Jake Berry
Main Page: Jake Berry (Conservative - Rossendale and Darwen)(11 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Nuttall
I give way to my constituency neighbour from Rossendale and Darwen.
Jake Berry
Did my hon. Friend consider specifying a longer period than three years? Being a lawyer, like me, he will realise that if an environmental catastrophe was not caused by a third party, things could conceivably still be grinding through the courts after three years. Did he consider having perhaps a six-year period or a rolling cost-benefit analysis? It is not beyond conception that in three years no catastrophe would have happened—we certainly hope it would not—so did he consider other time periods?
Mr Nuttall
I think the answer to that question is simply this: clearly, clause 5 would add to the size of the cost-benefit analysis, but it would not negate the need for such an analysis. Without clause 5, a whole chunk of the analysis would be swept away. As I made clear in my reply to my hon. Friend’s earlier intervention—again, I may be wrong, and he may be able to persuade me and the House that there are very good reasons for getting rid of clause 5—it seems to me that clause 5 goes to the heart of what the Bill is trying to achieve. While it remains part of the Bill—I hope it continues to do so—there will clearly be associated costs for those who have to sit down, carry out these measures and prepare the contingency plans. Sensible as I think that is, it is also sensible for the House to assess whether it is having an adverse effect on those who want to visit Antarctica and carry out their work there. We do not want the Bill to be counter-productive.
There is another matter for the House to reconsider—
Jake Berry
Before my hon. Friend moves on to that other matter, I would like to put a point to him. There has been some discussion about the necessity of clause 5, which is at the heart of protecting this pristine environment. Times move on. I remember my grandfather telling me how he used to have snowball fights with asbestos fibre and think it was a good thing to do. Given that times move on, would not the cost-benefit analysis provide us with the ability to revisit clause 5 to ensure that we have the strongest possible protection for this pristine environment, to look at the effect of modern technologies and to update the provisions where it was felt necessary?
Mr Nuttall
My hon. Friend makes a good point. It is not just about whether the Bill is being too effective in the sense of putting people off visiting; it is also about whether it is effective enough in protecting the environment. Indeed, my hon. Friend has presciently looked at my next point. One measure in the Bill is the exclusion of fishing for profit. By virtue of clause 9(3)(a),
“the activity of fishing for profit”
is specifically excluded. A review would give us the opportunity to reconsider that matter and decide whether it is right to exclude it. Under clause 9(3)(b), the
“activities carried out…on a vessel or aircraft travelling to an immediate destination outside Antarctica”
are similarly excluded. I am sure there are very good reasons for these exclusions, but bearing in mind the tenor of the debate, I find it odd that they should continue to be in the Bill.
Jake Berry
My hon. Friend has identified a key issue. Fishing for profit does not, of course, cover all fishing activities: the Japanese whaling fleet, for instance, fishes for “scientific purposes”—if we believe that. I wonder whether a blanket exclusion of all fishing, whether for scientific purposes or for profit, would provide more protection. Perhaps when we return to the matter in three years’ time we could consider updating the provision if the position changes.
Jake Berry
My hon. Friend talks about the unintended consequences of the 1994 Act. That point highlights why we should discuss this amendment in some detail, in order to ensure that historic monuments are protected. Does he agree that if a cost-benefit analysis of the 1994 Act provisions had been conducted, we might have avoided the need for this amendment as we might have changed the legislation in good time, thus ensuring that we could preserve our historic monuments in the Antarctic?
Mr Nuttall
My hon. Friend makes a very good point that supports both my new clause 1 in proposing that a cost-benefit analysis be conducted, and my point about having a review. Section 10 of the 1994 Act did not work as intended. We found that in practice it was counter-productive and had unintended consequences. The historic huts, which are enormously important in the history of our nation, could not be protected as intended.
Scott’s hut at Cape Evans was abandoned in 1917. However, there are, of course, consistently sub-zero temperatures there. We can get some idea of what that might be like by simply stepping outside this morning; it was, perhaps, appropriate that it was snowing when I walked into the House today. Because of those sub-zero temperatures, the hut’s contents are remarkably well-preserved even to this day. The hut remained untouched until 1956 when American explorers excavated it from the snow and ice. Although, sadly, some items were removed—perhaps as mementoes—most of the artefacts remain in place. At various times since the 1970s the United Kingdom and our friends in New Zealand have undertaken to restore the hut. Unfortunately, however, bacterial decay is still occurring and there are concerns that the fabric of the hut is being affected by fungal decay. Both Scott’s hut and Shackleton’s hut are included on the watch list of the 100 most endangered world monuments.
There is evidence that these huts need to be repaired. As I have said, they are not all in British Antarctica; they are spread over the entire Antarctic continent. Permits need to be granted, therefore. I am grateful that my amendments have been selected, and I hope I have persuaded the House to agree to them.
Jake Berry
Earlier, my hon. Friend referred to the new clause including places such as the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. Has he made any inquiries of the Government about whether the existing legislation would cover those? The Channel Islands and the Isle of Man are, of course, popular places to base holiday companies because of their beneficial tax status. He will be aware that in 1993, fewer than 9,000 people visited the Antarctic area on holiday. Now the figure is approaching 26,000. Does he think that the clause is necessary to pull in those holiday companies who are attempting to exploit the Antarctic for commercial gain?
Philip Davies
My hon. Friend makes a good point. That may well be an alternative explanation for why we need clause 5. My understanding is that those places are covered by the existing legislation, but my hon. Friend may well be right and I am sure we all wait with eager anticipation to hear what the Minister will tell us, so that we can all satisfy our curiosity on that point. I have no doubt that he has a good explanation.
Hon. Members may well conclude that because all these provisions are already covered, it does no harm to put them in again, because they are already in there anyway, and if this chivvies other countries along to fulfil their obligations, no harm will be done. That may well be the case. If that is the explanation, I would not have a problem with that; but it has not been made clear to us exactly why the clause is necessary, which is why I tabled my amendment.
I briefly want to touch on the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North. I certainly do not intend to talk about amendment 1, which he went through in considerable detail; his expertise on that clearly exceeds mine. It seemed to be a rather technical matter, and certainly above my knowledge level. But I do want to discuss new clause 1, which would require a cost-benefit analysis.
There are issues, which emerged during my hon. Friend’s speech, about what we mean by a cost-benefit analysis. Would such an analysis reflect the Government’s costs and benefits? Would the costs of individuals from the UK be covered? Should it be more internationally based? There might be a negative cost-benefit analysis to the UK, but a different result might be produced if everyone else’s costs and benefits were taken into account. Although there are issues about that, I do not believe they are insurmountable. I felt that my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset was uncharacteristically defeatist in thinking that the cost-benefit analysis could become so bureaucratic that it would need its own cost-benefit analysis in order to be justified.
I think my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North is on to something, because what the Bill sets out clearly, and the reason for this legislation, is that the Government know exactly what they are trying to achieve, so it is not unreasonable for someone to review it a few years down the line. My hon. Friend said three years—I do not know whether that was an arbitrary figure, or whether there was any science behind that choice. I took his point that if there is a flaw in the legislation, it is better to know sooner rather than later. I thought that was a fair point. I do not know whether every three years might have been a better amendment in the sense of the ongoing point that my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry) made, which I think was fair. Anyway, it should not be beyond the wit of people to take a look—it need not be bureaucratic or expensive—at whether the Bill’s aims and objectives have been met, and without prohibitive cost. That would be perfectly reasonable, and I do not think it should be confined to the legislation before us. The Bill might set a trend for conducting that level of post-legislative scrutiny.
Jake Berry
My hon. Friend is talking about a cost-benefit analysis. Would it not be better to talk about a benefit analysis? The shadow Minister asked, “How can you put a price on protecting the most pristine, unspoilt environment we have?” I think that is a valid point; I do not think that we can. But my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) said that the 1994 Act had not done what it set out to do, which was to protect historic monuments. Should we not focus on the benefit test, rather than pricing up environmental protection, which I do not think is possible?
Philip Davies
That is a fair point. I do not have a strong view. I do not see the harm in doing a cost-benefit analysis. It may well be that people wish to focus on the benefit part; I would not have a problem with that. But that is not my point. My point is that if we are passing legislation for a specific purpose, there should be a duty on the Government to review it at some point in the future; whether it is three years, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North suggests in his new clause, or whether it is a different time scale is a matter for debate, opinion and judgment. I would prefer to talk about the principle, which is that when the Government pass legislation and tell the House that its purpose is to do such-and-such and this is why it is important and so necessary, there should be a mechanism to see at a future date whether they were accurate in their analysis—whether it has done what it said. I know that Ronseal is a topical metaphor to use at the moment, but Governments should check more often whether the legislation does what it says on the tin. I see no great harm in that. I do not see why the Government should rail against it.
Philip Davies
My hon. Friend makes a good point. There are different ways of doing these things. Perhaps there should be a combination of both. The Scrap Metal Dealers Bill, which passed through this House not long ago, had both, owing to an amendment that I tabled. It had a review that took place after three years; it also incorporates a sunset clause whereby, after five years, the Act would expire and would have to be brought back again if it was seen to be worth while. So I think my hon. Friend is on to something. But of course, it would be difficult to justify a sunset clause without a cost-benefit analysis to help us decide whether we wished to extend the legislation or wished it to expire.
Jake Berry
May I caution my hon. Friend against overuse of the Ronseal test? Of course, Ronseal is based in the Deputy Prime Minister’s city of Sheffield. May I remind him that we have Crown Paints in Darwen in my constituency, which are more than capable of doing what they say on the tin? So there is not just Ronseal; other paint types are available.
Philip Davies
As a south Yorkshire boy originally, my allegiance is more to Sheffield than it ever would be to Lancashire. The wars of the roses never ended, in my book. I am afraid my hon. Friend is on a loser with me on that point, but I give him every credit for plugging his own constituency. It is not his fault that it is on the wrong side of the Pennines.
I know that we are coming up to the statement and I do not want be cut off in my prime by the Prime Minister, who has to come to the House on a more sombre matter to go through something that is far more serious and important. Our hearts go out to everybody who has been affected by that incident.
There are some legitimate points for my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud or the Minister to take on board and respond to. I urge them both to set out why clause 5 is necessary. They may say that it is not necessary but it does no harm, which I will accept, but if their point is that clause 5 simply does no harm, perhaps they could explain what harm would be done by encouraging a cost-benefit analysis to be carried out, as requested by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North in new clause 1. Either these things are harmful or they are not. If they are not harmful, let us do them both, and if neither is necessary, let us do neither. It would not be right for the Government to cherry-pick one and say, “Let’s do it because it does no harm,” but also to say, “We won’t do the other one that does no harm because it is not necessary.” That would be a contradictory step for the Government to take.
On that note I conclude my remarks. I hope I have reassured people about the motives behind my amendment. It is not to seek to destroy the nature or detail of the Bill, but to question in a probing fashion why it is necessary. I expect the Minister will be able to reassure me so that I am able to withdraw my amendment.