Clause 117
Marine and Coastal Access Bill [Lords]
4:30 pm
Charles Walker (Broxbourne, Conservative)
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?