|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
6. Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.
7. Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further messages from the Lords) may be programmed .[Mr. Alan Campbell.]
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Housing and Regeneration Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of-
(a) any expenditure incurred by a Minister of the Crown by virtue of the Act, and
(b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable by virtue of any other Act out of money so provided. [Mr. Alan Campbell.]
That the draft Regulators Compliance Code for the Legislative and Regulatory Reform (Regulatory Functions) Order 2007, which was laid before this House on 15th October, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved. [Mr. Alan Campbell.]
That the draft Legislative and Regulatory Reform (Regulatory Functions) Order 2007, which was laid before this House on 15th October, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved. [Mr. Alan Campbell.]
That the draft Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2007, which were laid before this House on 9th October, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.
That the draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Taxes on Income and Capital) (Faroes) Order 2007, which was laid before this House on 23rd( )October, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.
That the draft Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Switzerland) Order 2007, which was laid before this House on 23rd October, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved. [Mr. Alan Campbell.]
That this House takes note of European Union documents No. 13112/07 and Addendum 1, Commission Communication: Progressing Galileo: re-profiling the European GNSS Programmes; 13113/07, amended draft Regulation on the further implementation of the European satellite radionavigation programmes (EGNOS and Galileo) and 13237/1/07, Commission Communication concerning the revision of the multi-annual financial framework (20072013), on re-profiling the Galileo programme and on the proposal for the revision of the Financial Perspectives to finance the Galileo programme and the European Institute of Technology; and endorses the Governments approach to discussions on these documents. [Mr. Alan Campbell.]
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin (West Derbyshire) (Con): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps you might inform Labour Members that the rules on Divisions have been changed. A Division called after 10 oclock on such a motion is deferred, so they need not go into the Lobby.
Mr. Speaker: It is very obliging of the Opposition Chief Whip to point that out. I did make it clear that the Division is deferred until half-past 12 oclock tomorrow, so there is no need to worry. Hon. Members should come back then.
Mr. Desmond Swayne (New Forest, West) (Con): I am pleased to have this opportunity to raise the very important matter of the future of Lymington harbour. I share the Lymington river with my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) [ Interruption. ]
Mr. Swayne: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I was saying, I share the Lymington river with my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East. It forms the dividing line between our two parliamentary divisions, and we have both received an enormous amount of correspondenceand of lobbyingabout the issues that I wish to raise this evening. My hon. Friend has apologised to me for not being able to be in his place this evening, but he had already entered into a commitment when I learned, at 12.30 pm on Thursday, that I had secured this debate. I believe that, even as we speak, he is at sea with the Royal Navy.
The port of Lymington makes a contribution to my local economy that is not far short of £100 million a year. The harbour exists only because it is protected from the waves of the western Solent by Lymingtons salt marsh and mud flats, but the problem is that they have been eroding since 1920. I understand that New Forest district councils coastal protection team estimates that the current rate of erosion is between 2 yd and 6 yd a year at the periphery, and 1 yd a year on average in the harbour itself. At that rate, the salt marshes will cease to exist by some date between 2030 and 2040. That will mean that the vast majority of existing moorings in the harbour will become unviable, which will be an economic disaster for Lymington.
The Lymington harbour commission has been working on the problem since the early 1990s. Over the past two and a half years, in association with the consultants Black & Veatch, it has come up with a scheme that is both viable and affordable. I stress the word affordable, as we are not asking for Government moneyindeed, to do so in an Adjournment debate would be out of order.
The plan is to build a series of overlapping breakwaters over the next 25 years, with work starting next year, if permission is obtained. The breakwaters will do exactly what the salt marshes do now. They will protect the harbour from the waves of the western Solent but, crucially, they will also protect the surviving salt marsh that they enclose. Let us be clear: if we do nothing, we will lose not only the harbour but the salt marsh.
The salt marshes fall within the Southampton Water special protection area and are a very important wildlife site, especially for overwintering and breeding birds. The area also falls within the Solent special area of conservation, which is protected by the habitats directive, and it is, indeed, a European Natura 2000 site.
Notwithstanding the permitted development rights of the Lymington harbour commissioners under the Pier and Harbour Order (Lymington) Confirmation Act 1951, the proposed breakwaters will require planning permission from the New Forest national park authority. To that end, an environmental assessment has been made and I understand that the statutory consultees will scrutinise the draft assessment on 5 December. However, I think I am correct in saying that, whoever the statutory consultees are, they will be led by Natural England, which has a national policy of not interfering to secure coastal protection where deterioration is the result of a natural process.
The breakwaters footprints will be on the existing salt marsh, and I understand it is likely that Natural England will judge that an adverse effect. It will not take into account the fact that, although the salt marsh footprint will be given up to the breakwater, a larger amount of the salt marsh that will otherwise disappear will be saved by the breakwaters. The salt marsh land occupied by the breakwaters will cease to exist anyway as a consequence of the continuing erosion.
If the Lymington harbour commissioners cannot get Natural England to acquiesce to their proposition, and if Natural England persists in saying it will be an adverse development for the salt marsh, the commissioners only recourse will be to make a case to the Secretary of State on the basis of overwhelming public interest. If the Secretary of State accepts the case, the commissioners will have to enter into an arrangement with Natural England to compensate the organisation for loss of the salt marsh by paying for the creation and stewardship of an equal amount of salt marsh elsewhere in the kingdom.
It is into that Alice in Wonderland world that I want the Minister to intrude. It is absurd to ask the Lymington harbour commissioners to pay for the creation of 5 acres of salt marsh elsewhere because they are taking action to save 12 acres of salt marsh in Lymington. I accept that 5 acres occupied by the breakwaters will be given up, but that land would be lost anyway. If we do nothing we shall lose all the salt marsh and the harbour, too.
I hope that the Minister will be able to provide some reassurance to the large number of organisations and people in Lymington who are rightly concerned about these developments. Those supporting the Lymington harbour commission include the harbour advisory group, the sailing clubs, the marinas, the chamber of commerce, New Forest district council, Wightlink and the hundreds of constituents who have written to my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East.
The second issue I ask the Minister to deal with is the plan by Wightlink significantly to increase the size of the ferries that operate between Lymington and Yarmouth, which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner)I am glad that he is in the Chamber tonight. A few weeks ago, I attended a public meeting about the plans in Lymington. The meeting was highly charged; it was packedmore than 300 people attendedand a number of questions were asked, which might have been answered by Natural England had it taken the trouble to send someone to the meeting. On 2 November, I wrote to Natural England asking why it had not taken that opportunity but I have not yet had a reply.
Had I been granted a whole parliamentary day to examine the issue, we should still not have covered it all, as I discovered at the meeting. If the Minister will forgive me, I shall briefly summarise the issues as I see them. There are three competing interests. The first is the environmental interest. There are those who insist that the significantly increased ferry size will generate a bow wavea washsuch that it will accelerate the erosion of the salt marshes. Equally, there are those who argue, on the basis of tests carried out in tanks in Zurich, that new modern ferries will generate a reduced wash, although the counter-argument is that those tests were carried out in relatively deep water and the port of Lymington is relatively shallow. What is more, when countering a side wind, the directional thrust of the engine type that is unique to Wightlinks operations will have a deleterious effect on the sides of the channel.
The second interest is the commercial one: the need of enterprise and jobs in Lymington for an efficient ferry service to the Isle of Wight. That has to be set against the commercial interests of the trade generated by the huge number of leisure craft that operate from the port of Lymington. It is the case, however, that the current ferry service is uneconomic; it will lose money unless investment is put into new ferries that are cost-effective, modern and meet contemporary regulations and standards.
The third interest is the interest of the other river users, principally the yachtsmen, the sailing clubs and the marinas. There is an argument that the new greatly increased size of the ferry will inconvenience them or put them in significant danger. When I refer to the size of the new ferries, I do not just mean the relatively modest increase in capacity; I am also referring to the greatly increased displacement of water, the increased deadweight and the increased thrust. The argument is that all sorts of activities that now take place in the Lymington river will not be able to continue, particularly the free sailing training that is afforded by the sailing clubs to youngsters, many of whom are from less advantaged backgrounds.
All of this has resulted in an enormous row. I have no doubt that assessments, modelling and sea trials might provide some of the answers to the disputed questions, but I do not believe that that will solve the dispute itself, because the reality is that these ferries are already half-built and many people in Lymington feel that, whatever the outcome, they are being presented with a fait accompli.
Into this mêlée steps the Lymington harbour commission, of which I have spoken. It insists that because Lymington is designated as an open port it has no ability to deny the ferries access. Indeed, it cannot deny anyone access; I am told that even a supertanker can have access to the Lymington river and all the Lymington harbour commissioners can do is impose measures to mitigate the impact. Measures to mitigate the impact might well affect other river users as well. Even if such mitigation is imposed directly on Wightlinkin the form of a slower speed limit, for instancethat will affect other river users, because it will mean that ferries will occupy the river channel for longer in any hour, to their disadvantage.
The following is the essential point I wish to make to the Minister. If an undertaking of this size and sort had taken place on land there would have been a planning application and all the objections and interests would have properly been taken into account in the determination of it, but because this is happening at sea apparently no one needs any permission to apply for anything, notwithstanding all the designationsI have spoken of Natura 2000. I believe this is an enormous omission in our planning system, on which Ministers should reflect and act. A Planning Bill has been published today, and an appropriate amendment to it might prevent these situations from arising in futurebut that would not, of course, be retrospective.
There will, however, be a planning application. Indeed, there is one because of the effects on land. In order to accommodate the new ferries, there has to be some shore works at Lymington, and a planning application has been put in. According to the Minister for the South East, in response to a written question of mine of 14 Novembercolumn 243this planning application will be determined by the Marine and Fisheries Agency, and it will consider the opinion of Natural England that Wightlinks proposals constitute a plan or project for the purposes of the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c) Regulations 1994, and therefore an appropriate assessment will be required.
Wightlink will argue that the proposals do not constitute a plan or a project. So the conservationists and the yachtsmen of Lymington are, in effect, looking for the Marine and Fisheries Agency to act as the seventh cavalry and come down on the side of Natural England and its assessment of what is a plan or a project. Equally, it might all end up being settled by a judge in court, at great expense to everyone. I want to know from the Minister whether there is any other statutory body that is in a position to demand an appropriate assessment before the matter is determined and the shore works take place.
I accept that this process of dealing with the issue is better than none, but it falls far short of a proper planning inquiry, because the appropriate assessment will take into account only the environmental interests. It will take no account of the commercial interests, or, most important, the leisure craft interests. The sailors of Lymington have the most to lose, but their voice is not going to be heardand it ought to be.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Joan Ruddock): I congratulate the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) on obtaining this debate, which is obviously on an important subject. He has made his case enthusiastically. I regret that I may have to confirm a lot of the things that he has already said, but I need to do that for the record.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|