I very much welcome the Bill. Although it is true it has taken some time, it is a complicated measure and I appreciate that consultation has been necessary, particularly with the devolved Administrations. That should be taken into account. We must get the Bill right. It deals with vital issues of marine management and coastal access, and I warmly welcome those measures.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be aware that although improvements have been made to the Bill, for which he and his team should take great credit, NGOs have nevertheless expressed reasonable concerns that can be addressed. They could be summarised as concerns about legitimate socio-economic activities in our seas and the equally legitimate need to preserve a vulnerable and sensitive ecosystem, of which very little is protected. The Government should be congratulated on the steps they took to introduce marine nature reserves and to protect areas such as the Darwin mounds in international waters, which is a first for the European Union. The Government led the way in that, and the Bill similarly leads the way.
Unfortunately, our coasts and coastal waters are crowded places where activities such as aggregate dredging, offshore renewable energy, oil and gas, the fishing industry and many others take place, so the right balance must be struck. A consistent approach is needed, and the designation of SSSIs is part of that. On land, the criteria for the designation of a SSSI is purely scientific, as we have heard, although the management takes into account an element of socio-economic activity. There is a strong argument for consistency in the designation of marine conservation zones.
It has further been argued that there ought to be a differential between marine conservation zones in terms of the most vulnerable and sensitive areas. That suggestion is worth considering.
Clause 117(7) makes it obligatory to take socio-economics into account. I do not criticise the fact that the Bill recognises that there are a number of different demands on our seas, and I do not think it is impossible to strike the right balance in respect of offshore wind farms, for example. An offshore wind farm could form an important part of protecting a sensitive marine conservation area. The two could be complementary.
I worry that if we do not get it right, the Government could be making a rod for their own back, and a rod for the marine management organisation. Any organisation that feels that it is facing restrictions will seek to use the clause to stop the designation of marine conservation zones or to weaken and undermine them. That needs to be looked at.
Marine and Coastal Access Bill [Lords]
Proceeding contribution from
Elliot Morley
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 23 June 2009.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Marine and Coastal Access Bill [Lords].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
494 c714-5 Session
2008-09Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 12:24:21 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_569688
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_569688
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_569688