Clause 117
Marine and Coastal Access Bill [Lords]
4:00 pm
Huw Irranca-Davies (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Marine and Natural Environment), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Ogmore, Labour)
I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an exact figure, but I can tell him that our knowledge today has significantly advanced from what it was a year or two ago. There is not only the work that the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science is carrying out; many marine agencies, including academic institutions, are mapping the sea bed and bringing forward science that is surprising and challenging us. That is the way it should be. Regional projects will have the science put in front of them, and they will work through it and take matters forward. The MMO chief scientific adviser undoubtedly has a role in that, as he has a role to input upwards to the Secretary of State. The definitive guidance has to be that of the nature conservation advisers, which are JNCC and Natural England. Putting the focus on science is absolutely right, and it is there in clause 117.
As I have stated, if these decisions were not based on good science, they would be wide open to judicial review. On that basis, while empathising with the thrust of the amendment, I urge the hon. Member for Newbury to withdraw it, because his first criterion is satisfied and as for the second, the chief scientist can have an input but is not the appropriate person to sign this off.