Ann
McKechin: I fully agree with the sensible intent behind
the amendment. We have to make sure that we take every reasonable step
to ensure that people who are likely to be affected by an order are
made aware of it. Indeed, the issue is already covered by the Bill. I
draw the attention of the hon. Member for Newbury to an earlier part of
the clause that states that the appropriate authority must publish
notice of the making of an order
“in such manner
as the appropriate authority thinks is most likely to bring the order
to the attention of any persons who are likely to be affected by the
making of
it”. I
assure the hon. Gentleman that organisations such as the RYA, which
shares his concerns, would certainly be included in that
definition. The
clause places a duty on the appropriate authority to do everything it
reasonably can to bring an order to the attention of people and
organisations likely to be affected. It also requires the appropriate
authority to make sure that a copy of the order is available for
inspection, and to provide a copy to people who ask for one. The
provision is all about transparency and is very important, because
protection of MCZs will only be improved when more people are aware of
their existence and appreciate what they are for. We have no wish to
have people unwittingly contravening orders because we have failed
properly to publicise
them. In
practice, I anticipate that the appropriate authority will publish the
order in an appropriate manner, with notifying organisations likely to
be affected by e-mail or letter. Organisations would, I believe,
include the RYA, but they are also very likely to include local
representative organisations which may, in fact, be more directly
affected than some members of the RYA. We do not simply send everything
to everyone, which would be a disproportionate burden; we must allow
the appropriate authority some discretion to make the judgment based on
its experience and expertise of marine matters about who is likely to
be affected. In doing so, it has to act reasonably. I believe the
clause, as it stands, strikes the right note, and I hope that with the
assurances I have given today the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the
amendment. Mr.
Benyon: I am grateful to the Minister for that
clarification. The words that she has put on the record will provide
the necessary reassurance to organisations such as the RYA. I beg to
ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn. Clause
120 ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Clauses
121 and 122 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
123Creation
of network of conservation
sites Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Nick
Ainger: I have been contacted by the Countryside Council
for Wales, which is the statutory advisory body for the Welsh Assembly.
It has raised a number of issues that I would like to bring to the
Committee’s attention. Unfortunately, in the time given, it was
not possible to table an amendment, but I will ask the Minister some
questions.
Clause 123
creates the network of conservation sites, but does not state whether
any of them will be highly protected sites. The CCW is concerned that
some of the sites should be highly protected. It may mean that licensed
marine activity should not be allowed in MCZs, and that neither should
any fishing of any sort take place. In other words we create, as around
Lundy, no-take zones. I would be grateful if the Minister could tell me
if, within clause 123, those highly protected zones can be created to
give the assurance that the CCW is
seeking. 6.30
pm
Andrew
George: I am sure that you, Mr. Pope, will
notice—I am sure that the Minister will have noticed—that
I put forward amendment 40, which has not been selected. Perhaps it was
tabled too late for consideration. The amendment achieves what, I hope,
the hon. Member for Carmarthen, West and South Pembrokeshire was asking
for—that the network should include highly protected
sites.
There may be a
debate around the extent to which such sites might be designated and
what provisions might apply to them. There are a lot of conservation
bodies—not just conservation bodies, but others—who are
concerned that what we may end up with is mediocre protection, which
does not give the highest and strictest levels of protection to some of
the most fragile, sensitive sites of marine biodiversity. Some are
concerned that within the proposed MCZs—rather than separate
from them—we need sites offering the strictest protection for
our most vulnerable wildlife habitats and to allow damaged and degraded
areas to recover. Currently, fewer than 0.001 per cent. of the
UK’s sea area—all of the territorial area—is fully
protected from all damaging activity. Such a network of highly
protected sites should include sites where all extractive and
constructive uses are prevented.
They could be used for long-term monitoring and benchmarking and act as
control areas, unaffected by many human activities, where such levels
of protection are required to promote the recovery of green
eco-systems. So a case could be made for a higher level of protection
within some parts of the proposed
MCZs. The
Minister will say that the problem with that proposal is that it would
create a two-tier conservation system and degrade the effect of the
MCZs. But in my view that is sophistry. It is a debating point. My
problem with the argument advanced by the Government in defence of
their position is that it does not apply to other areas of regulation.
For example, different grades of heritage protection apply to the
schedule of ancient monuments, but that does not diminish the
protection of areas not given the highest level of protection. It also
applies in different areas of planning and the environment. The impact
of MCZs will be diminished only if the MMO, and the bodies supporting
it, do not have the authority of those with an interest in marine
conservation and the impact on the marine environment. That relates
partly to the resources that the Government invest in the organisation
and the respect that it commands among stakeholders with an interest,
from any angle, in marine conservation and the recovery of resources
from the sea—all those industries with an interest in the marine
resource. I
hope that the Minister will reflect on my proposal. No amendment is
available on this matter for us to divide on, but given that it is one
of the totemic issues for many conservation bodies, we might well
return to it on Report. Even though he will have the opportunity to bat
it away today, given that no amendment is available on which we can
divide, I hope that he will reflect on the matter. He should recognise
that such highly protected areas need not be separate from MCZs, but
contained within them, which might encourage him to allow them to
feature in the
Bill.
Huw
Irranca-Davies: In respect of the contribution from my
hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen, West and South Pembrokeshire, I
understand the concerns of the CCW, and I am very pleased to say that
Welsh Ministers have already indicated their intention to introduce
areas that are more highly protected than others. It is probably a
recognition of where we have got to in this Bill that we have a genuine
UK joined-up approach. As he will understand, it is up to them to
decide where to introduce those proposals, but they have signalled that
they intend to do so—as do we.
Let me address
the points that the hon. Member for St. Ives made. As he recognised,
there is no amendment to debate, but this is a good opportunity to
explain further. All MCZs will be jewels, as I referred to them
earlier, but they will be very different; some will have high levels of
protection, whether one wants to call them highly protected areas or
simply acknowledge that they will be highly protected. The Government
have always been committed to ensuring that the Bill provides the right
level of protection for zones, according to the objectives of each zone
and the science that underpins them, which we discussed earlier. I have
absolutely no doubt that there will be high levels of protection for
areas that are particularly fragile or irreplaceable.
Let me make it
clear that the Bill fully enables Ministers to designate MCZs with high
levels of protection. Moreover, that is recognised in the reporting
duty in clause 124(2), which requires Ministers to report to Parliament
not only on the number of MCZs, but on the number of MCZs where any
licensable marine activity such as fishing or taking animals or plants
has been prohibited or significantly restricted. So, it is pretty clear
that we expect there to be areas where activities will be prohibited or
significantly restricted, because we will have to have a reporting
function on that.
I do not want
to fix in law a definition of what highly protected means, because
including such a term in the Bill would require a definition that would
not be right in all cases because of the variety involved. What
constitutes a high level of protection in one area will not be high
enough in another, or, in contrast, may be too high for another. One
size of high-level protection simply does not fit all, and we have
recognised that by maintaining flexibility in the Bill to provide the
appropriate level of protection in each case, based on the
science—whatever that level might be. One important issue that
was remarked on in the other place is that we do not want to end up
with a two-tier system of highly protected MCZs—the Rolls-Royce,
as they were described, that everyone strives for—and a lower
class of MCZs that are not quite as deserving of protection and
attention. They will all be an essential part of our network.
I do not want
to risk any of that happening, but I will give the hon. Member for St.
Ives one assurance, regardless of the fact that we are not debating an
amendment. MCZs will include areas that have not only a high level of
protection, but a high level of protection where extractive industries,
for example, are prohibited. I hope that he and my hon. Friend the
Member for Carmarthen, West and South Pembrokeshire have been reassured
by my comments, not least as the Welsh Ministers have already indicated
their intention to introduce such
proposals.
Nick
Ainger: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation
but will he finally clarify this point? Is he saying that, of the MCZs
or special sites that will form the network, some may be designated as
highly protected areas—appropriately, given the nature of their
environment—under clause
123?
Huw
Irranca-Davies: I understand what my hon. Friend is
asking, but there will not be a two-tier system. There will not be a
title that says, “Here is the Rolls-Royce MCZ, called the
HPA”—or whatever—“and here is
another.” This clause, in tandem with clauses 124 and others,
allows us to designate highly protected areas where there are such
significant restrictions that we will have a duty to report on them and
on how they are progressing. The capacity is there to deliver them, but
we will not call them a Rolls-Royce or a
Mini.
Andrew
George: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation,
although I do not accept the two-tier argument that he advanced. He
drew attention to clause 124(2)(c), which states that the report that
has to be written must
include “the
number of MCZs
designated” in
which the activities he described
“are prohibited
or significantly restricted”.
He says that the report
must contain such information, but the answer in the report may be nil.
There is no requirement in the Bill to ensure that such places are
designated; there is simply a requirement to report on the number of
MCZs in which those activities are restricted. The Minister wanted to
reassure me, but I am reassured only that the measure takes us in the
right direction. There is no requirement to ensure that such places are
designated.
Huw
Irranca-Davies: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. In an
earlier debate, we talked about introducing not only individual MCZs,
but an ecologically coherent network based on the available science. I
challenge not only myself but any subsequent Minister who reports to
the House that they have not designated any highly protected areas to
stand in the House and not be laughed down. The intention is clear, and
it is clear that we have the capacity. We must now use that framework
and get on and do it.
Andrew
George: I am grateful to the Minister. That last comment
is more reassuring than simply pointing me to the measure in the Bill.
I may well take the opportunity to discuss the issue after the
Committee and during the summer recess with other stakeholders. We may
need to come back to the issue on Report.
Question
put and agreed to.
Clause 123
accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 124
and 125 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
126Duties
of public authorities in relation to certain
decisions Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Nick
Ainger: This is another issue that has been brought to my
attention by the Countryside Council for Wales, which is concerned that
public authorities could grant consent for an activity that could
damage an MCZ. It suggests that the same principles and rules that
apply to land-based planning decisions should apply to marine planning
decisions. In other words, if a public authority were minded to grant a
consent that could directly affect and damage an MCZ, it should have to
inform either the UK Minister or a Welsh Assembly Minister, as it would
when dealing with a departure from an existing structure plan or
whatever in land-based
planning. Secondly,
the CCW suggests that there should be a power for the Government or the
Welsh Assembly Government to call in such applications. I would be
grateful for the Minister’s comments on those ideas. They have
merit, because at the end of the day, we rightly restrict the powers of
local planning authorities or national parks that are minded to grant a
consent that is in breach of their policies on the ground that it is in
the wider public interest. We should apply the same restrictions to any
public authority that is minded to grant or permit an activity or
development that could damage an MCZ. I would be grateful for the
Minister’s comments on that
proposal.
6.45
pm
Huw
Irranca-Davies: It may be worth giving an example to
illustrate how it might work. “Public authorities” are
defined in clause 316, and mean a Minister of the Crown, a public body
or a public office holder. For nature conservation, the phrase
encompasses local authorities, Government bodies, Government
Departments, the MMO and local planning authorities. A concrete example
is that it could be necessary in some circumstances for a public
authority to carry out certain specific activities that will not
further the conservation objections for a MCZ. If a local authority
needed to repair a lighthouse in an MCZ with a high level of
protection, the necessary work may not further the conservation
objectives for the site in the short term, so it is important that the
Bill provides for such
circumstances. My
hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen, West and South Pembrokeshire
raises an important point: what happens if the public authorities fall
short or hinder the conservation objectives? We have included
provisions in clause 125 to ensure that public authorities are under a
duty to carry out their functions in a way that best furthers the
conservation objectives for an MCZ. If the statutory conservation body
considers that a public body has failed to comply with the
duty, clause 128 provides that the statutory conservation
body can request an explanation for the failure from that public
authority. Whether it is a local authority or somebody making repairs
to a lighthouse, they can be pulled up and asked to explain why, in
carrying out their work, they did not do their best to protect the
interests of the MCZ.
| 
