Martin
Salter: I am still waiting for the Minister to inform the
Committee why the Environment Agency got it wrong when it said that the
MMO should have a duty to further the conservation of marine fauna, for
example, as I quoted earlier, and why the Joint Committee got it wrong.
I specifically asked him to inform us what the Government’s
response to the Joint Committee was, because he said in his response
that that could seriously undermine the Bill. If it is as serious as he
suggests, that will be reflected in the Government’s
response.
Huw
Irranca-Davies: I thank my hon. Friend for raising that
point again. In the Government’s response to the Joint
Committee, we ruled out defining sustainable development on the face of
the Bill for the reasons I have laid out, but we did say that we would
consider how to clarify the MMO objectives, which is what we did in the
other place. I want to reiterate what we have done and how it has been
welcomed. We responded to the Joint Committee not by defining it in the
Bill, for all the reasons I have given, but by strengthening and
clarifying what we would do in terms of the marine management
objectives.
Martin
Salter: Will the Minister read out the Government
response, rather than interpret it? I feel that it is the first time he
may have seen it.
Huw
Irranca-Davies: No, it is not. Paragraph 3.1.9
states: “We
are currently considering whether and, if so, what changes could be
made to meet Joint Committee and public consultation requests to
clarify the MMO’s purpose and it’s general
objective.” We
listened and brought forward changes on the back of
that.
Martin
Salter: May I put it to the Minister that that hardly
justifies the statement that the amendment, which has cross-party
support and which would replace “contributing to” with
“furthering”, seriously undermines the structure of the
Bill? The Government response goes nowhere near that point. Does he not
agree? The answer is
yes.
Huw
Irranca-Davies: We responded to the Joint Committee by
bringing forward clarification on what the MMO should do to contribute
to the achievement of sustainability. There is also what we signed off
on the high-level policy objectives and what will come through in the
marine policy statement. My hon. Friend is right that the legal
precedent aspect was not picked up at the time, but I am picking it up
very quickly now. We are faced with a long legal precedent as
sustainable development has been a concept for quite some time. It is
enshrined within another 70 pieces of legislation and its
interpretation in the law courts is very clear. Therefore, if we chose
to adopt a different form of wording here it would be interpreted that
we mean something
different. Dr.
Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab): My hon. Friend
makes a strong point about the comparative read-across of wording in
the Bill with other pieces of legislation that have or may have a
bearing on it. Schedule 5, however, is only relevant to the
Bill and does not read across to other Acts. An amendment to that
schedule, particularly to paragraph 7, could reflect the substance of
this amendment. If he tabled such an amendment on Report he might
secure a great degree of cross-party
support .
Martin
Salter: On that
point—
The
Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that he cannot
intervene on an
intervention.
Huw
Irranca-Davies: I think that is a very good suggestion. I
am minded to look at whether we can do that. Paragraph 7 in schedule 5
refers to the sustainability appraisal, which is what I have been
talking about. There is a way to clarify this without setting out a
different legal approach in the
Bill.
Huw
Irranca-Davies: Before I give way, my hon. Friend also
mentioned the Environment Agency. Could I make a clarification here as
things move on apace? My understanding is that the Environment Agency
has accepted the strengthening of the MMO objective and it is no longer
seeking any change to that objective. In fact, I was pleased to meet
the Environment Agency in
the last week or so and I discussed that issue with them. The
Environment Agency recognises how far we have come.
However, I am
more than willing to take that point about schedule 5 away and consider
it, because it might be a way forward. I think that we are aiming to do
the same thing here; it is just that the way of doing it must not
challenge what has been established by some quite significant legal
precedents.
11.30
am
Martin
Salter: I commend the approach outlined by my hon. Friend
the Member for Southampton, Test. As a signatory to the amendment, I
would be very happy if the Minister were to take that approach,
assuming that we can build consensus across the
Committee—judging by the body language of my colleagues, we
might be able to do so.
Huw
Irranca-Davies: I have been through this matter in some
detail, and I understand where the Committee is coming from. We need to
get the approach right. However, we do not want to jeopardise the whole
nature of the Bill, which is about protecting and conserving the very
best of our marine environment while at the same time ensuring that our
approach to sustainability does not unnecessarily jeopardise those who
make a living from the sea.
It has been a
very good debate. We will certainly take that point away and see what
we can do. Meanwhile, I urge the hon. Member for Newbury to withdraw
the amendment, for the reasons that I have set
out.
The
Chairman: Before I call Mr. Benyon to wind up
the debate, do you, Mr. George, have anything further that
you wish to
add?
Andrew
George: I am not sure whether I should come in before or
after the hon. Member for
Newbury.
The
Chairman: Once I call a Member to wind up the debate, that
is
it.
Andrew
George: Thank you for your guidance and advice,
Mr. Gale. I am grateful to you for
that. Having
listened to what the Minister has said, I regret to say that I am more
troubled than I was when I raised the issue. During the debate,
particularly with regard to the definition of “sustainable
development”, the metaphor of building a house and having sound
foundations was used by my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and
Radnorshire. I must say that the five pillars or bricks on which
sustainable development and the policy of respecting and
“furthering” or “contributing to”
sustainable development are based are not really solid pieces of rock,
so I am not reassured that we are building a sound and stable house. A
lot of the issues are, in fact, shifting sands—they are rather
woolly and fuzzy around the
edges. The
emphasis on economic sustainability, for example, as opposed to
promoting justice or not living beyond limits is important. Those
concepts are all concepts that
could tilt the house one way or another, so that it becomes worse than
the leaning tower of Pisa, depending on the shifting emphasis that is
part of either the popular or political discourse at any particular
time. Therefore, I must say that we are not building a sound house. The
fact is that the five pillars or building blocks, as it were, on which
sustainable development is to be furthered or contributed to are rather
uncertain. I agree with
the Minister that the only rock among the five pillars—it is a
very important rock, indeed—is that of sound science. Sound
science is pretty immovable. Even these days, when there is apparently
a growing enthusiasm for creationism, there is still the rock of sound
science. Clearly it must be emphasised in the way in which this policy
and the concept of sustainable development must be either furthered or
contributed
to. Cynics
will say that in a future scenario the Government could easily
emphasise one concept more than another, and we could end up with, not
a balanced objective outcome, but a politically driven outcome on
sustainable development and on what that means for whether a
development is permitted, licensed or
protected.
Huw
Irranca-Davies: I am a little worried that we might be
getting caught up in a subsequent debate on conservation and marine
conservation zones. The essence of what we are debating is sustainable
development and how we achieve it. That will go across the MMO, marine
planning and so on—it underpins the Bill. There will be a
different debate, when we come to marine conservation zones, about how
conservation is shot through those and about how socio-economic factors
may be taken into account. I am worried that here, in this debate, we
may be misunderstanding the issue slightly and trying to enshrine in
the Bill conservation rather than sustainable development, which would
imbalance the Bill significantly. Marine conservation zones are a
different
debate.
Andrew
George: I accept the Minister’s point, but the
problem is that this is one of our main opportunities in Committee to
debate the issue, to understand what is in the Minister’s mind
and to discover what standards on sustainable development future
Governments, the MMO and other agencies will be held to. I accept that
we will have opportunities to come back to specific aspects of the
Bill, such as the furtherance of objectives and programmes and the
nature of licensing activities within marine conservation zones. Having
said that, clause 44 refers to “sustainable development”.
Whether we are talking about “furthering” or
“contributing to” it, unless we are clear about what
“it” is, I will remain troubled that we may be seeking to
“further” a woolly conceptual issue. Frankly, whether we
“further” or “contribute to” it is
inconsequential in the scheme of things. The hon. Member for Newbury
may wish to pick up on that point in his closing
remarks. In
conclusion, I appreciate that we will have an opportunity to examine
specific aspects of what “sustainable development” means
and at getting the balance right—I accept that there is a
balance. However, I remain more, rather than less, troubled as a result
of the debate. I hope that the Minister will reflect on the matter. I
also hope that we can discuss the issue as we proceed, and perhaps come
back to the guidance and table further amendments on
Report.
Mr.
Benyon: Beginning with amendment 29, tabled by the hon.
Member for St. Ives, in the piles of documents on the Bill in my
office, I have seen a definition of sustainable development
somewhere—it could have been in the White Paper or the Green
Paper. It involved flow charts and was as clear as some of this debate
has been on the direction that this is
going. I
agree with the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for St. Ives,
but I am concerned about how his amendment would impact on the Bill.
Therefore, I am persuaded by the Minister’s arguments. The
definition appears to ignore socio-economic principles. It would reduce
the flexibility of marine conservation zones, and it ignores the role
of marine planning in, for example, climate change mitigation and
proposed wind farms. While conservation is the primary objective of
MCZs, we should not completely ignore socio-economic
elements. I
have been persuaded by many of the non-governmental
organisations’ arguments. Indeed, as an old landlubber, I have
been educated and even entranced by the information with which they
have provided me about the diversity and beauty of our seas, and so
much more. However, on the issue under discussion, the Bill is
correctly balanced, and it would not be right at this stage to support
the amendment, even though it is an honest attempt at trying to define
sustainable development in accordance with section 117, which is
important. We
have made progress on amendment 9, as well. Will the Minister assure us
that he will follow the recommendation made by the hon. Member for
Southampton, Test to use paragraph 7 of schedule 5 in order to meet the
amendment’s
objectives?
Huw
Irranca-Davies: On the comments made by the hon. Member
for Newbury and the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for
Southampton, Test, the issue is important in terms of not only legal
precedent, as I have mentioned, but the devolved Administrations and
others being content with our treatment of the Bill. On schedule 5, I
will write to the members of the Committee to explain and clarify how
we intend the Bill to drive sustainable development forward, and how
that is linked to other related areas. That may be of significant help
to members of the Committee in order to explain clearly how the Bill is
underpinned by sustainable
development.
Mr.
Benyon: If the Minister confirms that that will involve
the insertion of words into paragraph 7 of schedule 5, I shall not
press the amendment further at this stage, but I seek clarification.
For example, he has talked about semantics in the sense that the
document’s policies cannot “further”, but they can
“contribute to” sustainable development. The Minister
needs to provide more comfort on that. Also, will he clarify that he
will come back to us on the legal advice that he has received? It may
be that 70 Acts use the wording that he has proposed, but that does not
necessarily prevent synergy with other types of legislation. Will he
clarify whether schedule 5 will be
amended? Huw
Irranca-Davies: Bearing in mind the work that has already
taken place on the Bill, as well as the way in which the issue under
discussion would impact not only on us, but also on devolved
Administrations, which is
one of the key facets, I make it clear that we will not amend schedule
5, because that would not be right or proper. However, I am happy to
explore the issue further with devolved Administrations and others to
see whether there is any scope on the matter, and I will return with
the results at a subsequent stage. I do not think that the Committee
wants us, even when we take today’s debate into consideration,
to make a decision that would lead to Scotland, Wales or Northern
Ireland claiming that we had unbalanced what they considered to be a
good and clear way forward on sustainable development. So I am happy to
make that commitment, as opposed to saying that we will bring forward
the amendment to schedule 5
now. 11.45
am
Mr.
Benyon: If the Minister will forgive me, going down the
devolved route is a bit of a canard on this issue. I really feel that
he has not quite given us the assurance we would require to get
something in the Bill. We will be pressing our amendment to the
vote.
Question
put, That the amendment be
made. The
Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes
5.
Division
No.
1] Question
accordingly agreed to.
Amendment
9 agreed
to. Clause
44, as amended, ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
| 
