View PDF - United Kingdom Parliament

109 Marine and Coastal Access Bill 26 OCTOBER 2009 Marine and Coastal Access Bill 110
[Lords]
[Lords]
Lundy no-take zone. I offer a potential golden future to
my hon. Friend’s constituents through having no-take
zones.
Mr. MacNeil: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Martin Salter: No.
The Marine Conservation Society wrote the following
to the Minister back on 3 July:
“The true value in marine reserves lies not in their ability to
protect the most fragile species as is often put forwards. Instead
marine reserves, where no extraction or disturbance takes place,
allow the sea to fully recover for species diversity and productivity.”
There is a common interest between conservationists and
the commercial sector to ensure a more productive sea.
9pm
I turn briefly to the Government amendments that
seek to amend and improve the Salmon and Freshwater
Fisheries Act 1975. The Environment Agency has just
concluded a consultation on the removal of freshwater
fish that the Bill allows for. The consultation overwhelmingly
came down in favour of a catch-and-release regime for
our freshwater fisheries. Henceforth, the archaic,
anachronistic system of regional byelaws is to be replaced
with a national catch-and-release regime for coarse fish,
which is long overdue. Yes, there will be some exceptions
for fishery management, predator fishing or conservation
purposes, but in their response to the Environment
Agency consultation as part of this Bill, freshwater
anglers overwhelmingly came down on the side of
conservation, and it is to their credit that they did so.
I take issue with the argument that somehow, only
Members with coastal constituencies have the right to
argue about the condition of our sea. Actually, some of
the finest contributions came from my hon. Friend the
Member for Wolverhampton, South-West and the hon.
Members for Broxbourne and for Newbury—constituencies
that are a considerable distance from the sea. The sea is
a common heritage that we all share.
Given that time is of the essence and that we have
other groups of amendments to move on to, I would
like the last word in my contribution to go to a trawlerman.
Mr. Dave Murphy was a trawler captain for Interfish
until two years ago, when he became the outreach
officer for the Finding Sanctuary project. He says:
“Protecting habitats has got to do fish stocks good in the end.
I’ve had the opportunity to make my life fishing. I’d like my two
boys to have the same chance.”
That is what the Bill is about: ensuring that the fish stocks
that we value, and that we want to see protected and
enhanced and flourish, are there for future generations.
Linda Gilroy (Plymouth, Sutton) (Lab/Co-op): I am
pleased that my hon. Friend has heard from Mr. David
Murphy, who is doing excellent work in developing
“Fishermap” for Finding Sanctuary. However, will he
urge the Minister, as I should like to do, to issue the
ecological guidance necessary for that project to do its
work?
Martin Salter: As my hon. Friend bears the scars of
the Bill Committee and we shared many hours on this
subject together, I certainly commend her remarks to
the Minister.
This is an excellent Bill that is good for fisheries and
good for conservation. It needs us to be big people and
take on vested interests, and to be prepared to make the
arguments for the next generation.
Huw Irranca-Davies: Once again, this has been an
excellent debate. To refer to the last point first, I confirm
that we are very close to issuing guidance for the criteria
underpinning the evidence base and science upon which
the partnerships—importantly, they involve fishermen
as well—will bring forward proposals for the marine
conservation zones. All those interests are working together,
and the most notable example is of course the Finding
Sanctuary project in the south-west, which is very well
advanced. It is a triumph in bringing together a wide
range of diverse interests, all of whom, including fishermen,
own the solution to these challenges as well as the
problem.
Linda Gilroy: Will my hon. Friend confirm that there
is a perception that these guidelines might not be issued
until as late as next March, and will he please offer an
assurance that it will be a great deal earlier than that?
Huw Irranca-Davies: Yes, indeed I can. I cannot give
my hon. Friend a date, but I can tell her that we have
actively been working on the guidelines for some time
to finesse them and make sure that they are the right
criteria. I intend to bring them forward a lot sooner
than that, but I cannot give her a date today.
I am very tempted, bearing in mind some of the remarks
that have been made, to discuss reform of the common
fisheries policy and how the UK is leading the agenda,
long-term sustainability and maximum sustainable yields,
regionalisation and ownership of fisheries management
at a regional level, and bringing marine and fisheries
together, which much of this debate is about. However,
I will not try your patience, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I
will go straight to the amendments.
First, let me deal with new clause 8 and amendment 44.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Great
Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) for tabling those provisions, the
first of which would require Ministers to
“take all reasonable steps to manage and mitigate the impact on
fishing and other existing activities resulting from the designation
and management of an MCZ.”
Amendment 44 is broadly similar in its aim, but is linked
to the reporting duty in clause 124. There has been much
debate during the passage of the Bill on whether Ministers
should have a power or a duty to take account of social
and economic implications when deciding whether to
designate a MCZ. These provisions are slightly different,
because they would place a legal duty on Ministers to
manage and mitigate the social and economic impacts
that follow designation. The impacts of designation will
be wide-ranging: they are likely to vary in scale; many
different sectors and stakeholders might be affected; and
there may be both direct and indirect impacts. These
provisions would require Ministers first to identify and
then to implement whatever steps are reasonable to manage
and mitigate all the impacts.
I am not saying that Ministers, and the other public
authorities with a role in MCZs, should not have regard
to the social and economic impacts of the decisions that
they take—in fact, we have had a lot of debate on
that—or that they should not keep those impacts under
review and seek to manage and mitigate those impacts