Clause 129
Marine and Coastal Access Bill [Lords]
9:00 am
Nick Ainger (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire, Labour)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship on this beautiful morning, Mr. Pope. I have a couple of questions on clauses 129 to 134, which includes byelaws in Wales to protect marine conservation zones. Again, I have been approached by the Countryside Council for Wales, which would like to know whether it would be possible for byelaws to control movement, not just in MCZs, but in the areas immediately outside them. That is with particular regard to the disturbance of seabirds and marine mammals. The MCZ may well have been set up to protect them, but they do move. I am thinking, for example, of the gannets that nest on Grassholm and similar areas. The CCW seeks information and clarity on whether byelaws can be made that are not limited to the geographic location of the MCZs but cover areas immediately outside or some distance away from them. It is seeking to protect a particular species and avoid disturbance.
Huw Irranca-Davies (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Marine and Natural Environment), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Ogmore, Labour)
I shall both disappoint and reassure my hon. Friend. He shows the importance of getting the area—the scope—of the MCZ right, based on the best scientific evidence. Clause 129 sets out the byelaw provisions for the protection of MCZs—for example, to restrict the movement of animals and vessels, to restrict speed and to restrict the anchoring of vessels in an MCZ. There may also be byelaws to restrict the killing or taking of animals and plants in the zone. However, that is within the zone. It is important to get the zone and the network of zones right, so that movement, whether migration of species in the marine environment or the movement of birdlife, can be taken into account. This is a question of designating the geographic limits not only of the individual zone, but of other zones that relate to it. That is where the network becomes important.
As I said, I have to disappoint my hon. Friend in some ways, as we cannot take account of things outside the zone. This clause has to do with the byelaws that apply within a zone. That is where the importance of getting the zone right comes into play. The hope is that if the zones are set up in the right way, they will take account of the factors to which he referred, to the satisfaction of the CCW and others.
Nick Ainger (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire, Labour)
I seek further clarification. The problems that we are discussing are often seasonal problems, particularly for seabirds when they raft up and so on at certain times of the year. They are mobile species and there may be rafts of seabirds a mile or two away, or perhaps even 10 miles away. My hon. Friend the Minister is saying that because there is a specific geographic designation to the MCZ, a byelaw could not apply outside that specific geographic location.
Huw Irranca-Davies (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Marine and Natural Environment), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Ogmore, Labour)
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, but in respect of the seasonal aspect, it is perfectly conceivable—I am not drawing up the MCZs at the moment—that an MCZ could be designated to cover the overlap area that he is talking about and that has byelaws applying to it that relate to the seasonal nature of particular migratory patterns and so on. In effect, we would have an extended MCZ, but byelaws would restrict movement at certain seasons of the year. It is important that the underpinning science takes account not only of the restricted area but of a slightly wider area, in order to reflect such concerns.
Nick Ainger (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire, Labour)
On a point of order, Mr. Pope. Clause 139 refers to the offences of intentionally or recklessly killing or injuring animals in MCZs and so on. I realise that many members of the Committee are concerned about the disturbance element. Would it not be more appropriate to discuss the disturbance element when debating clause 139 rather than clause 140? I seek your guidance, Mr. Pope, because although the offences are listed in clause 139, the relevant amendment is to clause 140.
Greg Pope (Hyndburn, Labour)
I am grateful for that point of order. As the hon. Gentleman said, we will come to that amendment in the next clause. That will be the correct place for us to have the appropriate debate. It is not necessary to have that debate now, given that we can have it in a few seconds.