The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Ann
McKechin): It is a pleasure to serve under your
chairmanship, Mr Pope. As we debate this afternoon, we can all agree
that our seas are a varied and changing habitat and that our
understanding of them is changing rapidly. One aspect is the increasing
effects of climate change on our seas. For example, the temperature off
the west coast of Scotland has increased substantially over the past
few years and, as yet, we are unsure of the exact causes. Is it a
localised effect or related to the Atlantic drift? Only time and
further research will tell.
Our network of
marine protected areas will have to include a range of protection
levels dependent upon individual conservation objectives for the area
and the sensitivity of the features being protected. We cannot give a
blanket indication of the levels of protection. It is not as simple as
saying that a certain feature will always need a given type of
protection regardless of where it arises in our seas. Sites with
similar features may have different objectives: we may want to protect
an eelgrass bed in one place as it is and to allow one to recover in
another place. Thus, the protection required would be different and so
it should be on a case-by-case basis. Trying to predict all the
restrictions for all the activities for all the habitats and objectives
would be disproportionate and not really helpful.
I understand
the aim behind the amendment of the hon. Member for Newbury. I
appreciate the importance for all those with an interest in the sea,
particularly for industries such as the renewables industry, of having
the clearest picture possible of the future shape and impact of our
network. I am also aware that many renewable companies are small and it
is important that we help them to know the costs of what, in many
cases, is a high-risk venture. Several elements of the Bill, primarily
the whole of part 3 on marine planning, aim at giving precisely such a
steer for the first
time,. Part
5 will also add clarity. It sets out the types of features to be
protected under clause 117,
stating: “marine
flora or fauna;...marine habitats or types of marine
habitat;...features of geological or geomorphological
interest.” Those
may be rare or threatened or representative species or habitats.
Although it is covered in the Bill, it may be helpful for me
to expand with some examples. Representative sites such as mudflats,
which provide feeding grounds for animals and are vital for nutrient
recycling, are an example of the types of habitat or species that we
may want to protect. Species may include rarities such as the sunset
cup coral and the pink sea fan.
We may also
designate breeding grounds as marine conservation zones. For vulnerable
species, such as sharks, skates and rays, seasonal restrictions could
apply during the breeding season. Designating orders themselves, and
any associated byelaws, will add further case-by-case
clarity on what conservation objectives have been set and about specific
restrictions in place. That will enable people to take a view on
whether a possible development could impact on an MCZ and on whether it
would be commercially viable. None of that
should come as a surprise. Stakeholders who engage in the regional
projects that we are setting up will not only have early warning of how
activities are likely to be regulated, but a hand in determining what
those regulations are. I do not want to give the Committee the
impression that MCZs will always be in opposition to
industry—far from it. As we heard today, activities within an
MCZ will depend upon the conservation objectives. Many will be able to
co-exist in certain areas without any difficulty. There may even be
instances, and renewable energy installations seem a possible
candidate, where industry and MCZs can be mutually supportive over the
long term. I urge the Committee to resist the amendment. The Bill will
provide clarity about what people may do and where, both in the short
term and in the long term. The amendment would commit us to doing more
than we could reasonably
achieve.
5.45
pm
Andrew
George: A moment ago, the Minister mentioned, as
one of her examples, the pink sea fan, which is extremely slow to grow
and can live for up to 100 years. It is found in rocky reef habitats as
well as in mud beds. Given that such sea flora are extremely slow to
grow, surely it is appropriate that an amendment such as this one be
made. If one of the purposes of the Bill is to protect particularly
vulnerable marine flora such as the slow-growing pink sea fan, that
should be made clear by the Secretary of State. It should also be made
clear that every effort must be made to ensure that there is not a
single trawl within a zone that would damage a very vulnerable marine
flora.
Ann
McKechin: There will be a spectrum of different
protections in each conservation zone. As the hon. Gentleman said, some
flora and fauna will require very high levels of protection in the zone
concerned. We want to ensure that those flora and fauna are clearly
identified as soon as is reasonably possible. However, we also want
flexibility, so that if there is a change in the scientific evidence or
research—there is research in our seas at all times—the
appropriate authorities can react to that change. There must be a
degree of flexibility. That is why we are trying to build that
flexibility into the Bill, so that the regulations are proportionate,
based on hard scientific evidence and flexible, because we know that
our seas are changing and that we have to alter restrictions to fit
that change. If we gave a long list in the Bill itself, we would lack
the flexibility that we need if we want a comprehensive approach to the
protection of our seas. At the same time, including such a long list
would work against the partnership approach that we are trying to
create in our planning, whereby we involve the stakeholders and get
them to come together to work out a series of controls appropriate to
each area.
Mr.
Benyon: The Minister’s response has clarified a
number of points. The hon. Member for St. Ives made an important point
in talking about Carmarthen bay. We are all aware of some of the tragic
loss of environment in that
particular—
Andrew
George: Cardigan
bay.
Mr.
Benyon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for correcting me. In
Cardigan bay, there has been an appalling depletion of the marine
environment due to certain activities related to shellfish. We must
remember that in the context of this
debate.
I hope that
what we can draw out through this amendment and others is an
understanding that certain MCZs will differ vastly even within
themselves. The analogy given to me by Lord Taylor of Holbeach in our
discussions on the Bill is a very good one. He asked me to imagine an
MCZ the size of Devon—I can feel two eyes boring into the back
of my head as I say this—in the sea. There would be an area
within that MCZ that is, for example, Dartmoor and another that is
Exmoor. In the area that is Dartmoor, there could be a particularly
important area of coral reef. The area that is Exmoor could be
particularly important as a spawning ground. The remainder of the MCZ
could have a completely different designation. All those areas require
complex management objectives to be clearly set out in a way that all
interested parties can understand and adhere
to. By
tabling the amendment, I was seeking to create, through guidance,
greater understanding of what the indicative features were. I think
that the Minister has given me sufficient assurance about that, so I
beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn. Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Mr.
Williams: I remember that, on Second Reading, the hon.
Member for Gower (Mr. Caton) proposed that marine
conservation zones should be designated not only according to the words
in the Bill relating to marine flora and fauna, types of marine
habitats and features of geological or geomorphological interest, but
on the basis of seascapes. He looked at that from the angle of chairman
of the all-party group on areas of outstanding natural beauty. He
represents the Gower, which is an area of outstanding natural beauty in
its own right. I believe that the Minister’s uncle at one time
represented that area in the House.
It is often
the seascape that the public cherish most about the sea. Indeed, the
European landscape convention, to which the United Kingdom is a
signatory, defines a seascape
as “an
area of sea, coastline and land, as perceived by people, whose
character results from the actions and interactions of land and sea, by
natural and/or human
factors.” The
constituency of the hon. Member for Carmarthen, West and South
Pembrokeshire is an example of an area where the land is designated as
a national park. There is sometimes a heritage coastline or an area of
outstanding national beauty, and the sea is an important part of that
designation.
Several people
have proposed that we add another qualifying reason to those set out
for the designation of marine conservation zones: the quality of the
seascape itself, especially when it is associated with a coastline that
has already been designated. I know that we have not tabled an
amendment to that effect, but has the Minister reacted to the debate on
Second Reading? Might an amendment on Report produce an encouraging
response?
Andrew
George: I want to intervene briefly as we are having a
brief stand part debate. As I pointed out on Second Reading, the last
subsection of the clause refers to the remains of
“any vessel,
aircraft or marine installation...which are of historic or
archaeological interest.”
Are those words there
simply to pad the legislation? There is tremendous interest in
important historic features for many reasons, and particularly from
those who want to protect war graves, which are often on the seabed
where vessels have gone down following battles around the UK coast.
However, I do not see any mechanism in the Bill whereby those can be
identified, communicated to the MMO and given the proper protection, so
perhaps the Minister could reassure me on that. I can see how
environmental organisations such as Natural England will be able to
advise the MMO on designation, but I do not see a clear structure
whereby organisations concerned with marine archaeology or the
protection of war graves at sea could ensure that their concerns are
communicated,
too.
Huw
Irranca-Davies: I was originally from the Gower, where my
uncle was MP. I now live in Maesteg and my local beach is Aberavon. I
happen to think that the Gower coast and the marine environment off the
Gower is a superb example of excellence. My boys do surf life-saving at
Aberavon; it has some of the best surfing in Wales and the most
glorious beach as a backdrop. However, I also think that the two train
lines that run from the Port Talbot steelworks form another iconic
seascape.
The problem is
defining seascape. It is almost like asking “What is
art?”. I know what it is, because I know what I like. Seascape
is important to us. As has been said, we published a definition of
seascape in the high-level objectives, which refers to
“An
area of sea, coastline and land whose character results from the
actions and interactions of land with sea by natural and/or human
factors.”
The problem is where to
stop. Let me elucidate.
The question
was discussed at length in the other place and raised on Second
Reading. I assure the Committee that the Bill allows for the protection
of seascapes through marine planning and licensing provisions. However,
I do not want to include specific provision for protection of the
seascape in part 5, which deals with nature conservation. We are only
starting to understand what is meant by seascape. We do not yet have a
well-understood and agreed definition, particularly one that would
allow us to identify seascapes that deserved special protection. Would
it be Port Talbot, with those iconic towers in the background and
surfing on the beach or would it be the Gower, with Brandy cove, Fox
Hole, Caswell bay and Rhossili? Or would it be both? That is why I do
not want to include it in part 5.
Our ideas on
the subject will evolve over time, as we come to understand more, so it
is vital that we do not enshrine early ideas in legislation. However,
there are many projects looking into the nature of seascapes. The
Government take the issue seriously. We are not there yet, but I assure
the Committee that we want to make progress. For example, English
Heritage is considering the characteristics of historical landscape in
those parts of the marine environment where aggregate
dredging
takes place, and Natural England recognises the need to develop a
seascape characterisation of the English coastline in its European
landscape convention action plan. I can show how
important a subject it is, but one that is not appropriate here, by
quoting a pertinent point made by Lord Greenaway. He
stated: “This
is much too broad, at this stage. I appreciate that the Government are
looking at this in the longer term, but seascapes are something that we
did not look at in the pre-legislative scrutiny committee and it is too
early to get too involved in this at this moment in
time.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 May
2009; Vol. 710, c.
1020.]
Mr.
Swire: I understand that only one coastline in the United
Kingdom has received UNESCO world heritage site status—the
Jurassic and Triassic coastline from Dorset to Devon. Why cannot that
be taken into account in the Bill? Surely if it is good enough for
UNESCO, it is good enough for the
Government.
Huw
Irranca-Davies: Indeed. As we bring forward licensing and
development proposals; as we consider the interplay between the coast
and the marine environment, which is what the Bill is about; as we look
at the development of coastal paths, which we will come to later; and
as we consider the development of the marine planning system, only then
will interested bodies such as national parks and consortiums engaged
with special areas of designation, become involved and factor that in.
However, we are talking predominantly about marine conservation per
se.
I want to
speak briefly about heritage, which was the subject of a good
discussion in the other place. The Government remain committed to
heritage protection legislation. We require specific and comprehensive
heritage protection. We require one Bill to deal with terrestrial and
marine heritage, but we do not have that at the moment. I do not want
to widen the scope of this Bill, as I wish to maintain our focus on the
natural environment in part 5. However, we have worked closely with the
Department for Culture, Media and Sport to ensure that the Bill will
complement future heritage protection legislation, should there be an
opportunity.
We published
the high-level marine objectives on 20 April. That document talks
specifically about the marine environment’s “natural and
cultural heritage”. The high-level objectives will underpin the
development of the marine policy statement, which will then be applied
in more detail through marine
plans. 6
pm The
Government also included two amendments on Report in the other place to
clarify that historic and archaeological characteristics should be
considered in the marine planning process, and that the Secretary of
State may take those considerations into account when designating MCZs.
Those amendments were warmly welcomed in the other place as affording
the right level of protection in the Bill. I think that we all agree
that more comprehensive protection of the cultural marine heritage is
required, and we look longingly to see a heritage protection Bill being
brought forward as soon as parliamentary time allows. Meanwhile, we
have reached a very good conclusion on heritage in this Bill, and I am
very thankful to Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, Lord Davies of Oldham and
other peers for all their hard work on this
issue. Question
put and agreed
to. Clause
117 accordingly ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
| 
