View PDF - United Kingdom Parliament

123 Marine and Coastal Access Bill 26 OCTOBER 2009 Marine and Coastal Access Bill 124
[Lords]
[Lords]
[Andrew George]
Indeed, that is one of the fundamental raisons d’être for
finding sanctuary around the south-west coast. However,
unless it is entirely peer reviewed there will inevitably be
debate about the science, so I entirely accept what the
hon. Gentleman says.
I will bring my remarks to a close now. What is
missing from the Bill is a balance that allows socio-economic
factors to underpin the implementation of conservation
measures beyond designation.
Mr. Doran: I will be brief. I want to reinforce the
point that a balance is important. The Bill is extremely
important for our whole environment, not just the
marine environment. At the same time, however, the
balance has to take into account the view of stakeholders—a
point that I made in the previous debate.
I am in the fortunate or unfortunate position, depending
on what side of the argument one is on, of having a
number of stakeholders based in my constituency. I
have a fishing industry, which is mainly fish processing
now, although there are still remnants of a fishing fleet.
I also represent part of the European energy capital,
Aberdeen, where we have the headquarters not just of
the north-east European oil and gas industry, but of a
part of the oil industry that now controls operations
throughout Africa, Asia and other parts of the world.
Developing out of that, we also have the renewables
industry. Indeed, we are becoming a centre for all sorts
of marine energy, including wave, tidal and offshore
wind. All those views need to be taken into account and
it is important that the economic and social arguments
are properly understood.
Mr. Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con): I am pleased
to be a signatory to amendment 3, although it is a great
shame that the issue was not picked up in Committee.
Essentially, the argument is about whether the word
“habitat” goes far enough in protecting our marine
environment or whether it should be added to with the
word “ecosystem”. According to the Oxford English
Dictionary, “habitat” means
“the natural home or environment of an organism,”
whereas “ecosystem” is defined as
“a biological community of interacting organisms and their physical
environment.”
The word “ecosystem” is used to describe natural living
systems. An ecosystem consists of plants, animals and
micro-organisms in an area and their functioning together
in combination with the physical character of that area.
Necessarily, ecosystems are frequently complex. An ecosystem
includes not only the physical habitats in an area and all
the species that live in them, but the full range of interactions
among all the different species in an area. Amendment 3
would add a new paragraph (d) to clause 117(1). Central
to the ecosystem concept is the idea that living organisms
are continually engaged in a set of relationships with
every other element, living and non-living, in the habitat
in which they live.
That has huge legal implications. Friends of the
Earth has obtained legal opinion that argues that the
common fisheries policy can be challenged as a result
of that definition. Under EU law, the EU can forbid
fishing in an area when the prohibition is for the purposes
of both nature conservation and the protection of the
marine ecosystem as a whole. Thus, if fishing were
damaging the fundamental fabric of the marine ecosystem
in an area and a member state wished to protect the
marine ecosystem as a whole, that member state could
establish a marine reserve covering that area and prohibit
all damaging activity.
Mr. MacNeil: I am listening to what the hon. Gentleman
is saying about eco-systems, but does he accept that
they are, of necessity, dynamic with cycles of years and
sometimes decades, so they are not fixed in time? Duff
science often creates the understanding or belief that
ecosystems are fixed in time, and are the same over
years and decades.
Mr. Hollobone: I accept that ecosystems can move
around. I am sure that there is scientific debate about
that, but it would be nonsense to say that ecosystems
must always be in the same place.
Another important point is that this part of the Bill
gives Her Majesty’s Government a power, but not a
duty. It would remain at the Government’s discretion
whether to implement the law if the amendment were
accepted. I see no reason why the Government should
not be brave enough to accept the amendment. They
would not have to implement the measure, but they
would have the power to do so if they were enlightened
enough to accept the amendment.
Ann McKechin: I confirm to my hon. Friend the
Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) that the Minister’s
letter of 22 October will be put in the House of Commons
Library. I also confirm that the guidance on designation
of MCZs will be finalised and published in March
next year.
We have had an interesting short debate, and it is
interesting to note that when we had the debate in
Committee, it finished early. In the short time remaining,
I want to talk about amendment 3. I ask my hon.
Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran
(Ms Clark) to withdraw her amendment for two reasons.
First, it is difficult precisely to define what the phrase
“the marine ecosystem as a whole”
means. Secondly, it is unnecessary, given the construction
of clause 117. I firmly agree with the purpose of the
amendment in that we want to ensure that we take an
ecosystem-based approach to creating a UK network of
marine protected areas. I am pleased to assure her that the
Bill provides for the ecosystem to be conserved as a whole.
It is clear from clause 117(5) that we should not
interpret the provision narrowly. Sites may be designated
to conserve the diversity of flora, fauna and habitat,
and those features need not be rare. We may conserve
sites that simply represent our marine environment.
There is a vital and direct link between that provision,
which relates to individual marine conservation zones,
and clause 123, which places a duty on Ministers to
contribute to the creation of a UK-wide network. The
network must meet certain conditions, including the
fact that it must contribute to the conservation and
improvement of the marine environment in the UK
marine area.
How can the provision not relate to the ecosystem as
a whole if we are bound to consider the conservation
and improvement of the marine environment in the UK
marine area? I cannot understand how, when selecting