View PDF - United Kingdom Parliament

More documents

Recommendations

Info

119 Marine and Coastal Access Bill 26 OCTOBER 2009 Marine and Coastal Access Bill 120 [Lords] [Lords] The <strong>Parliament</strong>ary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Ann McKechin): I thank my hon. Friend for her comments and commend the work of the Coast group on the Isle of Arran. It has done much good work in trying to create a community initiative on marine conservation. I will be happy to meet her and the group’s members if that would be of assistance to them in brokering progress as regards their very good work. Ms Clark: It would be of great assistance; I appreciate the Minister’s comments. Coast proposes that the whole bay should be considered as a conservation zone. At the moment, there is only a no-take zone in part of the bay. To assist hon. Members, a no-take zone basically means that there can be no fishing, whereas in some marine conservation zones fishing is allowed in particular circumstances. Lamlash bay is the first zone of its type in Scotland. We have already heard about the experience on Lundy, where there has been an MCZ since 1993. This is not a problem for Britain alone—it is worldwide. Similar debates are taking place in countries throughout the world. South Africa has already taken the decision to designate 20 per cent. of its territorial waters as marine protected areas. I understand that it has already achieved 18 per cent. In Australia 40,000 square miles of the great barrier reef are designated as a marine reserve. Country after country have taken steps in that direction, but we have been slow to go down that path. The Bill is a significant development, and I welcome the fact that we will soon be getting legislation on the matter. Robert Key (Salisbury) (Con): I have been looking forward all day to speaking on this group of amendments, and I congratulate the hon. Lady on hers. Given the disgraceful guillotining of the Bill, it is unlikely that many of us will be able to speak tonight. Will she at least give us the comfort that she intends to press the amendment to a vote when the time comes? Ms Clark: I will listen very carefully to what the Minister has to say at the end of the debate, but I agree that it is a great shame that we have such a short time to debate these issues. It is a complete underestimation of their importance. I will keep my comments relatively brief to enable other Members to come in. Marine diversity is not about one particular type of fauna, flora or fish. We are facing a situation in which our whole marine ecosystem is under threat. We have to recognise the scale of the problem not just by passing the Bill but in the steps that we take thereafter, to ensure that we get a network of marine conservation zones to protect the whole marine ecosystem. Often, steps are taken to provide protection for fashionable types of creature, and some of the most important types of ecosystem might be protected, but the reality is that the world we live in and the marine environment are interlinked and interwoven. The consequences of the ecosystem deteriorating are significant for all of us. We debate climate change and other environmental issues regularly, but we often do not give marine life the attention that it deserves. Unless we ensure that we have a significant network of marine reserves, we will all be under threat. I will listen carefully to what the Minister says. I would like an explanation of why the Government believe the amendment is not necessary, and I want assurances that this Government or any future Minister will be able to do whatever they can under the Bill’s current wording. Many of us feel that the amendment would be a significant improvement and extend the range of circumstances in which an MCZ could be created. Mr. Benyon: I congratulate the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Ms Clark) on tabling the amendment. Right from the start, we have supported an ecosystem approach to the designation of marine conservation zones, and we believe that the amendment would provide further options for designation. In Committee, I was opposed to attempts to require the designation of a defined percentage of our seas, and I stand by that position as I want the Bill to be effective. It would be easy for any Government to achieve a particular percentage by designating relatively benign or uninteresting parts of the sea. We want an ecologically coherent network of MCZs to be implemented as quickly as possible. I am inclined to support amendment 3, as it leads on from that original proposal in a more sensible way. It would not serve to upset the balance that has been achieved between socio-economic and environmental considerations, and if it is pressed to a vote, we will support it. Mr. Austin Mitchell: I shall not detain the House long, but I am concerned to introduce the principle that the existing social and economic interests of fishing communities be a dominant consideration in deciding on and running MCZs. The embryonic science that could underpin a scientific basis for designation does not exist—we do not know enough about the marine environment and the science is not strong enough. Therefore, a science-only approach is not going to work—it needs to be supplemented by a concern for safeguarding the interests of coastal communities, which have a special interest in keeping the fishing industry going and in fishing in such areas. In other words, the science is uncertain, but fishermen’s livings are clear and certain, and they need to be taken into account. Amendments 16, 19 and 21, which I tabled, simply emphasise the importance of the social and economic interests of existing fishing communities and the fishing industry in the zones. To my mind, that must be a dominant and important consideration, but it is not in the Bill. Mr. Gummer: I rise to support amendment 3, which has been moved by the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Ms Clark). The first reason is that to talk about the zones without talking at this point about ecosystems misses the point—it does not make the vital point that the system is a central part of a sensible conservation measure. We have for too long believed that we can take bits out of the natural order of things and protect them, and not think about the total system. I must tell the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) that to say that not knowing enough about something means that we should not do it is a very frightening concept. We
121 Marine and Coastal Access Bill 26 OCTOBER 2009 122 [Lords] would actually never have taken any conservation measures, because the truth is that the less we know about conservation, the more we may be doing very serious damage. In fact, we have done a huge amount of work, as a result of which the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran has moved her amendment. The Government will have to explain extremely carefully why they do not want what is so obviously a necessary addition. Indeed, not to go for the ecosystem approach is to ignore all the sensible views of environmentalists, because the amendment would remind us of the real nature upon which the species that we are seeking to protect depend. I hope very much that the Government, at this last moment, agree that the measure is a necessary step. If they do not accept the amendment, many people outside this place will believe that they have gone only halfway to understanding the issues before us. The measure is a natural addition and I hope that they accept it. If they do not, I hope there is a Division in which the House supports what is a crucial part of the defence of our marine habitat. Paddy Tipping: It is a great pity that there is such a limited amount of time to talk about marine conservation. It lies at the heart of the Bill and has been discussed throughout the Bill’s passage, which has been an awful long time. Amendment 1 is about the importance of socio-economic criteria in deciding MCZs. The amendment would make it clear that socio-economic factors should be taken into account only when they are the final factor in deciding between two zones. My hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Ms Clark) and the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) made strong cases for a network of marine sites—a holistic approach—and my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) talked in very blunt terms about science. May I draw the Minister’s attention to a letter about the importance of science that her colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), who has responsibility for the marine and natural environment, wrote to the Wildlife and Countryside Link on 22 October? He said: “I would like to reassure you that science will be the first consideration in the selection process. When considering potential MCZs, only when the ecological requirements of the network would be met in such considerations, will the Regional Projects be able to consider whether, and if so how, to factor in socio-economic considerations to their decision making”. Ann McKechin: I confirm that we stand by every sentence in that letter. 9.45 pm Paddy Tipping: I am grateful that the Minister has put that point on the record, because it reinforces the importance of science in the designation of MCZs. I hope that she will ensure that the four regional areas that will make MCZ proposals will look closely at her words, because a discussion of the Irish sea regional project said: Marine and Coastal Access Bill [Lords] “The project must balance protection with the interests of commercial fishing, shipping, oil and gas extraction, the aggregates industry”— and so on. That does not imply, however, that it should be science and the designation of the marine landscape that is most important. Will the Minister ensure that her words are heard by the regional bodies? In particular, will she make it clear that any draft guidance that goes to those bodies is just that—draft? I understand that the guidance on designation will be released in March next year, but not in draft form. These are important issues of great sophistication, and to issue edicts from on high without further discussion will not be helpful. However, I am grateful that the importance of science has been stressed tonight and placed firmly on the record. Andrew George: I am disappointed and angry that this central element of the Bill has been allowed so little time. I urge Ministers to use whatever powers they have to allow us an extended debate tomorrow if at all possible. I congratulate the hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping), and I support his amendments. I also congratulate the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Ms Clark). I have tabled five of the nine amendments, but I shall not detain the House too long. I also support amendments 1, 2 and 3. I know that the Minister’s response to the suggestion in Committee of a more highly protected area was to say that it would create a two-tier system, but I urge her to reflect on the fact that in land use planning, there are areas of outstanding natural beauty, national parks, listed buildings of various designations, article 4 directions and conservation areas— none of which diminish the other designations. Like the hon. Member for Sherwood, I think that the designation of MCZs should be fundamentally based in science. Yes, socio-economic factors may be taken into consideration, but they should be taken into account to a far greater extent in implementation. If the hon. Member for Great Grimsby looks at my amendments on the designation of conservation objectives within the MCZs and the byelaws that might be introduced under them, he will see that it is entirely appropriate that socio-economic factors—especially those of traditional fishing coastal communities whose livelihoods will be affected, whether to their benefit or detriment—should be considered when managing and implementing conservation policies. That balance is missing in the Bill at present. Throughout our debate on the Bill, both Ministers have perpetually argued that there is a balance to be had between socio-economic and conservation matters, but it applies only with a “may” in relation to the designation. Beyond that, socio-economic factors are entirely ignored. Mr. MacNeil: One minor point is that the science is often not unchallengeable, but the question that often arises, particularly in my coastal area, is who commissions it. There is an inequality of resources available to fishing communities to challenge the science, which is often driven by conservation bodies. Andrew George: That is a fair point, but on the other hand scientists increasingly depend on fishermen to gather their science. There is an increasing coming together of scientists and fishermen to glean a far better understanding of what is happening in marine conservation.
Page 1 and 2:
Monday Volume 498 26 October 2009 N
Page 3 and 4:
HER MAJESTY’S GOVERNMENT MEMBERS
Page 5 and 6:
HER MAJESTY’S GOVERNMENT—cont.
Page 7:
HOUSE OF COMMONS THE SPEAKER—The
Page 10 and 11:
3 Oral Answers 26 OCTOBER 2009 Oral
Page 12 and 13:
7 Oral Answers 26 OCTOBER 2009 Oral
Page 14 and 15:
11 Oral Answers 26 OCTOBER 2009 Ora
Page 16 and 17:
15 Oral Answers 26 OCTOBER 2009 Ora
Page 18 and 19: 19 Oral Answers 26 OCTOBER 2009 Ora
Page 20 and 21: 23 26 OCTOBER 2009 Territorial Army
Page 22 and 23: 27 Territorial Army 26 OCTOBER 2009
Page 24 and 25: 31 Marine and Coastal Access Bill 2
Page 48 and 49: 79 Marine and Coastal Access Bill [
Page 60 and 61: 103 Marine and Coastal Access Bill
Page 74 and 75: 131 26 OCTOBER 2009 Territorial Arm
Page 80 and 81: 3WS Written Ministerial Statements
Page 83 and 84: 1W Written Answers 26 OCTOBER 2009
Page 119 and 120:
73W Written Answers 26 OCTOBER 2009
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187:
1MC Ministerial Corrections 26 OCTO
Page 190 and 191:
Col. No. COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVE
Page 192 and 193:
Members who wish to have the Daily
show all

View PDF - United Kingdom Parliament

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?