View PDF - United Kingdom Parliament
View PDF - United Kingdom Parliament
View PDF - United Kingdom Parliament
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
87 Marine and Coastal Access Bill 26 OCTOBER 2009 Marine and Coastal Access Bill 88<br />
[Lords]<br />
[Lords]<br />
[Mr. Cox]<br />
and unfair? In my constituency, the fishing industry has<br />
co-operated in maintaining the pioneering no-take zone<br />
around the island of Lundy, with which Labour Members<br />
may be familiar, for many years. The no-take zone has<br />
resulted in much greater amounts of fish for the inshore<br />
fishing fleet, so co-operation exists between the fishing<br />
industry and the marine conservation community. Is<br />
that not the model that we should follow, rather than<br />
the demonisation and polarisation promoted by some<br />
of the old-fashioned Members on the Labour Benches?<br />
Mr. Benyon: I take my hon. and learned Friend’s<br />
point. Let me be conciliatory. We should use the Lundy<br />
case as a basis. The “finding sanctuary” approach in the<br />
south-west is important. If we create no-take zones, or<br />
zones where the seabed is protected while fishing activity<br />
is allowed to continue higher up in the sea, and angling<br />
opportunities, which enhance tourism, we create a virtuous<br />
circle. It is a matter of getting the balance right.<br />
Mr. Angus MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP): I<br />
am listening to what the hon. Gentleman has just said.<br />
If we get it wrong, we end up with a self-perpetuating<br />
marine bureaucracy which rides roughshod over the<br />
wishes of fishermen and local communities, as I see<br />
constantly in the Outer Hebrides. The fear of what<br />
Scottish Natural Heritage is going to do, clamping<br />
down on the rights that people have traditionally held,<br />
cannot be allowed to grow any greater than it is.<br />
Mr. Benyon: I entirely understand what the hon.<br />
Gentleman has pointed out—just as we can get this<br />
issue right, we can get this issue wrong. When I last<br />
checked, however, his party was actually in government<br />
in Scotland, so it needs to rein in the SNH, if the SNH<br />
is really driving his people out of business.<br />
Huw Irranca-Davies rose—<br />
Mr. Benyon: I shall give way to the Minister in a<br />
minute.<br />
The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar<br />
(Mr. MacNeil) has made the fundamental point that we<br />
have to get the balance right. If we do not do so, and if<br />
we do not involve fishermen at the very earliest stage of<br />
MCZ designation, we will fail, if only because such<br />
measures will fail the test of credibility.<br />
7.30 pm<br />
Mr. Austin Mitchell: rose—<br />
Mr. Benyon: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, the<br />
Minister wants to intervene, but I shall then give way<br />
to him.<br />
Huw Irranca-Davies: I alert the hon. Gentleman to<br />
the fact that, during the Bill’s development, there has<br />
been very good co-ordination throughout the UK. There<br />
are great benefits to that approach: we are signed up to<br />
UK high-level objectives; the marine policy statement<br />
will bind us together; and the engagement with my<br />
Scottish Executive colleague, Richard Lochhead, who<br />
has introduced the Scottish Marine Bill, which will tally<br />
with the Bill before us, has been very good. I take the<br />
point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Great<br />
Grimsby that we have to engage on the Bill at all levels<br />
with the fisheries industry, but the whole of the UK is<br />
signed up to the Bill.<br />
Mr. Benyon: Rightly so. I look forward to meeting<br />
Richard Lochhead in a couple of weeks. It is vital that<br />
we balance the Scottish Bill with the Bill before us. It<br />
would be absurd if we did not, not least for border<br />
areas, where we will be trying to create synergies through<br />
the ecologically coherent network of MCZs that we are<br />
trying to create. I now give way to the hon. Member for<br />
Great Grimsby, who has been very patient.<br />
Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman has been very<br />
patient, although he has provoked many interjections. I<br />
rise to disagree with his initial point, which was that the<br />
marine conservation zones are a means of preserving<br />
fish stocks. They are not; they are a means of preserving<br />
the marine environment. Preserving fish stocks is not<br />
compatible with that objective, because fish stocks are<br />
migratory and that issue has not been dealt with. The<br />
industry’s efforts, including square mesh panels, no-take<br />
zones and seasonal closures of grounds, are a means of<br />
providing sustainable fishing and nothing to do with<br />
MCZs, so we should not get the two mixed up. One is<br />
about the marine environment; the other is about the<br />
conservation of fish stocks.<br />
Mr. Benyon: One benefit of the Lundy island case is<br />
that shellfish, for example, have increased in size and<br />
are more productive in areas just outside the no-take<br />
zone. There has been a benefit in terms of stock. In<br />
terms of marine conservation zones, we should identify<br />
the spawning beds of at-risk stocks. That is an entirely<br />
legitimate activity. This is an interesting debate, but<br />
perhaps we should return to the specifics of the new<br />
clauses and amendments.<br />
Socio-economic factors are already a part of the<br />
designation process for MCZs, and we absolutely must<br />
not tip the balance too far in one direction or another;<br />
we should keep it structured between the demands of a<br />
socio-economic and legitimate activity, such as fishing,<br />
leisure boating and all the other important activities<br />
that support our coastal communities, and the needs of<br />
conservation. Equally, however, those needs must be<br />
credible to all sides, and we sought at every point to<br />
develop that balance in Committee.<br />
Sometimes the balance will not be struck, so we need<br />
to work on the basis of best practice, and that is already<br />
under way. I recently met the chief executive of Natural<br />
England, and I sought reassurances from her about the<br />
process of designation. If Natural England is as good<br />
as its word, fishing communities will be at the centre of<br />
the process. My party and I see fishermen as part of the<br />
solution, not part of the problem. No one will hear me<br />
demonise fishermen—particularly not the coastal fleet,<br />
which, as one of the most sustainably minded groups of<br />
fishermen anywhere in Europe, is moving fast towards<br />
accreditation under the Marine Stewardship Council.<br />
The hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) has<br />
tabled an amendment that he will no doubt discuss. I<br />
am inclined to support its general thrust, because I<br />
understand the spirit of it. Clause 124 is really important,<br />
because it allows the Government, through a transparent<br />
process, to look at each MCZ and ask what it is designated