View PDF - United Kingdom Parliament

111 Marine and Coastal Access Bill 26 OCTOBER 2009 Marine and Coastal Access Bill 112
[Lords]
[Lords]
[Huw Irranca-Davies]
whenever they reasonably can. I expect that to happen,
but I do not want to place a specific legal duty on
Ministers for a number reasons.
First, such a duty would be an extremely difficult
and onerous obligation to meet, because of the range
and variety of impacts to which I have just referred, and
because measures to mitigate the impact on one type of
activity, for example, fishing, might have a greater adverse
impact on other types of activity, for example, diving,
recreational activities and so on. In fact, a broad duty to
mitigate the impacts on a number of activities, which
are not necessarily always compatible, would be impossible
to fulfil.
Secondly, a range of public bodies will be involved in
managing MCZs. Ministers will take the final decisions
on designation, but MCZs will be managed by a number
of public authorities, including the Marine Management
Organisation, the inshore fisheries and conservation
authorities and other public bodies that carry out functions
in the marine environment.
Thirdly, I am concerned that under these proposals
anyone who disagreed with the Minister’s decision would
challenge it through judicial review. For example, Ministers
could face a legal challenge on their interpretation—I
could be challenged on my interpretation—of what
would be reasonable steps to take, as well as on their
assessment of the scale of impacts, and on whether the
measures undertaken were sufficient.
MCZ measures are not, in any event, set in stone. In
appropriate cases, designation orders could be varied
and byelaws amended. The Bill has been drafted so as
to ensure that all those carrying out activities in the
marine area—including fishermen—have a chance to
be heard and to help form our policy, be it the marine
policy statement, marine plans, MCZ designations or
byelaws. I also have technical concerns about the drafting
of the provision, which does not tie in with the terminology
in the Bill. I hope that, in view of the considerable
burden that the proposal would impose and the risks
involved, my hon. Friend will withdraw the new clause.
Let me move on to amendment 18, which stands in
the name of the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew
George) and seeks to require Ministers carrying out
their reporting functions to include information in the
reports on the extent to which, in their opinion, MCZs
have
“an impact upon the marine economy in general and…commercial
and recreational fishing…in particular.”
The purpose of the reporting duty in clause 124 is to
require Ministers to report to the relevant legislature with
information on progress being made. The amendment
would considerably extend the scope of the reporting
duty to include an assessment of the economic consequences
of the actions that have been taken. Social and economic
implications may be taken into account in deciding whether
to designate an MCZ and also in the subsequent management
of the site. We will take decisions on which areas to
designate on the very best scientific evidence available to
us, and we are keen to involve—I hope that I have made
this clear—all relevant interests in identifying and selecting
those sites.
We also want stakeholders to help us gather the
evidence on which to base these assessments, which will
identify management scenarios, and the associated costs
and benefits of the proposed sites. The impact assessments
will inform the Secretary of State’s final decision on
whether to designate sites.
The designation of a network of MCZs is likely to
have an impact across a wide range of economic sectors
and individuals, and that impact could be both direct
and indirect and vary in size. I am concerned that
placing a legal duty on Ministers to report on the
impact that MCZs have on the marine economy in
general, and on commercial and recreational fishing
interests in particular, could be difficult and costly to
comply with in any meaningful way. Although the high-level
or generic assessment of such impacts might not present
great difficulties, that could be of very little value when
we are considering local and regionalised issues.
That is not to say that the economic impact of
designations will be ignored once the sites have been
designated. MCZs have been designed to provide protection
that is proportionate and able to change over time and
that takes into account the wider needs of society. That
means that the costs and benefits of any management
measures that are introduced following designation should
be reviewed by the appropriate authorities so that, if
necessary, they can be adjusted and fine-tuned in the
light of new information or changes in conditions.
Rob Marris: On the grounds for designation of marine
conservation zones, clause 117(7) refers to the “economic
or social consequences” of so designating. Will the
Minister confirm that those economic or social
consequences could be positive and that they are not
always negative?
Huw Irranca-Davies: Yes, indeed. That is where the
debate has to take us, both now and in future months
and years. Although we absolutely recognise the impact
that the proposal might have on parts of fisheries, if
that is managed appropriately we could also have positive
benefits—with activity going either into other types of
fisheries or into recreational or scientific opportunities
and so on.
Andrew George: Even so, the Minister has perpetually
repeated that the Bill represents a balance between
conservation and socio-economic factors. The only stage
at which socio-economic factors will—or rather may—be
considered under the Bill as drafted is at the point of
designation. In my view, that should be based on sound
science in any case. Is he saying that the balance will not
then run through the operation of the MCZs? Will the
MMO not be informed of, or even make any kind of
assessment of, the impact that these MCZs will have on
the coastal economies?
Huw Irranca-Davies: Quite the contrary. Let me make
it clear that the reporting requirement in the Bill is there
so that Parliament can take a view on how well the duty
that it has placed on Ministers to create the network is
being fulfilled. There is nothing to stop Ministers including
relevant information on the social or economic impact
in the reports that they submit under clause 124. Indeed,
I can see merits in doing so if relevant information is
available. However, I do not think that it would be
appropriate to include a legal obligation in the Bill.
Martin Salter: Does the Minister accept that although
there might be short-term pain, it could be for long-term
gain? That long term might not be too far away. Evidence