Mr.
Swire: I well remember the incident to which the hon.
Gentleman alludes. In my constituency, we were fortunate not to suffer
too much pollution from the Napoli incident. There was some pollution,
but it was not too bad. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that an
MCZ designation would not prevent pollution in such circumstances. What
would prevent it, and would be a preventive measure anyway, is the
creation of safe havens around the UK coast where ships in distress
could go, for which Brussels has been calling for some time. I would
argue that Lyme bay should not be one of those safe havens. That
measure would
help.
Nick
Ainger: I accept that the trouble might be that as a safe
haven is presumably a relatively sheltered area, there might be the
unfortunate coincidence that it has protected species and one ends up
trying to make a sensible and balanced decision. I would be grateful to
hear how the Minister sees the balance being struck, because that is
the issue. People out there believe that purely because there is a
reference in the Bill to socio-economic issues, they will automatically
override the conservation issue. The Minister has to assure us on that
point.
Huw
Irranca-Davies: It is a great privilege to follow those
contributions, because this issue really goes to the heart of the Bill.
There has been a lot of concern about it and a lot of questions need
answering, which I will try to do now. It is also a privilege to follow
my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen, West and South Pembrokeshire,
whose constituency in many ways will have to be a model of how the
process works. With the intensity of oil and gas, and liquefied natural
gas coming in, together with the potential for renewables, the still
viable fisheries as far afield as Cardigan bay, and the sea fisheries,
sea angling and intense recreation in parts of my hon. Friend’s
constituency—we see these things around our coast—what
better example is there of the way
forward? The
premise of the Bill is that first, we have the great win of a complete
marine planning system, and secondly, we have these jewels within it
that we call marine conservation zones. As has rightly been pointed
out,
and as I hope I said earlier and will therefore reiterate now, these
zones are based on science. Science underpins MCZs. Those jewels are
multifaceted, multicoloured and of different shapes. My hon. Friend the
Member for Reading, West has quoted from the House of Lords Joint
Committee report on the draft Bill, so let me quote the
Government’s response, which sums the issue up
well: “We
agree that the designation of MCZs should be based on the best
scientific evidence, and this should take account of factors such as
representivity, uniqueness, vulnerability and sensitivity, but we need
to avoid having a strict set of criteria which requires Ministers to
designate MCZs purely on the basis of scientific considerations. In
addition this should be an opportunity for
stakeholders”— all
the stakeholders that hon. Members have referred
to— “to
suggest areas that are of particular importance to
them. We
expect the regional
projects”— the
four that we have talked about, one of the most advanced of which, the
Finding Sanctuary project, is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the
Member for Plymouth, Sutton and is doing fantastic
work— “to
take account of the socio-economic value of different areas
and”, this
is the important thing,
“potential
synergies between environmental protection and economic activities, to
ensure that the MPA network achieves its ecological goals in a way that
minimises socio-economic
costs”, which
I think we would all
want, “and
maximises the benefits. For representative habitats and species we
expect there to be scope to make choices between equally suitable
potential
sites.” What
underpins this is the science, the special nature of the
sites. 4.45
pm Linda
Gilroy (Plymouth, Sutton) (Lab/Co-op): Does my hon. Friend
nevertheless understand the point made by many of the organisations he
has just mentioned? They worry that as set out, the Bill will have the
same result as the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981: only three small
sites have been designated in 25 years. That is the point made by the
hon. Member for Newbury. Can my hon. Friend tell those of us who share
those worries to some degree how many marine conservation zones he
would expect to see come about in the next five
years?
Huw
Irranca-Davies: I can tell my good and hon. Friend that we
intend to bring forward not just individual MCZs but our proposals for
a proper, ecologically coherent network by 2012. We said that on the
record in the other place. We have said it in guidance and we will
continue to say it. We want the momentum behind this to continue, so
that we do not simply have individual sites but sites where species can
spawn and reproduce. With climate change they can move from site to
site and so on. I could go further.
Several
hon. Members
rose—
Huw
Irranca-Davies: I will give way in a moment but I want to
finish on one further sentence from the Government’s
response:
“For
areas containing particularly rare, threatened or otherwise important
species or habitats, we would expect ecological considerations to carry
greater
weight.” So
depending on the sensitivity and fragility, where it is not possible to
have replicated sites and there are only one or two sites, we would
expect the ecology to carry greater weight. However, in response to the
points made about the balance, where choices can be made the
socio-economics should be taken into
account.
Andrew
George: A moment ago the Minister mentioned Finding
Sanctuary, whose representatives I have met on a couple of occasions.
It is a project partly or wholly funded by DEFRA to work with local
environmental organisations and to talk to other stakeholders about
introducing proposals for the future designation of marine conservation
zones or a zone around the coast of the south-west in Cornwall and the
Isles of Scilly. In doing so, it is engaging with the socio-economic
considerations at the stage of identifying the site. I am becoming
slightly confused as to whether the proposals themselves, as being
introduced under an initiative that the Government clearly support,
have integrated the consideration of socio-economic considerations at
the very earliest stage. When the project brings forward its own
proposals, will further socio-economic considerations be brought to
bear at that
stage?
Huw
Irranca-Davies: Finding Sanctuary is the most progressed
of all these projects. The critical thing with Finding Sanctuary has
been how well it has done in engaging a wide variety of stakeholders
with different interests and getting them together. It does not discuss
how it brings forward this ecologically coherent zone in its area until
it has the science in front of it. That science will be put to it by a
scientific panel, and then it will have to engage with us in some
detailed and difficult
choices. I
want to return to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for
Plymouth, Sutton about the Wildlife and Countryside Act. I understand
her concern about our not delivering in that regard. Apart from our
commitment to introducing this ecologically coherent network by 2012,
the key difference between the Wildlife and Countryside Act and this
Bill is that the latter imposes a statutory duty to designate zones,
and a duty on the Secretary of State to get on with it and contribute
to this network. Anybody who tries to resile from that will see that
the Bill says that we will do it, and have a duty to do it. I challenge
anybody who follows me to say that we will not do so. There are other
issues, but I will turn to those in a
moment.
Linda
Gilroy: I think it fair to say that that is a
significant reassurance. Can the Minister, without giving a figure,
give some sense that there will be more than three small sites? We have
already mentioned Lyme bay, Carmarthen, the areas in Cardigan bay,
Lundy island and the sites off my own constituency for starters. Can he
say something a little more robust about what he expects to happen in,
say, the next five
years?
Huw
Irranca-Davies: Yes, I can, and I am glad to see the
support generally in the Committee for making the right decisions in
the right areas. I hope that that view is shared more widely in
Parliament, because we will
undoubtedly bring forward other sites similar to Lyme bay. We cannot get
away from that fact. We have sites that are so fragile, special and
irreplaceable that they will have to be protected to that degree. There
will be sites that will, in effect, be highly restricted. We had a
debate in the other place on highly protected areas. The Bill provides
the power to deal with a range of issues, including that level of
protection, but let us not let that detract from the
Government’s other obligations that tie in to the marine
conservation zone network. Not least of those are our obligations under
the habitats directives to bring forward special protection areas and
special areas of conservation. I hope to be the Minister who introduces
such proposals, which will form part of this approach, very soon. There
will be overlaps with marine conservation zones, and there will be
difficult decisions to take. However, where we have special sites, they
will have to have a special level of protection as
well.
Martin
Salter: Those of us who might see the inclusion of
phraseology such as “socio-economic factors” as a Trojan
horse and an excuse not to designate marine conservation zones can take
great comfort and reassurance from the Minister’s words. May I
press him further? My name is attached to the amendment we are
discussing. I am minded to vote with the Government, but I could be
persuaded not to. I was encouraged when he quoted the very good
response of the Joint Committee on this point. It said that the
designation decision would be based on the best scientific factors.
That is excellent, but that will not appear in the Bill and that is
really the thrust of the amendment from the hon. Member for Newbury.
The Minister may need to take some advice on this, but could the
wording that is on the record as the Government’s response and
view be built into guidance to reassure us all? If so, I suggest to the
Minister that we would then have earned our corn this
afternoon.
Huw
Irranca-Davies: Yes indeed. We have brought out a fair
degree of guidance already, but if we can go further we would certainly
be minded to do so. It is important to provide clarity and certainty
for people, so that they know that we mean it when we say we are going
to bring forward marine conservation zones. There is going to be a
variety of MCZs. There will be ones that replicate what goes on in
other zones. They will be able not only to protect on an individual
site basis, but to allow for the replenishment and regeneration of
species, and to have that network. I am more than happy to take that
point away and look at how we can strengthen the guidance we have
already introduced; but I think I can also turn to the amendments and
give some clarification.
Linda
Gilroy: Before the Minister does that, can he continue
with the theme that he outlined—that there is a duty in the Bill
that did not exist in the Wildlife and Countryside Act? Does that
therefore mean that if there were grounds to suggest that too few sites
coming forward and they were too thin, that would be judicially
reviewable?
Huw
Irranca-Davies: May I come back to my hon. Friend on that
in a moment while I seek some inspiration? I will not forget the point
and will return to it.
Let me turn to
the nitty-gritty of the amendments. Amendment 15 would ensure that MCZs
are designated on scientific criteria alone, with the socio-economic
consequences of site designations being considered only when there is a
choice of two or more MCZ locations of equal scientific value. The
Government consider that existing conservation legislation has become a
constraint on our ambition for marine conservation. It does not give us
the scope to do all that we want to do, which is to create an
ecologically coherent network of marine protected areas. So the Bill in
its current format, including clause 117, provides the tools for
achieving an ecologically coherent network. That network will include
MCZs designated under the Bill, European and Ramsar sites and sites of
special scientific interest. Most importantly—my hon. Friend the
Member for Plymouth, Sutton has just referred to this issue—the
Bill will place a duty on Ministers to designate MCZs so as to
contribute to this ecologically coherent network. That will put in
place a network that works best for conservation based on science and,
where appropriate, socio-economic
needs. My
hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West rightly pointed out that the
original draft of the Bill stated that we “shall” take
socio-economic factors into account. But MCZs are different—they
are the jewels. There “may”—not
“shall”—be occasions when we take those factors
into account. However, site designations will be based fundamentally on
scientific evidence. Science is the fundamental and first consideration
when sites are proposed. We expect that on a number of sites the need
for conservation will be clear, and such sites will be designated to
provide the required protection.
It is also
clear to me, however, that the best protection will also be achieved
through consensus, and this is where stakeholder engagement comes in.
We must be able to take into account, when relevant, the impact of
designating MCZs on people’s lives and livelihoods. That will be
crucial in assessing the longer-term effects of MCZ designations and
our wider renewable energy targets. For example, when a representative
site is designated, the Secretary of State will often have more choice
regarding potential locations, and a decision could therefore be made
that takes into account
socio-economics. Let
me turns this on its head. Socio-economics are often
considered in opposition to science and conservation—as a
consideration undermining conservation —but in some
cases, socio-economics will help and encourage designations. For
example, Blakeney Point, on the north Norfolk coast, has a large seal
population—about 500—that, in its own terms, is
important. However, it is also vital to the local tourist industry. The
science might suggest that such an area could benefit from designation
as an MCZ, and the socio-economics might point in the same direction
for the long-term stability of the tourism industry. They could really
underpin the designation. Like other hon. Members, I do not want to
pre-empt any decisions on regional work carried out around the
coastline, but it is important to make the point that we do not want to
lose the ability to factor in such positive socio-economic
considerations. I repeat that the Government, with the help of the
Committee, are determined to make a step change in the protection of
the marine environment. That is why we placed the duty on Ministers to
designate these MCZs. We believe that the approach in the Bill is the
right one, so I ask the hon. Member for Newbury not to press amendment
15.
Amendment 16
highlights the value of the new MMO and the importance of taking
account of social and economic factors, where appropriate, in decisions
to designate MCZs. I share the sentiments behind the amendment, but the
Bill already achieves its desired effect. The power to take account of
social and economic factors when considering whether to designate MCZs
will enable us to achieve our conservation objectives in ways that
minimise the impact on sea users and maximise synergies, where they
exist.
My hon. Friend
the Member for Reading, West mentioned recreational sea angling and
MCZs. I can see MCZs and socio-economic interests working positively
together in that respect, because in many cases MCZs will benefit
anglers by providing new or improved opportunities to pursue their
sport in a way that does not impact on the biodiversity of the flora
and fauna; they can co-exist. Part of the essence of what we are
considering is areas where those uses are
compatible. 5
pm
| 
