2 earlier: Mark Williams I, too, welcome this popular, long-awaited and much-needed Bill. During my last four years in this place, there has been a growing sense of frustration among my constituents at the fact that, despite perceived infringements in Cardigan bay, the protection promised by status such as "special area of conservation" has meant very little.
Ceredigion adjoins Cardigan bay, which is an extremely important marine site. It is home to populations of bottlenose dolphins and harbour porpoises, and is designated as a special area of conservation under the EC habitats directive. I want to focus on two concerns that have arisen in the past two years, and I hope that the Bill, through marine conservation zones and other such provisions, will give my constituents the guarantees that are required.
In 2006, two unnamed companies applied for licences for exploratory oil and gas drilling for three blocks inside or adjacent to the SAC. I do not want to go too deeply into the evidence of the harm that such drilling would cause—my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) mentioned the disturbance to marine mammals—but concern was expressed by many organisations, such as the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society, Friends of the Earth, Friends of Cardigan Bay, George Monbiot and, eventually, the Countryside Council for Wales. A local group, "Save our Sea", was formed to fight the plan to drill. I pay tribute not just to its work on that campaign, but on its continuing work to preserve Cardigan bay's marine environment.
After an extremely hard fight—letters flowed back and forth, petitions were presented in this House and there were ministerial meetings—the then Department of Trade and Industry opted not to grant licences because not enough was known about the impact on the dolphin population. What astonished me then, and still does to this day, is how little SAC status seemed to mean in protecting the bay. However, I emphasise that I welcome the Bill and look forward to the protection that I hope it will afford to areas such as mine.
The blocks in Cardigan bay were delayed so that appropriate assessments could be carried out and the environmental issues examined further, but there was no certain presumption against drilling and very little attention seemed to be paid to the strictures of the habitats directive. I am concerned that the position regarding oil and gas licensing remains unclear in the Bill, and I ask the Minister to reflect on how the principle of conservation can be equated with the economic benefits of oil and gas. That is an important point. As is clear from the speeches of Members throughout the House today, we are still looking for that balance between socio-economic demands and legitimate conservation demands.
My second concern regarding the lack of protection in Cardigan bay has grown in the past year as a result of the difficulties we have faced in attempting to curtail large-scale industrial scallop dredging. I should state right away that there is no issue with small-scale scallop fishing. There is still a small functioning fleet in Cardigan bay, and it is local fishermen who are among the worst affected as the dredgers churn up the sea bed, damaging local habitats and biodiversity, which in the long term could have a devastating effect on sustainable fishing in the bay.
Things have got out of hand, and existing mechanisms seem unable to deal with the problem. A colleague of mine on Ceredigion county council was told by local fishermen that out on the bay, before the season was closed, there were some 70 dredgers. That is many more than the number of licences issued by the "local"—I use the word loosely—sea fisheries committee, the North Western and North Wales sea fisheries committee. There is a perception that as legitimate action has been taken in Lyme bay, and in the Isles of Scilly in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives, the problem has been shunted around the coast of the United Kingdom.
We have had some difficulty pursuing the matter, as responsibilities are divided between the UK Government and the Welsh Assembly Government, so I very much welcome the devolution of all fisheries responsibilities to Wales under the Bill. However, I echo the concerns raised by the hon. Members for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen), and for Carmarthen, West and South Pembrokeshire (Nick Ainger), about resourcing.
I welcome the fact that sea fisheries committees will be abolished. I regret to say that I do not feel that sustainability and environmental concerns were always at the forefront of their deliberations. That has not always been the fault of individual members; it is more to do with how committees were constituted and the fact that immediate fishing activities were the focus of their decisions, rather than long-term goals on sustainability. As the power is to be devolved to the Assembly Government, I will confine my concerns to the new fisheries regime for Wales.
The Assembly Government have indicated their desire to bring that power in-house, and I have no qualms about that, provided they are able to retain and use necessary expertise to manage fisheries. However, some campaigning groups, and indeed some people in the Assembly, feel that the Bill should be more explicit in ensuring that the Assembly Government promote sustainable fishing. I know that Elin Jones—our Minister for Rural Affairs in Wales and the Assembly Member for my constituency—is committed to doing that. I have no doubt that she will ensure that the Assembly Government promote sustainability in fishing, but I would be interested to hear what Ministers have to say about discussions held with her. Would they be happy to accept that duty, and are the Assembly Government happy with the extent of the powers that they are being given?
The establishment of marine conservation zones is a welcome step; none of us should understate it. Having listened to the debate, I am now more inclined to move towards the graded approach advanced by the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert), who spoke for the Conservatives. I am perhaps even more supportive of the line taken by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives, who said that there should be a separate category of added protection. I have no doubt that that will resonate strongly with my constituents who have raised concerns.
I appreciate that economic and social factors must be considered as part of the broader marine planning system, but I support the assertion that ultimately there should be some highly protected areas that are, in effect, no-go zones for damaging activities. It is the fear of some, including me, that because of the way the legislation is written, it will allow hugely significant environmental and scientific sites to be destroyed because of an overriding, compelling economic argument. I would contend that some sites are simply too important for any considerations to override their protection. I do not think that it is the Government's intention that economic arguments should ultimately trump the most important environmental ones. I hope that they will consider that higher added level of protection when the Bill is in Committee.
There have been concerns about clause 117(7), which allows the appropriate authority to
"have regard to any economic or social consequences"
when designating a site, critically at the point of designation. Site designation must be carried out on a purely environmental and scientific basis. It is one thing to consider the economic impact of individual activities, but designation must be made on the basis of what is in the zone, and what we need to protect. The effect of the clause currently is to suggest that no matter how compelling the environmental argument for designating a site, it could be overridden. That is a dangerous route to go down. I hope that the Government will consider that point.
I think that it was the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) who made the point about ensuring sufficient time for consideration of the Bill; that is important. We are talking about a highly complex issue. The eyes of a vast number of people are on the House as we consider the Bill to ensure that this once-in-a-lifetime Bill is afforded the status it requires and that our marine areas are protected in the way they should be.
I live 200 yd from the sea. The advice from the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall), who is no longer in the Chamber, was that we should all go to a coastal area and breathe in the air—I do that every week. I would commend doing so to people in the landlocked constituency of Sheffield, Hillsborough, and to others. My constituents are at the forefront of promoting eco-tourism. We have a beautiful coastline in Ceredigion and west Wales, and I recommend it without any hesitation to hon. Members.
3 earlier: Angela Smith No, I am going to move on; I have got only 12 minutes.
The provisions before us on coastal access are long overdue, and the Government are to be congratulated on introducing proposals that will complete the work started in the 1949 Act. As was pointed out, 72 million leisure visits are made to the coast each year, and coastal walking is more popular than visiting the beach, which is not surprising, given how cold our climate is, yet there is satisfactory access to only 50 per cent. of our coast. I correct what I said earlier: the average length of continuous access to the coast is 2.5 miles, but the longest point of access is not that much greater. In any case, the argument stands: one reason why people do not enjoy the coast as much as they should is the very limited access to it.
The coastal access duty set out in clause 290 and the establishment of an all-England coastal route are therefore broadly to be welcomed. Again, however, small amendments could be made to improve the Bill. As it stands, it places a duty of fair balance on Natural England in establishing coastal access. The rights of landowners and occupiers need to be balanced with the rights of those who wish to access the coast—nobody is ever going to deny that—and yet no requirement will be placed on Natural England to consult, or consider representations from, bodies representing user groups and the public. That means that implementation of coastal access could—not necessarily will, but could—unduly favour the interests of landowners and occupiers.
I understand that the Minister in the other place gave a commitment to look at this issue and the regulations governing consultation, but I doubt whether the majority of Members of this House will rest until we can be sure that a fair balance has been properly achieved in establishing coastal access. I would also argue that, as is suggested, if objections are made to coastal access proposals and referred to a planning inspector, they should be assessed using the same criteria as used by Natural England and the Secretary of State.
There are also concerns about considering the use of seasonal ferries as part of coastal routes, not because they are unsuitable but because access potentially grinds to a halt when the ferries are not operating. The Bill must allow Natural England to set alternative routes for periods of non-operation. Equally, we need the Bill to set out clearly the right of coastal access on islands that are connected by ferry to the mainland. What, after all, is the difference between accessing Holy Island on foot over the causeway—when the tide is out, of course—and accessing the Isle of Wight by ferry? Both are regularly accessible, yet the Isle of Wight is not included in the Bill. That is wrong. The Isle of Wight is internationally known for its beauty; it has been written about by numerous writers. We need to correct this anomaly in the legislation.
Finally, the Bill needs amending to recognise the difference between parks and gardens. At present, both are exempt from access provisions, yet it must be recognised that a walking route can pass through a large park—particularly one in which no building or dwelling is on site—without compromising privacy. Excluding parkland could lead to large inland detours similar to that found on the Solent way. The detour on the Solent way is 15 miles long, and something therefore needs to be done about this broad-brush exemption, which runs the risk of compromising far too deeply the principle of coastal access. Further consultation was promised in the Lords, but it has not been forthcoming so far. We need to separate the definitions of parks and gardens in the Bill, and to reduce the exemption to gardens only.
I wish the Bill well as it goes into Committee. I cannot serve on the Committee, unfortunately, due to a summons for jury service back in Sheffield; but while I am doing my duty as a citizen in the Crown court and focusing on the task in hand, I will sit comfortable in the knowledge that the Bill is in the capable hands of the ministerial team, whom I know are listening intently to the debate. I hope that they will take seriously the amendments that have been consistently suggested throughout today's debate.
