It is a great pleasure, Mr. Amess, to speak under your chairmanship on a subject that is of great concern to many of my constituents and to those of colleagues in coastal constituencies.

The Minister will know that the East Riding coastal zone, which stretches from Flamborough head to Spurn point and much of which is in my constituency, has one of the fastest eroding coastlines in north-west Europe. According to Hull university, the area with the fastest rate of erosion was

"At Road Junction South of Cowden", where the rate of erosion was 6.28 metres a year on average between 1954 and 2004. I am sure that the Minister will agree that we must not stop striving to improve our understanding of the forces that are changing our coast. A crucial point is that each bit of coast and each incidence of dredging is different and needs to be considered on its merits, even though that consideration should be informed by a full understanding of issues and research from around the world. Having a comprehensive understanding of the forces behind coastal erosion would enable us to come up with better measures to protect people's homes and businesses in a sustainable and affordable way.

As I said, a significant number of my constituents are concerned that continued offshore dredging is having a direct impact on the speed of erosion along the east Yorkshire coast and the Holderness coast in particular. I pay tribute to Gavin Scott of Holmpton, a constituent of mine, for his indefatigable persistence in raising these issues. He was reported in the Yorkshire Post as saying:

"The Government would have us believe that the vastly increased coastal erosion in our area is due to global warming, climate change and a rise in the height of sea levels. But after sifting through all the evidence I personally think dredging in UK waters should now be totally banned...It displays a total disregard for other people and their livelihoods and seems to me to be tantamount to persecution of coastal dwellers."

As you can see, Mr. Amess, feelings run high. Fisherman Derek Crook, whose home at Tunstall has been lost to coastal erosion, said:

"It is an absolute national scandal that the Government is selling sand and gravel to the Continent and it must be a contributing factor to beach draw-down."

The hon. Gentleman has brought an important matter before the House. My fishermen and 40,000 of my constituents who live on Canvey Island share his concerns. The dredging of 32 million to 34 million cubic metres of spoil to make a deep, quarter-mile-wide trench for shipping for the new London gateway port at Corringham could have a devastating impact on Canvey Island's sea defences, which run alongside the area where the majority of that dredging will take place, but Ministers do not seem able to take that on.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. A key issue is to ensure that we have a full and proper understanding of the processes at work and that such understanding as we have is shared with our constituents. The campaign group MARINET, which is part of Friends of the Earth and campaigns against marine aggregates dredging, claims that the dredging of offshore sand and gravel deposits can disturb the regeneration of beaches during the summer months. It argues that if beaches become severely eroded due to offshore dredging, coastal defences and particularly sand cliffs, sand dunes, salt marshes and shingle beaches can be progressively damaged, producing coastal erosion.

MARINET also points out-I hope that the Minister will deal with this issue-that Holland and Belgium do not allow the dredging of sand and gravel deposits within 25 km of their shoreline or in coastal waters whose depth is less than 20 metres. A question that my constituents have is why, if those rules are suitable in those countries, they are not suitable for the United Kingdom. I hope that the Minister can explain that.

The British Marine Aggregate Producers Association points to the fact that marine aggregate is playing a role in replenishing Britain's beaches in some places. That raises another question in my area. If that sand replenishment is suitable along parts of Lincolnshire, where I understand that it happens, why is it not appropriate for the east Yorkshire coast? That is another issue for the Minister to deal with.

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on initiating the debate. I had a similar debate some time ago. Presumably he will get exactly the same answers. With regard to beach replenishment, does he not find it perverse that we are paying a company to bring ashore sand that will probably go back into the sea to fill up the trench that was scoured out to bring the sand in originally?

That is an interesting point and one often made to me by my constituents. I am not entirely sure that it is true. Certainly Holland, which has very much an evidence-based approach, is relying more and more on replenishment. I understand that it conducts-as we do-a full analysis of the impact before it dredges. It then examines what happens after the dredging and looks at the hole. That is a hotly disputed issue between MARINET and the dredging companies, which is why I hope that the Minister will be able to help us today. In Holland, they rely on that analysis. If the hole does not fill in and if the aggregate is taken from an area that is not part of the immediate beach replenishment system or part of that sediment that comes down the coast-in our case, it comes southwards-it is not obvious how taking it from elsewhere would have an impact. However, that is a hotly disputed issue.

A key point that I want to make today is to ask the Government to recognise the strength of feeling, doubt and scepticism among our constituents and to ensure that their minds can be put at rest if their fears are unfounded, or further to investigate if those fears have a better basis.

The aggregate producers association points out that dredging often occurs large distances offshore-8 km or more-and that permission would not be given if the experts felt that there was the slightest threat to natural processes. I know that that makes many of my constituents guffaw, but there is a system in place. It certainly has not been obvious to me, from looking at the evidence and examining it, that dredging relict deposits-deposits that are not part of a dynamic coastal system, but have sat dormant for thousands of years off the coast-has had an impact on the coast itself. It certainly does not remove sediment from the coastal system, because that relict deposit has never played a part in that coastal sediment system. I am yet to be persuaded that there is a problem from such dredging, which is the sort of dredging that happens off my constituency's coast in East Yorkshire.

However, examples are often cited-including Hallsands, the proposed dredging off the coast of Filey a few years ago and others-where the analysis showed that dredging in certain places would have an impact on the sediment that would be available to go on the beaches of the area. It is a matter of looking at each issue in turn.

The marine dredging operations for sand and gravel in the UK are closely controlled and monitored by the Crown Estate, which owns the seabed out to the territorial limit, and the Marine and Fisheries Agency, which is a Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs agency. Current regulations require all applications for a dredging licence to be accompanied with a full environmental impact assessment. That should be supported by a coastal impact study that considers whether the proposed dredging is far enough offshore for there to be no beach draw-down into the deepened area. They look at whether the proposed dredging would interrupt the natural supply of materials to beaches through tides and currents, the likely effects on bars and banks, which provide protection to the coast, and the likely changes to the height of waves passing over dredged areas. Those studies, therefore, look at the key issues and concerns that my constituents raise with me.

The Marine and Fisheries Agency says that it would refuse licenses where there was an unacceptable impact on coastal erosion, flood risk management or the environment in general. However, MARINET points out that little monitoring of the impact of dredging on fisheries and marine biological communities, or on shorelines and coastal defences, takes place during the lifetime or after the expiry of the licence. I would be interested to hear from the Minister on that. What happens during the lifetime of the licence and afterwards? That, MARINET quite rightly says, makes it very difficult to know whether to suspend a licence mid-term, if it is indeed true.

From the evidence I have reviewed, there is little to suggest that marine aggregate dredging is implicated in coastal erosion on the east coast. The general conclusion seems to be that material required to support existing shorelines is delivered from elsewhere along the coast-not offshore. Therefore, an offshore intervention is unlikely to interrupt that supply. I understand from the Environment Agency that since 2002 more than £9 million has been invested in research associated with marine aggregate extraction. Of course, not all of that will relate to the effect on coastal erosion.

At a public meeting held in March in Holderness in my constituency, which I convened, dredging industry representatives and Professor Mike Elliot of the university of Hull agreed that more research could only be of assistance. I put that to the Minister. While the evidence overall does not suggest that current dredging is having an impact on the East Riding coast, we must recognise that each case is different. Professor Elliot contacted me before this debate and said, "The point being missed at the moment is that each case is different. Dredging of North sea glacial deposits is different from the sand extraction just offshore for beach nourishment. There is the need for a dispassionate and fully objective look at this topic using evidence from worldwide." That is a key message for the Minister to look again and ensure that coastal communities feel part of that and have access to it.

While the uncertainty attached to currently used predictive models is not fully recognised, those most at risk will always be tempted to think that the research does not sufficiently explain the situation in their area. To have their home at risk from natural forces is bad enough, but people feel particular injustice if their homes and communities-their most treasured and valuable assets-are seen to be put at risk by entirely avoidable commercial activities. What assurance can the Minister give that dredging off the east coast of England is not having a detrimental effect? Will he consider further research and what confidence does he have in our understanding of the physical impacts of aggregate dredging?

I want to give time to the Minister to reply, but before I finish I would like to address the topic of what can be done to help people who lose their homes to the sea. I congratulate Councillors Jane Evison and Jonathan Owen of East Riding of Yorkshire council for working so hard on this subject, and I thank the Minister and his predecessors for being so agreeable to meeting representatives from the East Riding to hear the case being put.

We have repeatedly asked for help for people who invest their last pennies-they often struggle to get a mortgage, as one might understand, if they buy a home near the sea. They put all they have into a home, but erosion often accelerates beyond the norm. Sometimes there are periods in which erosion is slower than normal, and then there are periods of greater pace and people lose their home. On top of losing everything they have ever saved and had in the home, they are forced to pay the cost of demolition to boot. I do not believe that a perverse incentive would be created if society as a whole covered the cost of demolition for the tiny number of people to whom this happens. I hope that the Minister can share good news with us on that front today.

We have seen recently the devastation that flooding can cause to people. In 2007, my constituency was one of the worst affected in the country; every town and almost every village in it was affected by flooding. If the Minister provides reassurance that the threat of coastal erosion is not being speeded up by avoidable activities, that will be welcome. Also, will he promise the people in my constituency and elsewhere who live with the risk of coastal erosion that the Government are sympathetic to their plight?

I have laid out the case that I wanted to put to the Minister. I hope he can respond positively on the issues of additional research and communication with coastal dwellers so that they have better understanding and confidence that decisions have been taken in their interest, not in a commercial or tax-gathering interest. I also hope that people who lose their homes to coastal erosion will be supported.

I am grateful to Mr. Stuart for raising an important issue and for securing this debate, which offers me the opportunity to set out the Government's approach to coastal management-specifically, how we manage the licensing of marine dredging to ensure that it does not adversely affect the coastline.

I commend the hon. Gentleman on his approach to the issue. We recognise the strength of feeling among his constituents and others, and I acknowledge his commendably rational approach in wanting to base his judgments, and wanting to see the Government base their judgments, on evidence and rational decision making. We fully appreciate that coastal erosion is a significant problem for the hon. Gentleman's constituents, as it is for other coastal communities who live in vulnerable areas. The Holderness coastline is notoriously susceptible to erosion. The process of erosion along the Holderness cliffs is not new; it has been occurring since the end of the last ice age. Over the past 1,000 years, the Holderness coast has retreated by about 2 km, causing the loss of 26 villages listed in the Domesday survey of 1086.

The English coastline has always been subject to continuous weathering from natural processes. The effects of those processes vary considerably from one part of the coastline to another, depending on the geological nature of the coast, the durability of exposed rocks and materials, and the waves, tides and storm surges to which they are exposed. As we all know, we are increasingly exposed to traumatic events such as storm surges and other incidents. The average rate of coastal change varies from place to place, from close to 0 metres a year in some locations to as much as 1.8 metres in others, although as the hon. Gentleman said, there are other areas where ingress has been much more significant, including along parts of the Holderness coast.

The latest science on climate change tells us that the risk of coastal erosion and flooding will increase over the next 100 years. I do not think that there is any doubt of that in the mainstream of evidence and scientific opinion. That estimate was confirmed by the new climate projections that we launched in June, which show the reality of a changing climate for the UK. We must both reduce our emissions and adapt to the inevitable changes in our climate. I will come to that adaptation in a moment, because the hon. Gentleman made an important point about how we can adapt in coastal areas. It is therefore all the more important to have up-to-date shoreline management plans. That underlines why now, more than ever, coastal areas need to be managed in an integrated and joined-up way.

For the Government's part, we are committed to protecting people and property, both inland and on the coast, where it is sustainable to do so. We are investing record levels of taxpayers' money and need to ensure that we continue to use it to best effect. For example, we have more than doubled spending in cash terms on flood and coastal erosion risk management, to £715 million in 2009-10. Our investment between 2008 and 2011 will total £2.15 billion.

However, there is always an element of frankness to this discussion: there will be some locations where building new defence structures, or maintaining existing ones, is just not viable. That is why the Government consulted over the summer on how communities can start preparing for and managing coastal change. Plans include a new fund to support community-level adaptation and proposals to enable local authorities to support homeowners who lose a property to erosion with demolition and moving costs. I will come to the announcements made today by my Department, but to clarify things for the hon. Gentleman I should say that we will pursue the issue of demolition costs in parallel with the announcements made today, rather than as part of the pathfinder projects.

I am pleased to confirm that today the Secretary of State announced the selection of 15 coastal change pathfinders. The projects will be driven by local authorities. When I have gone around the coast, I have tried to put the ask down to the local level and say, "Come forward with your ideas." That has been the Department's approach, rather than a man in Whitehall saying, "This is what will best suit you."

The pathfinders are local authorities from around the coast that have been awarded a total of about £11 million to road-test new and innovative approaches to supporting communities in planning for and managing adaptation to coastal change. The East Riding of Yorkshire council is one of the pathfinders, and will receive more than £1 million to explore and test ideas for adaptation on the Holderness coast. The specific question that we face today is whether, in addition to natural processes, the extraction of minerals through marine dredging is having an effect on coastal erosion.

I am delighted that the East Riding has been selected as a pathfinder. I put it to the Minister that the places affected include the community of Aldbrough, where the road will be closed shortly, leaving residents, many of them elderly, trapped in their homes without proper access and dependent on the good will of neighbouring landowners to find a solution. As it will give the local authority greater tools to look after people and ensure that they have access, the funding will be welcome.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. To add a little flesh to the bone, I should say that East Riding district council will receive just over £1.2 million to provide practical guidance and support, helping communities through the transition associated with coastal change, including piloting a buy-to-let approach to support adaptation in vulnerable communities and developing the council's existing roll-back policy.

I note in passing that my hon. Friend Mr. Wright, who has a great constituency, is here today. Great Yarmouth borough council will also be part of pathfinder projects, receiving close to £300,000 for a joint project with the community of Scratby; I have visited that important community with my hon. Friend. The purpose is to explore and test different approaches to adaptation, such as roll-back and business-support programmes. Different types of innovation are coming forward from different local authorities. There is a wide range of measures and hon. Members will be interested because hopefully some of them will provide some of the tools for how we go forward.

I turn to the specific question of marine dredging and the effect that it may or may not be having on coastal erosion. I state at the outset that marine minerals are an important source of construction materials, meeting approximately 20 per cent. of the sand and gravel needs in England and Wales and amounting to between 17 million and 27 million tonnes per annum over the past 25 years. The levels of extraction vary between regions, depending on the availability of suitable material and the levels of demand.

The main extraction sites are located off the east and south coasts of England. The Government's stated policy is to see the continued use of marine-dredged sand and gravel to the extent that that remains consistent with the principles of sustainable development. Policy is set out in Government guidance notes, in particular Marine Mineral Guidance 1, which-it is worth pointing out-includes a precautionary approach in consideration of applications for marine minerals dredging.

I shall now give some detail. New permissions for the extraction of marine minerals will be granted only where we are satisfied that all environmental issues, including coastal impacts, have been satisfactorily resolved. Furthermore, it is Government policy that all applications for dredging permissions in previously undredged areas require an environmental impact assessment.

We do not contest the fact that poorly managed aggregate extraction from the marine environment could cause a range of physical impacts, which may ultimately contribute to coastal erosion. That is why all marine mineral dredging applications are required to assess by way of a coastal impact study the physical effects of the proposed operation and its implications for erosion. A permission to dredge will be issued only if the regulator, the Marine and Fisheries Agency-soon to become the Marine Management Organisation-and its advisors, consultees and major stakeholders, are content that the proposed dredging is environmentally acceptable.

In all cases, conservative modelling and assessments of environmental impacts are undertaken and further supported through routine monitoring. I have copious details, and I will be happy to write to the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness to explain them and the continual assessment that goes on, such as routine monitoring of the dredger's location and the volume of aggregate extracted, to ensure that any unforeseen impacts can be identified and mitigated. Additional monitoring of the sea bed allows direct assessment of the impact of dredge on the sediment transport environment and, hence, the impact on the shoreline. If at any time dredging activities are shown potentially to be causing coastal erosion, permission will immediately be withdrawn.

There has been a significant amount of research into the effects of marine aggregates dredging in general and into the question of coastal impacts in particular. In answer to the hon. Gentleman's question, I have no doubt that the research will continue. We welcome that.

Does the Minister agree that we should take particular care to monitor the impact of dredging when passing the Montgomery, a munitions ship sunk in the Thames estuary near to where the dredging will take place? If that ship were to move and spill its munitions, or even explode, it would cause widespread devastation.

That is a useful intervention and we need a proper precautionary approach to all assessments of the impact of dredging, in all parts of the UK, including the one to which the hon. Gentleman alludes.

We are not aware of any scientific evidence that marine minerals dredging, as controlled by the Government since 1968, has had any effect on the coast or significantly affected the marine environment. Modelling and field studies on the impact of individual offshore dredging licences, and their cumulative impacts, have concluded that UK offshore dredging has not contributed to coastal erosion.

I should be happy to write to the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness, and other hon. Members who have attended the debate, with further details and references to the principal points of research, if that is of help. I recognise that the issue is complex and that there is still a job to be done to reassure communities with more independent, objective and simple advice, set out in lay persons' terms.

MARINET, which is part of Friends of the Earth, an organisation much of whose work I applaud, takes the strong view, which it propagates on its website, that dredging has impacts that are not properly understood. It cites the Sandpit report and others to argue that there is evidence for those effects. What can the Minister do to engage with MARINET? As long as it says that the Government are wrong and are being led more by money than by scientific considerations, there will be people threatened by coastal erosion who will be afraid that the Government are not doing the right thing.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that prompt, because I have met MARINET representatives regularly about a range of issues to do with the marine environment. Its main concerns include the impact on the marine environment as well as coastal erosion.

We accept that there will be an impact on fauna from offshore dredging. However, before dredging permission is granted, extensive surveys are carried out and they continue for the life of the licence. Surveys are also carried out in certain areas to determine the impact of dredging on shell fisheries, for example. It is worth saying that dredging can be halted, or shifted to another dredge zone in the area, should one of the monitoring reports demonstrate that the dredging is having an unacceptable impact on the flora and fauna or the fishing grounds.

I know that MARINET and others are often understandably concerned about recovery. Dredging areas are often split into smaller zones, one or two of which are dredged at a time, allowing for recovery of the sea bed. The dredging companies must obtain the approval of the Government before moving to a new active dredging zone. When a new dredging area is licensed, dredging companies will often relinquish an older dredging area of a similar size. There are ways, therefore, in which we can alleviate some of the concerns of MARINET.

I want briefly to touch on some of the additional points that were raised. I hope that I made it clear to Bob Spink that we want the appropriate assessments before, during and after the process to be carried out properly, so that everywhere dredging takes place it is properly determined that it is appropriate to proceed.

The hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness raised the contrast with Holland, and the reason for its different approach, and it is true that the approach is different there. I am sorry if I am repeating myself, but our approach involves the need to ensure that dredging, at whatever depth it happens-we do not arbitrarily set different depth levels-is driven by proper environmental impact assessments and continual monitoring. We do not distinguish between levels; we say that on all levels there should be an assessment of whether it is appropriate to go on. We do not adopt different approaches in different regions of the UK; what happens is localised to each individual circumstance, within broad parameters.

To conclude, I have no doubt that parts of the British coastline are under threat, and that the effects of climate change will only increase those pressures on coastal communities. As I have suggested, the Government will continue to respond and engage appropriately. We need to ensure that in doing so we target the right measures and resist the temptation sometimes to use dredging as a scapegoat for processes that can be natural.

Question put and agreed to.

Sitting adjourned.