Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour) in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 1 December 2009. It occurred during Adjournment debate on Offshore Dredging.


Offshore Dredging

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 the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) that we want the appropriate assessments before, during and after the process to be carried out properly, so that everywhere where 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.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
501 c74-6WH 
Session
2009-10
Chamber / Committee
Westminster Hall
Subjects
Coastal erosion Environment protection Dredging
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk