Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL]

I hope that I do not stray too far from good order if I trespass a little beyond the amendments grouped with Amendment A114. The amendments grouped with Amendment A118 cover some of the ground touched on by the grouping of Amendment A114. I am interested also in a later clause, Clause 119, to which Amendment A157 has been tabled and which covers much the same ground. Perhaps I may say a few words about networks, because it seems convenient to take in the matter here, although I recognise that the same issues are raised, albeit with slight variations, in other parts of the Bill. In one of its briefings on the draft Marine Bill, the Wildlife Trusts urged that, in its final form, the Bill should, ""ensure we will have ecologically coherent networks of protected areas, selected on the basis of scientific criteria alone"." That point has already been made in earlier debates by my noble friend Lord Kingsland and others. It was strongly supported by the Joint Committee on the draft Bill, which stated on page 54 of its report: ""We support the opportunity for at least some MCZs, particularly where they are highly protected, to be designated areas to improve our scientific understanding both of the marine environment and of the effects of human activities on marine biodiversity"." Although science has moved a long way in recent years, I am sure that scientists in this sector would be the first to agree that there is still a great deal to be learnt. Our knowledge of marine ecosystems is still developing. The existing highly protected areas of our marine life cover a very small part of the world’s oceans. Marine reserves where all fishing is prohibited are few and far between. I was very impressed, as I think I have mentioned previously to noble Lords, by the book by Professor Callum Roberts called The Unnatural History of the Sea, published in 2007. If noble Lords have not had the opportunity to read it, I strongly recommend it; it is absolutely fascinating. I take this opportunity to quote briefly from page 374. It states: ""The twentieth century heralded an escalation in fishing intensity that is unprecedented in the history of the oceans, and modern fishing technologies leave fish no place to hide. Today, the only refuges from fishing are those we deliberately create. Unhappily, the sea trails far behind the land in terms of area and quality of protection given"." Later, referring to protection on land, the book says: ""Twelve per cent of the world’s land is now contained in protected areas, whereas the corresponding figure for sea is but three-fifths of 1 per cent. Worse still, most marine protected areas allow fishing to continue. Areas off-limits to all exploitation cover something like one five-thousandth of the total area of the world’s seas"." That, as noble Lords will recognise, is a very small proportion of what should be in place and what we hope the Bill will help to come into place. The small degree of protection now granted to fish was highlighted simply and straightforwardly by the Wildlife Trusts in its briefing for the draft Marine Bill, in which it said: ""If only 0.001% of the UK’s land area were protected, that would equate to a single nature reserve the size of Kensington Gardens"." That is the area that is now being protected for our marine animals, which highlights what a mass of work there is to be done and, therefore, arising out of that work, what a lot there will be to be learnt. The Partnership for Interdisciplinary Studies of Coastal Oceans highlighted the need to have protected areas in a network of reasonably close proximity, so that not only fish but also larvae and eggs can move from one to the other, which is very important. It states: ""In a marine reserve network, young and adults travelling out of one reserve may end up being protected in another reserve. Marine reserve networks provide more protection than a set of individual, unconnected reserves"." As was highlighted in the Marine Information Network’s briefing of February of this year, the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution emphasised in 2004 the importance of designating areas as marine conservation zones to improve our scientific understanding both of the marine environment and of the effects of human activities on marine biodiversity. The great goal for which we should all aim and in whose achievement I hope that we will be helped through the medium of this Bill will be the establishment of fully protected areas which enable fish to grow in size and, as a result of that, to increase the rate of production and quantity of eggs laid, so helping to preserve the species, which otherwise will not happen. I am worried that we are limiting ourselves to the 12-mile zone. It looks to me as though the EU is dictating the course of future events, rather than our own national Government and Parliament. We should be going at least 30 miles out or even further, to 200 miles out into the oceans, to ensure proper protection for marine life. I hope that the amendments in this group and the next, and to Clause 119, will get a sympathetic hearing from the Minister, whose heart is, I know, in the right place, and that he will see that the Bill has the imperative written into it of establishing a network of marine control zones.