§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
10.56 pm§ Mr. Anthony D. Wright (Great Yarmouth)I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this issue, which has been brought to my attention by a number of my constituents. I know that it is also of great interest to the constituents of many other hon. Members.
Aggregate extraction in the UK can be divided between land-based production and dredging from the sea bed. While land-based extraction goes back to ancient times, it is only in the last century that we have begun to look to the sea for materials, with a significant industry developing in the 1970s.
Sand and gravel extractions are mainly used in the UK construction industry, although about a third of marine-extracted aggregates are exported to the near continent. Marine sand and gravel amount to 15 per cent. of aggregates used for construction in England and Wales. In 1999, 23.7 million tonnes of aggregates were removed from the sea, of which almost 40 per cent. came from the east coast. About 10 per cent. of the total aggregates extracted were used in beach replenishment, with 20.9 million tonnes sold for commercial use.
Although the amount of marine aggregates dredged over the last 10 years has remained fairly constant, it has doubled as a percentage of UK production in the last 20 years, following concerns about the impact of land-based extraction.
I understand that the Government actively encourage the extraction of marine sand and gravel because it reduces the need for quarrying. I am also aware that the area licensed for extraction is only 1 per cent. of the sea bed. The area that is dredged is even smaller—less than 15 per cent. of the licensed area. That is largely due to the fact that useful sand and gravel deposits are not widespread, although the areas that produce the best aggregates are usually also the favoured home of the local marine life, and dredging companies often operate in areas that have previously been licensed to fishermen.
Although the area dredged is relatively small and the amount of aggregates dredged has remained fairly constant, I am concerned that the amount exported to other European countries has grown from 11 per cent., or 2.4 million tonnes, in 1988 to 34 per cent., or 7.2 million tonnes, in 1999. In fact, about 50 per cent. of the aggregates extracted off the east coast in 1999 were exported.
The regulation of aggregate extraction differs greatly between land and sea. Licensing for land extraction is carried out locally. The impact of aggregate production on land is easily quantifiable, and the main environmental impacts include heavy goods vehicle traffic—as aggregates are heavy and expensive to move—noise and dust nuisance and potential loss of heritage and amenities. The environmental impacts of land-based production obviously depend on the source, but they would be carefully monitored, with clear data available to assess each project.
Marine extraction is entirely different. Licences to allow prospecting for marine aggregates are generally given by the Crown Estate, which owns the sea bed out 1077 to the 12-mile territorial limit, including the rights to explore and exploit the natural resources present. Local authorities, although consultees on any new licence applications, have no power to prevent dredging off their coastline.
Companies wanting to extract any useful aggregates are required to seek permission from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions through the interim Government view procedure. I understand that the full statutory procedure will be introduced later this year for England, Wales and Northern Ireland, in line with the environmental impact assessment and habitats regulations. Scotland is making its own arrangements.
The Government view procedure is a lengthy process, involving an environmental impact assessment and a consultation, which includes the fishing industry, local authorities and the general public. Environmental assessment, consists of among other things, physical and biological surveys, cumulative impact studies and monitoring programmes. There is the provision to hold a public inquiry during the interim and statutory procedures if necessary. Once the Government are satisfied that the extraction will not cause any adverse environmental impact, permission to dredge is given.
There are further restrictions on licensees, such as zoning and seasonal restrictions to help reduce the impact on other sea users. However, despite the strict regulation of marine dredging, which I understand is shortly to become more clearly defined, the wider environmental impact of dredging for marine aggregates is largely unknown, and relatively few studies have been carried out on it.
Two main concerns are raised both by fishermen and by environmentalists about the possible harmful environmental impact of marine dredging. The first is the impact on the marine ecosystem, owing to the disturbance that dredging causes. The other cause for concern is the unknown effect of dredging on coastal erosion, which is a significant issue on the east coast.
It is perhaps easier to gauge the impact of dredging on the marine environment than on coastal erosion, although there are difficulties in assessing even these effects, and as yet there is very little conclusive research. A study was undertaken by the Crown Estate and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in April 1992 off the Norfolk coast to assess the impact of dredging on animals living on the sea bed. The area was chosen because the sediment type was similar to the commercial marine gravel beds. There was an abundance of animals, suitable reference sites were available nearby, and the area was representative of undisturbed sea bed.
Dredging was conducted over a four-day period at the site, with 50,000 tonnes of material removed to a depth of about 30 cm. Samples taken before and after the dredging were compared with samples taken at nearby reference sites to ascertain what changes arose from the dredging activity and what could be put down to natural seasonal fluctuations. An immediate effect of the dredging was that the animal populations were reduced in numbers, variety and total weight. Although recolonisation for certain species went ahead fairly rapidly, full recovery had not been achieved by May 1994, more than two years 1078 after the dredging took place. The range, densities and total weight of the animal species were substantially lower than before dredging.
A further study in 1995 showed that the diversity, size and weight of animals in the dredged area were comparable with the reference site. However, although the number of animals had stabilised, they were at a level significantly below those at the reference site. The reason for this is not clear. Sampling will continue at the site to ascertain the longer-term effects.
The study also examined regional influences in the major dredging areas from the Humber to Liverpool bay, focusing on sediment type and the biological communities present. It found that the type of sediment and the prevailing conditions of waves and tides influenced animal communities. The Great Yarmouth bank, which has a high amount of physical disturbance due to the sea conditions, has relatively small populations in comparison with more sheltered sites such as Lyme bay. Animals in the more active sites are dominated by species that live for one to three years, while communities in sheltered areas are more mature. Consequently, stable areas take longer to recover from physical disturbance, as they are dominated by longer-lived, slower-growing animals.
Although the findings of the study seem to indicate that areas of the sea bed that are dredged will recover over time, related factors still have to be assessed. The cumulative impact around clusters of licensed dredging activity is unknown, as is the impact on fish populations, owing to the lack of knowledge about their feeding preferences. Those two issues will be considered as part of further research in the continuing study over the next three years, along with the effect of the sediment plumes created by the fine material disturbed during dredging. The plumes include industrial pollutants that have been discharged into the sea and settled over time on the sea bed. Environmentalists maintain that the marine ecosystem adapts to the introduction of the pollutants once they have settled, but when the sea bed is disturbed during dredging, the pollutants attached to the fine material are put back into suspension in the water, and become once again a substantial threat to sea life. Furthermore, once pollutants and other materials are put back into suspension, it becomes difficult to predict where they will settle.
Although scientists will be studying the impact of sediment plumes, I understand that there is no effective mechanism for tracing fine material that is put into suspension. Approaches have been made to both MAFF and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions for funding to develop such a system, but none has yet been granted. One proposed method for analysing the drift of materials is to place a benign tracer in the area before dredging, which will show the movement of the plume. I await with interest the findings of those further studies, and hope that the movement of sediment plume will be addressed.
Although those concerned about the impact of dredging on the marine environment are mainly fishermen, trawling is responsible for similar disruption to the sea bed, and occurs over a larger area. The main difference is that sea bed material is not removed during trawling, but some environmentalists suggest that the impact of trawling must be considered alongside dredging to ensure the long-term survival of the marine environment—and, indeed, of the fishing industry.
1079 The other major issue of concern over the impact of dredging relates to the unknown impact on coastal erosion. Great Yarmouth is a leading tourist resort in the United Kingdom, and our stretches of golden sandy beaches form a large part of our attraction. In recent years, that asset has been under increasing attack from global warming, and the Environment Agency estimates that sea levels are rising by around 6 mm a year.
Dredging takes place at least 4 miles offshore at Great Yarmouth, as the near-shore banks are considered to act as a buffer against strong tides and are an important component in the reduction of the wave energy that causes coastal erosion. However, many scientists believe that the offshore banks, too, play an important part in reducing wave energy and providing sediment for replenishing beaches. There is certainly a case for further research into the role that the banks play in the hydrodynamics of our costal waters before further dredging is undertaken. A case study of the banks off the Great Yarmouth shoreline would provide useful information for future policy.
I appreciate the fact that licensees are required to carry out studies on waves and currents in the area and draw up a model of the estimated impact on coastal erosion before dredging is allowed, and that even the slightest perceived threat would lead to the licence being denied. However, although research to date shows the effects on coastal erosion to be negligible, concerns remain among both environmentalists and local authorities, especially as the sand banks are not properly understood and it is known that they have changed and moved.
I also appreciate the fact that an element of aggregate extracted from the sea is used for beach replenishment and coastal defence—I have had that described to me as "doing nature's work for her"—but in 1999 that accounted for only about 10 per cent. of UK production.
Great Yarmouth borough council, the local authority responsible for coastal protection, has long been concerned about the impact of offshore dredging. The council believes that the offshore banks are closely related to the near-shore stability, given that they can influence wave action.
When they are consulted during the process of granting licences for extraction, both the borough council and Norfolk county council oppose applications on the ground that members have insufficient information that dredging does not have an adverse impact on navigation channels, marine life and coastal erosion. None the less, the view consistently taken by the Government and the Crown Estate is that there is no clear evidence that marine aggregate extraction has such effects. Consequently, licences that meet all other criteria are invariably granted.
It is unsatisfactory when the wishes of local authorities that have responsibility for the protection of their coastlines seem to have no effect on the licensing process. Although my local authorities wish to proceed with caution and allow time for proper research, the Government and the Crown Estate continue to issue licences on the ground that nothing has been proved.
I question the Government's position should research prove that dredging indeed has a sizeable impact on either coastal erosion or the marine ecosystem. One such study that should report early next year is the southern North sea sediment transport study, which is being undertaken by the Crown Estate, MAFF, the Humber estuary coastal 1080 authority group and the Anglian coastal authority group. I am pleased that Great Yarmouth is a project leader in that study.
The study, which is in its second phase, will look at sediment movement over a period of time, and will factor in the impact of dredging. The study region runs along the coast between Flamborough head and the River Thames. The research will consider sediment sources, transport pathways, volume of sediment, areas of deposition and offshore sea bed features.
Once the evidence is available from that study and from the research that I mentioned earlier on the biological effects of marine aggregates extraction, we should have a much clearer understanding of the marine environment off the east coast and the effects of dredging. Given the lack of conclusive evidence, I suggest that the caution shown by Great Yarmouth borough council and Norfolk county council is more sensible than proceeding, like the Crown Estate and the Government, on the basis that no news is good news.
I am aware that the marine aggregates production industry in the United Kingdom is an important provider of jobs and wealth to the economy. I have spent the past three years working to improve employment prospects in my constituency, so I do not want to jeopardise jobs. I appreciate the fact that to stop dredging for marine aggregates overnight would lead to a huge shortage in necessary materials in the UK, as well as placing further burdens on land-based production.
However, there is a way in which we can mitigate some of the concerns about dredging, as well as maintaining the industry while we wait for conclusive research. As I mentioned, the export market in marine dredged aggregates has grown substantially over the past 10 years and now represents a third of the market, although overall production has remained more or less stable. By far the largest market for such aggregates is Holland, although they are also sold to France, Belgium and Germany.
Although I recognise that dredging companies must remain commercially viable, I do not believe that a shortfall in demand in the UK market should be made up by export, when the environmental cost to the UK has yet to be ascertained.
The income generated by the Crown Estate through royalties on production provides a sizeable income to the Exchequer, which can only increase after the introduction of the proposed aggregate tax. However, exports are exempt from the tax, which will make them even more appealing to producers and could lead to even higher exports. I am not sure that that will achieve the desired effect of the aggregate tax, as it will undermine the environmental reasons for imposing the levy in the first place.
In conclusion, although the marine extraction of aggregates has undoubtedly helped to lessen the impact of land-based production, it is clear that the environmental impact on the marine ecosystem remains unproven.
I hope that the Government will carefully consider the research that is continuing on the subject, and also consider further research, so that we have a strong body of data on which to base future policy decisions. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to consider carefully whether it is in the UK's best interest to continue to export our marine minerals at the present levels while the environmental 1081 impact is not proven, and also whether consideration has been given to the impact of the aggregate tax on the export market.
§ Dr. George Turner (North-West Norfolk)I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Wright) on securing the debate, and on the excellent and balanced way in which he expressed the main argument, which I will not attempt to repeat in the few minutes that he has kindly granted me, for which I thank him. I agree almost entirely with my hon. Friend's remarks.
In the Wash area, there has been a marked decline in fishing, especially for shellfish, over the past decade. The lack of scientific certainty to which my hon. Friend referred means that it is a moot point whether the fishermen are right in blaming the dredging for aggregates for the decline in their catch, or whether the Government scientists are right in saying that other natural forces are at work.
From my many discussions with officials in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, it is clear that as a scientist one must conclude that there is much to be learned, especially about the life cycle of shellfish and the effect of the environment on them. When we know very little, we must proceed with caution, as my hon. Friend urged. We must be careful about the volume of aggregates that we extract and the attitude that we take to those livelihoods that may have been affected by the consequences.
Almost three years ago, shortly after I came to the House, I went with fishermen from the King's Lynn area to complain about the dredging. One of the reasons for the dredging, as my hon. Friend noted, is beach replenishment. Having made their case that the dredging would damage some of their fishing grounds, fishermen in King's Lynn were confident that if beach replenishment went ahead at Mablethorpe up the Lincolnshire coast, one of the other remaining major shrimp fisheries would be dramatically affected for the worse.
The responsibility does not lie with the Minister who is responding to the debate, but, in the spirit of joined-up government, I hope that she will ensure that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will consider the matter with greater urgency. The fishermen predicted that they would lose their catch. When they lost it, they found themselves arguing with scientists about the reasons for that. The scientists claimed that natural forces had caused that loss.
When we do not know the reasons, we have the responsibility to be generous to those whose livelihoods have been affected. I hope that the Minister will take back the message from me on behalf of fishermen in King's Lynn that they have waited far too long for a reasonable settlement to their reasonable claim for the way in which dredging and beach replenishment affected their careers.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Beverley Hughes)I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Wright) on initiating the debate.
1082 I shall do my best to address as many as possible of the points that he and my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner) made. Both displayed considerable knowledge about the issue. We would expect that because of their great interest in their constituencies.
I shall begin by explaining the reasons for the Government's support in principle for the extraction of sand and gravel from the sea bed before considering ways in which to prevent unacceptable damage to the marine environment and coastal areas, or to the interests of other users of the sea, such as those in the fishing industry whom my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk identified in relation to King's Lynn.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth acknowledged, the greatest use of sand and gravel extracted from the sea bed is aggregate by the construction industry. Clearly, aggregates are essential for that industry. They are needed to build houses, roads and other infrastructure, which is important in all parts of the country. The way in which the requirements for aggregates should be fulfilled is important in social, economic and environmental terms. We must have construction minerals, but I agree that they should be obtained without undue effects on the environment and quality of life.
Land-based sand and gravel resources can often be found close to centres of population. They often underlie the best and most versatile agricultural land or existing development. There is therefore frequently a conflict between safeguarding our natural heritage and quarrying. There is pressure to contain aggregate extraction from the land.
Clearly, there are extensive deposits of sand and gravel beneath the sea that can be dredged at coastal wharves. Marine dredging has long made a useful contribution to supply. As my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth acknowledged, approximately 13 million tonnes of marine-dredged sand and gravel were consumed in Great Britain in 1998. That is approximately 6 per cent. of the total consumption of aggregates. In the south-east of England, which is an area of particularly high demand, approximately 32 per cent. of natural aggregates was from the sea.
I know that my hon. Friends would acknowledge that material dredged from the east and south coast has supplied many important developments, such as the Thames barrier, the QE2 bridge at Dartford, the Jubilee line extension and Canary wharf. The use of marine sources has potential benefits such as reducing road haulage, especially in areas of high demand and limited supply such as London and the south-east.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth acknowledged, marine-dredged materials are also needed for coastal defences and beach nourishment schemes to replace material lost from the beaches through erosion. It is particularly suited to that use because it is similar to materials that are found naturally on beaches.
My hon. Friend mentioned coastal erosion. He cited a national figure of 10 per cent. of extracted materials being used for beach nourishment. I am sure that he will be aware that the east coast of England, more than any other area, relies on such materials for beach nourishment. Between 1994 and 1998, the east coast used more than 60 per cent. of the total material used nationally for beach nourishment—about 23 million tonnes.
1083 As well as being an issue of concern for that area of the country, especially around the coast extraction is also an enormous benefit because of the use of such material for beach nourishment schemes and for the protection of beaches from erosion.
My hon. Friend raised the issue of the export of materials. It is true to say that about 30 par cent. of material currently extracted is being exported. Exports of sand and gravel from the sea bed have increased in recent years for use in countries such as the Netherlands and France.
A ban on the export of such material raises two issues. First, as my hon. Friend will know, it is not possible under the treaty of Rome to ban the export of such material. That makes it all the more important to ensure that the extraction of marine aggregates does not have unacceptable effects on the environment. Secondly, there are competing interests. A ban would have an impact on the dredging industry, which is estimated by the Quarry Products Association to be in the region of 60 per cent.—it would affect up to 60 per cent. of people currently employed in the dredging industry. Although I appreciate my hon. Friends' concerns, there are competing interests in the dredging industry.
My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk mentioned the effects on fisheries. The current authorisation procedure includes an environmental impact assessment and a coastal impact study before any licence is granted. Fisheries interests are covered by the environmental impact assessment. In recent years, use has been made of data from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on areas fished and on fish landing statistics to identify the importance of dredging application areas for fishing.
I acknowledge that it is recognised that various other activities, including trawling, can have an impact on the marine environment. My Department's role to protect the environment from unacceptable harm arising from activities for which it is responsible is taken seriously. I shall give my colleagues in MAFF the message from my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk about the concern of people in the fishing industry in King's Lynn.
My hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth mentioned research. We fully recognise that there are gaps in our current understanding of the marine environment.
1084 The Government and the Crown Estate have commissioned two major research studies. The first, funded by MAFF and the Crown Estate, is examining the potential for cumulative effects and the impact of dredging and of successive licences on marine activity over a period. That is a real issue. The study is trying to address the concerns of fishermen that aggregate extraction is affecting the fisheries by removing an important source of food for fish.
Research has also recently been commissioned by my Department to examine the recovery of the sea bed following aggregate dredging. That is a follow-up to an existing study that was undertaken by MAFF and the Crown Estate at a site off the north Norfolk coast, which showed that recovery had begun shortly after dredging ceased, and that within three years of dredging ceasing the area had fully recovered both in respect of the stability of the sediment and the range of species present. We shall certainly consider the results of those studies. There would be no point in undertaking the research unless we were minded to take the findings into account.
Finally, although my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth extensively outlined current procedure, I want him to understand fully that the Government are soon to introduce a new regulatory regime that will bring marine extraction under statutory control. Under the new regulations, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions rather than the Crown Estate will become the competent authority for the control of marine dredging in English waters. Applications will be assessed only once an environmental impact assessment has been undertaken. The regulations will make it a criminal offence to dredge the sea bed without dredging permission, except in those areas already licensed. I can assure my hon. Friend that we take the points that he has raised very seriously and that the new regulations will bring a new dimension in terms of balancing the need for dredging and the need to ensure adequate protection of all the environmental issues that he outlined.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes past Eleven o'clock.