Clause 127
Marine and Coastal Access Bill [Lords]
6:45 pm
Richard Benyon (Shadow Minister, Environment, Food & Rural Affairs; Newbury, Conservative)
I beg to move amendment 19, in clause 127, page 87, line 21, at end insert—
‘(2A) The appropriate statutory conservation body must give advice on the requirements for monitoring the impacts of a permitted activity within a MCZ. The costs of this monitoring should be reasonable and proportionate with respect to the scale, costs and environmental benefits of the project.’.
This amendment aims to minimise the cost of environmental impact assessment and subsequent monitoring.
This is a short but important amendment. The text is there for hon. Members to see. It aims to minimise the cost of environmental impact assessments and subsequent monitoring. The key sentence is:
“The costs of this monitoring should be reasonable and proportionate with respect to the scale, costs and environmental benefits of the project.”
One of the marine renewables industry’s greatest concerns is the cost of environmental impact assessments and the subsequent monitoring of them, as it could potentially destroy the UK’s wave and tidal energy sector. In my opening words this morning, I said that it was important that the Bill stand the test of time. Developing technologies are going to be fundamental and vital in how we progress our approach to climate change and development of renewable energy systems. On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) spoke about the situation in Strangford loch. The marine current turbine development in Strangford loch provides a concrete example of the disproportionate costs for small firms, with £4 million attributable to the stipulated environmental monitoring programme for a project with an initial budget of less than £10 million. This is a really important emerging technology. If we constrain that kind of development and technological advance through prohibitive costs we have a problem.
Andrew George (St Ives, Liberal Democrat)
The hon. Gentleman is making an important point that certainly affects the experimental wave hub project, which the Government are keen to promote off the north coast of my constituency. That highlights the fact that two arms of Government policy are in conflict, but the Government can resolve that conflict by requiring the MMO to co-operate as much as possible in providing information, data and support to any body or industry seeking to provide the necessary data for the environmental impact assessment of the type the hon. Gentleman says is going to be costly. Surely it demonstrates the need for co-operation between one arm of Government and another.
Richard Benyon (Shadow Minister, Environment, Food & Rural Affairs; Newbury, Conservative)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments and support for what I am seeking to achieve. The amendment is reasonable and would be greatly welcomed by a lot of people seeking to develop emerging technologies that will be important to us in future. I hope that the Minister will recognise that in his remarks, because this is something I feel strongly about and will push, if required, to a vote.
Huw Irranca-Davies (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Marine and Natural Environment), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Ogmore, Labour)
I hope the hon. Gentleman does not push it to a vote because, while the amendment is well intentioned, it might not do what it is intended to do. The approach we have taken with MCZs is based on achieving conservation objectives in a focused and intelligent way. That is what is in the Bill. We want a conservation mechanism that is an easy tool for everyone to work with and, as the hon. Gentleman said, does not impose unnecessary burdens on any sector or interests. I agree with the thrust of the amendment which, as he has just explained, is concerned to ensure that statutory conservation bodies advise on monitoring activities in MCZs and that the costs of such monitoring should be reasonable and proportionate. I do not think that anybody will disagree with that.
Clause 127 outlines the scope of the advisory role of the statutory conservation bodies. It gives the bodies a power, and in some circumstances a duty, to give advice and guidance on a range of matters in relation to MCZs, which could include marine monitoring requirements where appropriate. These bodies also have general powers to offer advice to public authorities and make representations to them. Public authorities would have to take such advice and representations into account when making decisions. I fully expect the conservation bodies to carry out the advisory functions under the Bill, like all their functions, in a reasonable manner without specific requirement in the Bill. The amendment would require that an advance assessment be made of the costs of monitoring requirements, as well as overall project costs and the value of any environmental benefits. That would probably be an impossible obligation for conservation bodies to fulfil in their advisory capacity. It is important that we do not blur the distinction between the responsibilities for giving advice and for making decisions—between advisory bodies and those who take the decisions. It is for the licensing authority, rather than conservation bodies, to determine what conditions need to be attached to any licence that they issue.
Licensing authorities, such as the MMO, which will issue marine licences under part 4 of the Bill, will receive advice from conservation bodies, but will also take into account a number of other factors, including socio-economic ones, when determining whether to grant a licence and, if they do, what conditions should be placed on it. That could include environmental monitoring. Any environmental monitoring conditions in a licence granted by a licensing authority should be proportionate to the environmental risks posed by the development, and not proportionate to the total costs of the project.
Richard Benyon (Shadow Minister, Environment, Food & Rural Affairs; Newbury, Conservative)
I entirely agree that it needs to be proportionate. Will the Minister tell me where that appears in the Bill? This is important.
Huw Irranca-Davies (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Marine and Natural Environment), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Ogmore, Labour)
I shall indeed return to that point. Monitoring will not always be necessary, but it is likely to be more important for larger developments, those in environmentally sensitive areas and where the impact of experimental technologies is difficult to predict. For example, the MFA has approved three pilot wind and tidal developments in England and Wales, two of which do not have any environmental monitoring conditions attached. The third has limited monitoring conditions because of its location right next to a special area of conservation protected under European habitats legislation.
It is important to recognise, however, that we are not creating a one-way process. Monitoring will often be required, but I want to see a proper two-way dialogue between the authorities and the developers about how best to carry out that monitoring. That will include ensuring that the costs are reasonable. It is a process that often takes place now, as I just illustrated, but I want it to be strengthened and built on in future. We have the capacity to deliver that in the Bill. It is happening on the ground in many places, and I hope that my words of assurance on how I want this measure to b taken forward will allow the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment. It is well intentioned, but it would place a burden on conservation advisers that they are not equipped to deal with. For the reasons that I have laid out, it is probably not appropriate to have to estimate in advance the costs of every proposal and its monitoring.
Richard Benyon (Shadow Minister, Environment, Food & Rural Affairs; Newbury, Conservative)
The difficulty is that the Minister’s points are relatively subjective. Unless we have a commitment that binds future Ministers and authorities, together with a proportionate approach, the kinds of difficulties faced in Strangford lough could happen elsewhere. I am not in the business of limiting environmental accountability and protection. I believe that environmental impact assessments, certainly for large-scale wind-powered developments are necessary. However, he has yet to provide any evidence of proportionality in the Bill. I think that inspiration might be on its way, in which case I am very happy to allow him to intervene. That might encourage me to withdraw the amendment. I look forward to his intervention.
Huw Irranca-Davies (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Marine and Natural Environment), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Ogmore, Labour)
I might be able to provide some clarity on two aspects. First, clause 71(1) enables the MMO to put conditions into licences as it thinks fit. If those conditions are unreasonable, an appeals mechanism is in place for developers to challenge them. Secondly, I want to flag up what would happen if a statutory conservation body was to give disproportionate or unreasonable advice. I hope that will not happen, but if public authorities must have regard to the advice received from a statutory conservation body, it is not bound by it, and the authority would be very unlikely to follow any advice deemed inappropriate for whatever reason. One improvement that we have made to the licensing system is to introduce an appeals mechanism that will give applicants the ability to appeal any decision made by the licensing authority, so if a developer thinks that the conditions attached to the licence are too onerous or unjustified it can challenge that decision before an independent body.
Richard Benyon (Shadow Minister, Environment, Food & Rural Affairs; Newbury, Conservative)
I am grateful for that inspired response, which will give the necessary comfort to those seeking to develop different types of wave and sea energy, who will be reassured to know that they have the comfort of a full independent appeals process and that some wording on proportionality exists in the legislation. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.