View PDF - United Kingdom Parliament

117 Marine and Coastal Access Bill 26 OCTOBER 2009
118
[Lords]
is obsolete—first, because it bans the sale of salmon and
sea trout at the wrong times of year. The dates in
section 22 originally mirrored the close seasons for salmon
and sea trout, but, over time, the Environment Agency
has used its powers to move those close seasons to more
appropriate dates, and the two are now out of kilter.
Secondly, section 22 is obsolete because its contribution
to the Environment Agency’s fight against poaching has
been overtaken by powers under the Salmon Act 1986. I
could go on, but this section is a classic example of
out-of-date legislation that should be repealed. With
those comments, which were slightly rushed, but
comprehensive, I hope, I urge hon. Members to withdraw
their amendments and accept the Government’s
amendments as good improvements to the Bill.
Mr. Austin Mitchell: I do not intend to prolong the
debate, but I am surprised by the amount of passion
against the fishing industry that has been roused in the
breasts of Members who represent urban constituencies
that are scores of miles from any fishing port in the
country. I shall not go on, because there would be a big
educational job there, about the £6 billion a year
contribution that the fishing industry makes to our
economy. I will say, however, that I was very happy with
the Minister’s reply. My main intention, in defending
the interests of the industry in this way, was to get him
to undertake certain commitments that he has
wholeheartedly given.
I am disappointed by the Minister’s response on the
white herring legislation, because it leaves Scotland,
once again, in a privileged position. The Scots have
their own white herring Act and the protection that it
gives, whereas that legislation will be removed from
English fishermen. That is another advantage of devolution
in Scotland. Joking aside, I am happy with the commitments
that the Minister has given, and I am grateful to him for
giving them, because they recognise the importance of
fishermen. With those comments, I beg to ask leave to
withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Andrew George: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy
Speaker. I seek your guidance. We have had some good
debates so far, and we are about to enter into a debate
on a very significant element of the Bill—in fact, many
people consider it central—on marine conservation. We
have only half an hour left for that debate, yet tomorrow
we have debates on matters that several of us consider
to be less significant, if important nevertheless. Can you
use your offices, or find some means through the usual
channels, in order that the debate on marine conservation
can be extended on to tomorrow’s Order Paper?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Unfortunately,
these matters are not in the hands of the Chair. To be
honest, points of order like that simply take time out of
the debate at this stage of proceedings.
Clause 117
GROUNDS FOR DESIGNATION OF MCZS
9.30 pm
Ms Katy Clark: I beg to move amendment 3,
page 78, line 32, at end insert—
‘(d) the marine ecosystem as a whole.’.
Marine and Coastal Access Bill
[Lords]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient
to discuss the following: amendment 16, page 79, line 8, leave
out ‘may’ and insert ‘shall’.
Amendment 1, page 79, line 9, at end insert ‘only
where—
(a) a choice exists between two or more potential MCZs of
equal ecological value; and
(b) to do so does not hinder the achievement of the
objective in section 123 to create a network.’.
Amendment 43, page 79, line 10, at end insert—
‘(7A) In considering the setting of the conservation objectives
for the MCZ (under subsection 2) the appropriate authority shall
have regard to the economic and social consequences of doing
so; particularly in respect of traditional or long established
marine activities.’.
Amendment 2, in clause 123, page 82, line 18, at end
insert—
‘(d) that the network includes highly protected sites.’.
Amendment 19, in clause 125, page 85, line 26, at end
insert—
‘(11A) In carrying out its duties under this section a public
authority must have regard to the social and economic
consequences of its acts.’.
Amendment 22, in clause 126, page 86, line 42, at end
insert—
‘(10A) In carrying out its duties under this section a public
authority must have regard to the social and economic
consequences of its decisions.’.
Amendment 20, in clause 130, page 88, line 39, leave
out ‘(7)’ and insert ‘(8)’.
Amendment 21, page 89, line 6, at end insert—
‘(4A) In drawing up any byelaw under this section the MMO
must have regard to any social or economic consequences.’.
Ms Clark: It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to
contribute to this debate. I wish to speak to amendment 3,
which I tabled. It would amend clause 117, which deals
with the grounds for the designation of marine conservation
zones. The amendment relates to the Minister’s power
to order that a zone should be designated as an MCZ.
The Bill enables the Minister, where he or she finds it
desirable, to create an MCZ for the purposes of protecting
and conserving flora and fauna, our marine habitat,
and features of geological and geomorphological interest.
The amendment would strengthen the Bill by enabling
the Minister to create a zone to protect the marine
ecosystem as a whole. We are no longer in a position
whereby we can regard our sea as an unlimited renewable
resource. As most of us know, the intervention of
humankind has not only caused significant depletion of
our fishing stocks but led to the degradation of all sorts
of other forms of marine life. The amendment aims to
strengthen the range of circumstances in which an
MCZ could be designated.
I have personal experience of this matter in that for
15 years in my constituency there has been a significant
campaign for an MCZ in Lamlash bay. Earlier this year,
it was announced that there would indeed be an MCZ,
but there has since been a great deal of frustration at the
lack of progress towards that proposal becoming a
reality. The organisation Coast—a community-based
campaign in my constituency with more than 1,800
members—has been campaigning for an MCZ, and the
work that it has carried out shows the difficulty that
there is in obtaining such zones.