View PDF - United Kingdom Parliament

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
125 Marine and Coastal Access Bill 26 OCTOBER 2009 Marine and Coastal Access Bill 126 [Lords] [Lords] individual sites, we could ensure that the network protected sites that represent the range of features present in the UK marine area without thinking about what features and habitats are present in the UK marine area, and the extent to which they are already protected. Linda Gilroy: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, as the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said in Committee, failure to make a designation decision on the basis of scientific evidence would mean, first, that the designating authority did not take account of reasonable considerations; secondly, that they would have acted unreasonably; and, thirdly, that the decision could then be considered for judicial review? Ann McKechin: I am pleased to confirm that that is indeed the case, and I am pleased to put that on the record. Hon. Members will recall that in Committee the Government gave a commitment to use seven principles for creating an ecologically coherent network of sites, including representivity, replication, viability, adequacy, maximum connectivity, protection, and use of the best available evidence. Mr. MacNeil: Will the Minister give way? Ann McKechin: No, I have only one minute left. My other concern about the amendment is more technical. We have had numerous debates throughout the Bill’s passage both here and in the other place about definitions and the precision of language. Unfortunately, the phrase “the marine ecosystem as a whole” does not define the boundaries. It does not define the boundary of an estuary or a bay, for example, or that of the North sea with the Irish sea, and does it include the North Atlantic? That is why I ask my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran to withdraw her amendment— 10 pm Debate interrupted (Programme Order, this day). Mr. Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair (Standing Order No. 83E), That the amendment be made. The House divided: Ayes 158, Noes 246. Division No. 230] [10 pm Afriyie, Adam Amess, Mr. David Ancram, rh Mr. Michael Arbuthnot, rh Mr. James Atkinson, Mr. Peter Baldry, Tony Baron, Mr. John Beith, rh Sir Alan Bellingham, Mr. Henry Benyon, Mr. Richard Binley, Mr. Brian Blunt, Mr. Crispin Bone, Mr. Peter Boswell, Mr. Tim Bottomley, Peter Brazier, Mr. Julian Brokenshire, James AYES Brooke, Annette Browning, Angela Burt, Alistair Butterfill, Sir John Campbell, Mr. Gregory Cash, Mr. William Clark, Greg Clark, Ms Katy Conway, Derek Corbyn, Jeremy Davies, Mr. Dai Davies, David T.C. (Monmouth) Davies, Philip Davis, rh David Djanogly, Mr. Jonathan Drew, Mr. David Duddridge, James Dunne, Mr. Philip Fabricant, Michael Fallon, Mr. Michael Farron, Tim Garnier, Mr. Edward Gauke, Mr. David George, Andrew Gerrard, Mr. Neil Goodwill, Mr. Robert Gray, Mr. James Green, Damian Greening, Justine Greenway, Mr. John Grieve, Mr. Dominic Gummer, rh Mr. John Hammond, Mr. Philip Hammond, Stephen Harper, Mr. Mark Hayes, Mr. John Heald, Mr. Oliver Heath, Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory, rh Mr. David Hemming, John Herbert, Nick Holloway, Mr. Adam Holmes, Paul Horwood, Martin Howard, rh Mr. Michael Howarth, Mr. Gerald Howell, John Huhne, Chris Hunt, Mr. Jeremy Hurd, Mr. Nick Jackson, Mr. Stewart Jenkin, Mr. Bernard Jones, Mr. David Jones, Lynne Kawczynski, Daniel Key, Robert Kirkbride, Miss Julie Knight, rh Mr. Greg Kramer, Susan Lait, Mrs. Jacqui Lancaster, Mr. Mark Leech, Mr. John Letwin, rh Mr. Oliver Lewis, Dr. Julian Liddell-Grainger, Mr. Ian Lidington, Mr. David Lilley, rh Mr. Peter Loughton, Tim Mackay, rh Mr. Andrew Main, Anne Malins, Mr. Humfrey Maples, Mr. John Marshall-Andrews, Mr. Robert May, rh Mrs. Theresa McDonnell, John McIntosh, Miss Anne McLoughlin, rh Mr. Patrick Mercer, Patrick Miller, Mrs. Maria Milton, Anne Abbott, Ms Diane Ainger, Nick Allen, Mr. Graham Anderson, Mr. David NOES Mitchell, Mr. Andrew Mulholland, Greg Mundell, David Murrison, Dr. Andrew Neill, Robert Öpik, Lembit Ottaway, Richard Paice, Mr. James Paterson, Mr. Owen Pelling, Mr. Andrew Penrose, John Prisk, Mr. Mark Pritchard, Mark Randall, Mr. John Reid, Mr. Alan Riordan, Mrs. Linda Robathan, Mr. Andrew Robertson, Hugh Robertson, Mr. Laurence Rogerson, Dan Rosindell, Andrew Rowen, Paul Ruffley, Mr. David Russell, Bob Sanders, Mr. Adrian Selous, Andrew Shapps, Grant Simmonds, Mark Simpson, Mr. Keith Smith, Chloe Smith, Sir Robert Spring, Mr. Richard Streeter, Mr. Gary Swayne, Mr. Desmond Syms, Mr. Robert Taylor, David Taylor, Dr. Richard Teather, Sarah Thurso, John Timpson, Mr. Edward Truswell, Mr. Paul Vaizey, Mr. Edward Vara, Mr. Shailesh Viggers, Sir Peter Villiers, Mrs. Theresa Walker, Mr. Charles Wallace, Mr. Ben Walley, Joan Waterson, Mr. Nigel Watkinson, Angela Whittingdale, Mr. John Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann Wiggin, Bill Willetts, Mr. David Williams, Mark Wilson, Mr. Rob Winterton, Ann Winterton, Sir Nicholas Wright, Jeremy Yeo, Mr. Tim Younger-Ross, Richard Tellers for the Ayes: Mr. Philip Hollobone and Mr. Graham Stuart Anderson, Janet Armstrong, rh Hilary Atkins, Charlotte Austin, John
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:
Page 18 and 19:
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 121 and 122:
77W Written Answers 26 OCTOBER 2009
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?