a consideration. One should not see designation as a once-and-for-all decision, as it can be amended under Clause 118. So there is some flexibility there.
At the end of the day, I suspect that the House will not agree on this issue. At some stage, I am sure that it will be tested. I wanted to conclude by assuring noble Lords that including subsection (7) is not an attempt to undermine the essential protection of the marine environment. It is not an underhand way in which to ensure that commercial operators will get the upper hand at the expense of conservation. We would not be bringing this Bill before your Lordships if we did not believe in the importance of protecting the marine environment. But we cannot ignore the socio-economic impact that these matters inevitably bring to the fore, nor the economic importance of the sea. We attempt here to get a decent balance. I am not sure we are going to agree on this matter, but I wanted to assure noble Lords of the Government’s good intent.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach: I am very grateful for the Minister’s response to what has been a really good debate and one in which the argument has been genuine. I hope the good intent of all participants in the debate can be taken as granted. I suspect that some of the problems come from the fact that there is considerable variation—and we are a little uncertain about how it is going to work—of the degree of protection that might exist, both between different zones and within zones.
9 Mar 2009 : Column 1033
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |