View PDF - United Kingdom Parliament

89 Marine and Coastal Access Bill 26 OCTOBER 2009 Marine and Coastal Access Bill 90
[Lords]
[Lords]
to achieve; what feature it seeks to protect, which may
address some of the concerns expressed by the hon.
Member for Great Grimsby; and, what should be done
if it is failing to achieve that objective. One could argue
that the clause is missing a requirement to state accurately
how the success or otherwise of the management of a
marine conservation zone is measured, however.
Clause 124(2) notes that the report that will be submitted
annually must contain
“the conservation objectives which have been stated for the MCZ…the
extent to which…the conservation objectives stated for each
MCZ which it has designated have been achieved”
and
“any further steps which, in the opinion of the authority, are
required to be taken.”
I was impressed by North sea regional advisory council
proposal that very simple tests be applied to marine
conservation zones. Broadly speaking, that means most
of the Bill, but a little more, including: what we are
seeking to protect; how our ability to protect a feature
or species is measured; and, whether there is an exit
route. I do not necessarily mean that we should dissolve
an MCZ, although that option may have to be considered,
but we may have to move one.
We know that a lot is happening in the North sea,
including changes to sea temperatures, cod moving
further north, the availability of cocopods at particular
times of year and acidification, and we have to be fast
on our feet to ensure that any conservation measures
work. They have to be embedded in what fishermen
already do, such as in real-time closures and other
conservation benefits.
Mr. MacNeil: The hon. Gentleman mentioned what
is being conserved, but the fishing communities in my
constituency ask not only, “What is being protected?”
but, “Who is it being protected from?” and, quite often,
“What authority is doing the protecting?” The protecting
authority’s agenda can skew it quite markedly against
the perceived group from which it seeks to do the
protecting. Sadly, that often means a skewed view of
fishermen and of fishing activities. Rather than take
that approach, we should all look to support and protect
fishing rights, as the hon. Member for Great Grimsby is
trying to do.
Mr. Benyon: The hon. Gentleman makes a good
point. In a recent European Committee sitting, I was
amazed to read “success” and “common fisheries policy”
in the same sentence. It was an act of audacity which
left me breathless. I would not have started from this
point, but what we try to achieve must be linked at every
stage with CFP reform. I know that the Minister sees
that, and, from my conversations with Commissioner
Borg, I certainly think that he gets it, because in my last
meeting with him he referred to the CFP as a “disaster”.
I shall no doubt be accused of breathtaking naivety to
believe that CFP reform is possible, but I really believe
that it is, because, with the growth of the European
Union, the CFP cannot continue in its current form.
I shall return to the case in point, because this aspect
of the Bill is about nature conservation, fishermen and
conservationists. Both groups understand that fishing
activities have to change in certain areas if we are to
achieve a sustainable future for our fisheries. We agree
that the impact on the marine environment and on the
recreational fishing industry should be considered when
implementing MCZs, but enshrining that point in the
Bill might water down the environmental thrust of
MCZs and, ultimately, threaten the industry, too.
The hon. Member for Great Grimsby made some
interesting points on amendment 24, but I repeat my
argument that altering the Bill in that way would allow
the irresponsible few to damage the future of our fisheries.
However, the vast majority of our fishermen would not
do that. MCZs are being introduced for a reason, and
some of them will be no-take zones. Such zones will
need to be flexible and subject to change if improvement
occurs, and they absolutely must be upheld where they
are needed.
I look forward to hearing from the right hon. Member
for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) about his amendment,
which comes at the issue from another direction. It is
very much from the left side—not politically, but more
in the football context. I believe that the measure would
disadvantage our fishermen by making the sea fisheries
defence apply only to UK vessels. A balance is needed
here. Irresponsible fishermen need to be held to account,
and responsible fishermen, who want a sustainable future
for our seas as much as the conservationists, should not
be unduly punished. The last thing that I want us to do
is impose measures that protect the seas only from our
fishermen and allow others to fish in our waters.
David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con): I find
myself in the unusual position of coming from the left
field, as my hon. Friend describes it, because I cannot
see how what he has just said—that we must have some
MCZs that are effectively no-take zones—is consistent
with having an absolute sea fisheries defence. Surely,
those ideas are not consistent. Can he lead the debate
on how these issues could be dealt with through the
development of the common fisheries policy in the
reforms of the next few years?
Mr. Benyon: Looking at you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I
see that I shall have to use my words carefully to keep
them relevant. The reform of the CFP, which has to run
parallel to our attempts in this Bill, is vital. The European
Commission’s green paper talks about having much
more localised control and about pushing power down,
away from the micro-management that has failed at
every stage, toward a much more devolved power. In
that way, local people such as fishermen could take
responsibility for the management of their industry and
say, “These are the measures we are going to bring in;
we are going to get Marine Stewardship Council
accreditation; these are the technical measures we are
going to adopt; this is our target for discards; this is
the market we are going to produce; and these are the
relevant organisations—the scientific bodies and the
university—we are dealing with.” That would allow
fishermen to take back control of their industry. There
is a direction of travel in the EU’s green paper. I am sure
that in thinking that the CFP can be reformed, I will be
open to all sorts of accusations, such as that I am
showing breathtaking naivety, but let us give it a crack.
We have to achieve our aims by 2012, and the direction
of travel is very much in our favour.
Mr. Austin Mitchell: I want to help the hon. Gentleman,
because he is fishing for flounders at the moment. It is
interesting to hear such a staunch defence of the CFP