The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss
amendment 16, in
clause 119, page 80, line 41, at
end insert— ‘(c) the Marine
Management Organisation on social and economic factors regarding the
designation of MCZ
sites.’.
Mr.
Benyon: We seek to clarify the process of designation,
which is one of the most important parts of the Bill. The first part of
the process should be to identify which sites could qualify on the
basis of pure science. That should be the first criterion. The next
stage should be to pare those down—using socio-economic factors,
if required, at that point in the process. Those factors need not
mitigate against designation as there will be plenty of examples in
which science-based conservation factors will live happily with
socio-economic requirements, not least elements of tourism such as
eco-tourism. Taking socio-economic factors into account at the start of
the process would or could restrict the ability to secure an
ecologically coherent network of marine conservation zones. The problem
with seeking marine sanctuaries under existing legislation, principally
the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, has been that very few sites
have been designated purely because socio-economic considerations were
applied too early in the
process.
4.15
pm We
are also concerned about how the Bill will sit with the Marine
(Scotland) Bill, which states that socio-economic factors will be
considered only when choosing between two sites of equal value. Our
amendment would make the UK Bill reflect the position in the Scottish
Bill. In our debates this morning, the Minister said that there should
be coherence between England and Scotland in terms of the MMO, so
surely that principle should apply across the designation process. The
socio-economic consequences of designation should not compromise the
desirability of designating two or more areas of equal status, or the
ability to achieve an ecologically coherent network of sites.
Socio-economic factors should be considered in the management of a
site, and therefore every MCZ will need a management plan.
Amendment 16
is designed to place a duty on the MMO to provide advice on social and
economic matters directly to the Secretary of State to ensure that
there is balanced consideration of the three pillars of sustainable
development during the MCZ designation process. That process commences
with four regional MCZ projects, which involve a range of interested
parties assessing options for MCZs within their region, having taken a
range of evidence to assist their analysis. Their proposals then go to
Natural England, which rationalises the lists and forwards proposals to
the Secretary of State with its own advice and supplementary
information. The Secretary of State will then consider and decide how
to designate the proposed MCZs—or not.
Given the
statutory conservation duties and ethos of Natural England, it will not
have all the required skills and expertise properly to assess the
social and economic
factors, and neither is it likely to consider such matters to be of
equal importance. Given the recent Government amendment in clause 2(2),
strengthening the MMO’s role to allow it to “take any action
which it considers necessary or expedient for the purpose of furthering
any social, economic or environmental
purposes”, and
provided that the MMO has the right balance of skills and expertise, it
could play a meaningful role in advising the Secretary of State on the
economic and social implications of designating individual MCZs. That
would ensure that there was balanced consideration of all key factors
when deciding whether proposed areas are suitable for designation as
marine conservation
zones. Martin
Salter (Reading, West) (Lab): As I said this morning, it
is worth looking back at the extensive scrutiny undertaken by the Joint
Committee, on which at least four hon. Members in this Committee
served. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Newbury has not gone down
the road urged by some non-governmental organisations. The amendment
that was listed but not selected would delete all reference to
socio-economic activity, and was based on flawed thinking. There are
socio-economic activities and there are socio-economic
activities—some activities are entirely cognisant of good
environmental practice. Creating MCZs can create jobs and environmental
opportunities. Wind power can create jobs, as can fishing opportunities
that were hitherto unavailable due to the pillaging of our coastline by
the commercial sector. It is therefore good that, collectively, we have
backed away from that and stood firm on the principle that
socio-economic factors have a role to play.
There is a
danger that we could be making the detail a point of principle when it
is not. I am slightly uncomfortable with amendment 16, which creates a
requirement to advise of socio-economic activities, and the way in
which it fits with amendment 15, which tells the authority to take
socio-economic activities into account only where MCZs are of equal
value. I was initially attracted to the idea, but there is a danger
that we could constrain decisions that we might wish the MMO and the
Secretary of State to enact.
The Joint
Committee said in paragraph 115:
“We
recommend that the scoping of potential locations for Marine
Conservation Zones should be based on the best scientific evidence,
taking into account their representative nature, uniqueness, threat and
sensitivity.” That
is fine—and there is no disagreement with that—but we
went on to say:
“We
also emphasise the need to pay regard to existing international
obligations...the socio-economic costs and benefits of MCZs, and
the ability of zones to accommodate other forms of use without harming
their integrity, once the potential sites have been
identified.” A
firm position was not taken; there was a recognition that
socio-economic factors had to be weighed in the balance. I think that
the Minister can avoid the confrontation that was evident this morning
in the robustness of his response. We want to be assured that good
science is the primary consideration when designating MCZs, and that
other factors follow. There may be socio-economic factors that make
good environmental sense, are of primary importance, and apply to two
MCZs of equal value, but do we really want to inhibit what we can do in
circumstances that are not very remote? The Minister needs to address
that
problem. I
pay tribute to the Government for moving their position from the one
that they took in the original Bill. Hon. Members will remember that it
said that socio-economic factors “shall” be taken into
account. We are now in a different place. We are where the Joint
Committee wanted us to be, as we are saying that they
“may” be taken into account. It is not the function of
this scrutiny—and my goodness the Bill has been
scrutinized—to restrict the opportunity to do the right thing
further down the road. My message to Opposition Members—if the
Minister is able to answer the legitimate concerns and points that have
been raised—is that we may be able to keep the consensus that, I
hope, will run through the rest of the
debate.
Andrew
George (St. Ives) (LD): As other hon. Member’s have
said, it is pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr.
Pope. May I explain to the hon. Member for Reading, West the purpose of
the amendment that I tabled but which was not selected? On Second
Reading, in column 719, I argued that socio-economics should be taken
into account, but should not contradict the fundamentals of sound
science, because that is the basis of recognising the need to protect
something particularly fragile and unique. However, at the point where
one is implementing a plan to protect a said site, socio-economics need
to be considered. The voices and considerations of the users of the
marine resource should at least be heard at that stage, to see whether
there are ways in which their activity operates that are not damaging;
we want to find out whether they can amend the way in which they go
about their occupation so that there is less damage. The designation
should fundamentally be based on sound science and as many objective
measurements as possible, and we should not be diverted from that
aim.
Mr.
Hugo Swire (East Devon) (Con): Is the hon. Gentleman
satisfied that there is enough protection in the Bill for a place such
as Lyme bay, in my own constituency? It is often used as a safe haven,
most recently by the Napoli, and there is some economic benefit in
that. However, the adverse environmental impact from a spillage of
oil—such events used to occur when there were ship-to-ship oil
transfers—on what is a UNESCO world heritage site must be
balanced against such activity. Is he satisfied that the checks and
balances are there, and that places such as a UNESCO world heritage
site can be factored in, rather than just the marine-based
environment?
Andrew
George: I do not have the hon. Gentleman’s intimate
knowledge of the particular circumstances of Lyme bay, on which I am
sure he is articulate. Am I satisfied that the balance has been struck?
The answer is that I am not certain, but I should have thought that
that was the purpose of the
clause.
Huw
Irranca-Davies: Perhaps I may assist by clarifying the
position. While much of the focus is understandably on marine
conservation zones, as part of the ecologically coherent network that
we are talking about, we will ensure that we will include Lyme bay, the
Natura 2000
sites and other locations that may come along. MCZs do not stand
entirely alone as an entity—they will take into account sites of
special scientific interest, estuarine environments and so on. Indeed,
that is a coherent way to manage the different interests in the marine
environment, and to recognise that where we have special habitats, we
protect them very carefully
indeed.
Andrew
George: Certainly, the question of European designations
and coastline UNESCO sites is relevant. One of the points that I had
made in this morning’s sitting was about terrestrial planning
and the relationship between that and the designations and protections
that are available on the coastline. They are within the provenance of
democratically elected local authorities either to protect, or to
ensure that they take measures to respect the integrity of the kind of
sites that the hon. Gentleman is talking about. It is important that
local authorities and the locality are able to engage in the process
itself. That is the aspect that, with regard to the arguments that I
was advancing this morning, needs to be further
developed. The
primary point advanced by amendment 15 is something that I raised on
Second Reading. There are two types of marine conservation zones.
First, there are MCZs that have a unique feature that is not replicable
anywhere else; they are fragile marine sites that justify their
designation as MCZs in their own right. Some such areas will coincide
with or complement the sites mentioned by the Minister a moment ago in
terms of their Ramsar, or other European or international, designation
and protection. Such sites should be given special protection and we
should go to great lengths to achieve
that. 4.30
pm The
second group of sites are part of a network, and their purpose, as I
understand it, is that they are representative of a particular type of
marine habitat and biodiversity. Amendment 15 relates to such sites. If
we are to consider socio-economic factors at the designation stage, it
would be appropriate for them to be brought to bear on such sites. I
also believe that socio-economic considerations need to be brought to
bear at the implementation stage, which comes after the designation
stage, and relates to the application of the individual protection
programme, as well as the measures proposed by the MMO and other bodies
to advance the protection of marine conservation zones. The designation
stage is simply one factor in the process; it is the measures taken
within each marine conservation zones that will be relevant to the
affected industries and coastal
communities. The
hon. Member for Reading, West queried whether amendment 16 was
necessary. If amendment 15, which I support, is successful, I do not
think that amendment 16 would be necessary and it would be curious for
us to continue to debate it. The issue under discussion is important
and is very much the nub of the issue if we want to achieve a
confluence between ensuring that we maintain economically sustainable
coastal communities on the one hand, and ensuring that we, as an island
nation state, tackle environmental challenges on the other. Getting the
balance right between all of those interests is important, and it very
much focuses on this clause. I hope that the Minister will take into
account a
measured amendment that would clearly improve and clarify the nature of
how socio-economic considerations will be
addressed. Mr.
Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con): I will make a very
short contribution. The Bill is in danger of being subsumed by jargon.
I do not really know what “socio-economic” means, to be
perfectly honest. Is it possible to have marine conservation and create
jobs? Of course it is. It is possible to have increased recreational
fishing opportunities, increased diving opportunities and increased
tourism in conservation areas, so of course conservation is compatible
with creating sustainable employment. I become concerned, however, when
“socio-economic” strays into the area of big
infrastructure
projects. Over
the next three weeks, I am going to bore the Committee tirelessly with
my concerns about the Severn estuary. The Minister said that things
will be based on good science. There is virtually no more important
ecological site in Europe or the world than the Severn estuary, but I
am concerned that socio-economic considerations will be used as a
Trojan horse to overturn all the good science relating to the Severn
estuary and to ensure that a dam is built across it, with all the
damage that that will cause the natural marine environment.
If I could ask
one thing of the Minister it is that he break down what the word
“socio-economic” means. Does it mean that marine
conservation takes a back seat when that is in the national interest?
Alternatively, does it mean that we will have a brave Bill and that
future Governments will be brave, do the right thing by the marine
environment and sometimes say no to major infrastructure projects of
national importance?
Nick
Ainger (Carmarthen, West and South Pembrokeshire) (Lab):
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Pope.
I want to comment on a couple of the points that have been made and I
look forward to hearing what the Minister says in response.
First, the
hon. Member for St. Ives was absolutely right to talk about the need to
establish a balance. All colleagues have been contacted by
non-governmental organisations that are concerned that the inclusion of
socio-economic issues will be used to overturn the conservation
elements. That is the issue, and that is why those organisations are
concerned.
As someone
whose constituency has some of the most precious habitats and special
areas of conservation, as well as major energy developments and huge
volumes of shipping, I understand those concerns. However, the fact
remains that despite the accidents and incidents, and despite the
intense industrial activity on that part of the coast and the seas
immediately offshore, we still have these precious areas, and they are
still protected. There is therefore no question but that a balance can
be struck.
The Minister
needs to give those who have raised such concerns with us an assurance
that conservation is the No. 1 issue, but there will be
circumstances—we have to be clear about this—where
important socio-economic issues will have to be addressed.
For example,
there is a range of issues in Cardigan bay, which has a major school of
common dolphins. There is a clash with the scallop dredging there,
which is substantially damaging the sea bed. Through the food
chain, that will undoubtedly have an effect on dolphins. That may well
be addressed. One way of addressing it—I am not suggesting that
this is the solution—involves offshore wind farms. There may be
pressures to introduce offshore wind farms, and a wind farm might
address some of the issues in the area. To return to
the point made by the hon. Member for East Devon, my constituency saw
the Sea Empress oil spill in 1996, when 72,000 tonnes of crude oil were
deposited on the coast of my constituency without my permission. Again,
we must be clear and honest with people that establishing marine
conservative zones will not prevent a Sea Empress or a Napoli, because
pollution travels. The Sea Empress was entering the Milford Haven
waterway when it ran aground, but the spill covered an area of hundreds
of square miles.. I am sure, knowing that area, that there is likely to
be an MCZ designation. However, that area is an awfully long way from
where the incident occurred, so we must make it clear that MCZ
designation will not prevent the impact of a Sea Empress, or even of a
Napoli.
| 
