7th Jan 2009 – The Deep
Meeting with Huw Irranca-Davies

Diana Johnson (DJ)
Huw Irranca-Davies (HID)

Speech

[Recording starts]

HID: … chemical works, oil refineries and power stations all co-existing with a vast array of wildlife and natural landscapes. That’s the crux of it in a nutshell. How do we better manage that relationship? How do we balance this age-old question which has been around since the sixties and before: conservation with economic growth. How do we build what everybody wants – a vibrant economy and a fair society, while at the same time, achieving our environmental goals? In part, the answer, I would suggest to you, lies with the Marine and Coastal Access Bill. We all call it the Marine Bill – the Marine and Coastal Access Bill. The first of its kind in the world. It is unashamedly ambitious, it is ground-breaking. No other country – no other country – has attempted such a strategic approach to the enormously complex issue of marine managment.

What will it do? It will provide streamlined regulation and better protection for marine wildlife. It will establish an integrated planning framework for our seas, for our coasts, for our estuaries and it will provide a much-needed step change to help us manage what we do in our seas. Now locally, this step change will come in the form of the North Sea Marine Protection Area – a project that I know is close to Colin’s heart here at The Deep. His team, alongside Natural England, the JMCC and the Yorkshire and Humber Seafood Group make up the project’s board. It’s their work in the coming months and years that will centre on developing a vision and a plan for the North Sea, that brings as many people on-side as possible, and that has been the totemic… the real crux of this process with the Marine and Coastal Access Bill is everybody on board with it. That’s been vitally important. Achieving a consensus which makes a break with the past and the way that the marine environment has previously been managed. Something that establishes a strategic and a – I know it’s a horrible word – but a genuinely holistic approach to the regulation of the North Sea. That is what we are trying to do.

This type of approach has already borne fruit. The Charterness[?] and the [???] Habitat scheme is a real life example now of what can be achieved when developing a site sustainably. I know that Associated British Ports’ initial plans for developing the port terminals at Immingham and Hull were met with resistance from local conservation groups, but after quite extensive consultation, a pioneering legally binding agreement was made, committing the developers to implement a series of measures that would offset the impacts of their work in the port and as a result, 68 hectares of brand new habitat were created, replacing the 22 hectares that were lost. I think this type of approach stands at odds with what has happened in the past. For too long, the seas around our island have been policed, regulated and overseen by a complex series of arrangements – a myriad of arrangements. DEFRA, other Government departments, local authorities, public bodies, harbour boards, all have management and regulatory responsibilities for our coastal waters. Where do you turn? Under the new act, we want to underpin the decision-making process with a robust legal framework that allows people to make the right choices. In essence, we want to make it easier for everyone to use the marine environment, whilst at the same time, meeting our long-term goals for our coastal waters. And I should say at this point, this is not about reinventing the wheel. We know that a lot of things that are in place at the moment in fact work very well. Now is not the time to pull the entire system apart and start all over again, but what the Bill will provide is much better co-ordination and a better overall management of what is already in place. It will also help us to understand much better what activities our coastal waters can support and to couple these requirements with our environmental needs.

This Bill will help us use the marine environment more efficiently by thinking about what activities are compatible when put together. So for instance, when marrying off-shore wind farm developments with major shipping routes, the Marine and Coastal Access Bill will enable us to find room for both. Finding room for the shipping routes and exploiting renewable energy opportunities that our windy coast and our seas can offer. In the future, we also want to provide people with greater certainty around the decision-making process. At the moment, various licenses are needed to build or place anything in the sea. These decisions are currently taking place on a case-by-case basis without a strategic view and I know this from ones I’m dealing with at the moment. The Bill will improve dramatically this rather haphazard approach.

The proposed framework will also provide a structure in which marine plans can be made. This will allow us to make use of limited marine resources by pulling together compatible uses and taking the long-term view. It will allow us discover the best economic, environmental and social use of particular sites. I pause deliberately at that moment just to clarify. It’s environmental and social and economic. That’s been the whole basis of this. It will improve regulatory process by helping developers out there in selecting suitable sites for projects before the licenses are granted and the Marine and Coastal Acccess Bill for the first time will also give people the freedom to walk the length of the English coast allowing everyone to enjoy what it has to offer. A classic example of what we are trying to achieve here can be found just up the road at Flamborough Head.

Flamborough Head with its dramatic cliffs, its rocky shores. It makes up the most northerly outcrop of coastal chalk in the country. And that’s why Natural England, who I have been with throughout this day on different projects, by the way. Only a few hours ago, I was in my jeans and my wet weather gear, laying a corduroy path through a peat bog.

Heckler: Why did you change?

HID: That’s right, indeed! But Natural England, who are quite critical to this, and a number of other agencies will develop a management plan that at its core looks to effectively manage the area of Flamborough and its activity, making sure that this spectacular site not only provides good access to visitors and tourists but also allows local fishermen and farmers to continue their work in the area, while at the same time keeping a weather eye on Flamborough’s wildlife. That’s a very good example.

I think examples like this show us that we need to make sure that our plans are flexible enough to avoid having a significant impact on people’s livelihoods or property. They are understandably concerned. The provisions within the Marine and Coastal Access Bill will do this. It will take into account the views of local interests and stakeholders on the best routes for their part of the coast. It will be sensitive to potential impacts on businesses and farming and on people’s privacy round their homes.

We also recognise that there are particular issues of health and safety and security around commercial docks. One of my first visits as a marine and natural environment Minister was to a dredging operation within London and actually through that dredging operation, out from it was access to the coast. And they were welcoming this Bill. They could see the way that it would work. We do need to take these issues into account so that we don’t provide access that would be viewed as inappropriate or unsafe.

So as you can see, there is an enormous amount of work to be done. This is only the start. It has taken this long to get the Bill here and into the Queen’s Speech and up and running. It’s going through the Lords now. There is a lot more work to be done. When we have it in place, there will be a huge amount of work to be done and it will be done by people who engage in this. It will be done by those stakeholders who will take it on from here and make it a reality.

We’re not going to shy away from the challenges that face us within this. The challenges that we have to rise to. In my comprehensive school, we used to have a motto and I apologise – I don’t normally come to Hull or somewhere like Hull and use Welsh at all, but the motto was “Mi ddylwn, mi allaf, mi fynnaf” – “I should, I can, I will”.

Heckler: We’re more used to Latin.

HID: Well it’s simply to say… I’m not a great Latin scholar. It’s simply to say that these challenges, these environmental challenges, economic, social challenges, issues around access to the coast – yes, they are there – they are challenges, but the whole nature and the whole direction – the journey that this Bill has been on has been bringing people together behind this because I think everybody is now recognising that this is the way forwards. We will rise to these challenges. We should do it, we can do it, we will do it.

The marine environment, the sea, is a massive resource. It belongs to everyone. Only by working together in this way can we achieve a marine environment that is good for nature, good for recreation and good for business. Without a Marine and Coastal Access Bill, we will risk severe long-term damage to our marine ecosystems. If we don’t act now, we are likely to have to put in place more severe restrictions in future. This will cost us a lot more, not only financially, but socially and environmentally as well. So we should be under illusions: a new act will offer something for everyone. It will bring better coastal access. It will bring streamlined regulation. It will bring better protection for marine wildlife and it will bring valuable livelihoods for those who make a living off the sea and it will extend the frontiers of marine protection and it will help us achieve this vision of a healthy, productive and biologically diverse seas for everyone to work in and enjoy.

And I’d just like to end by saying, as I began, how fantastic it is to be in this location actually talking about this. This is my first foray out of the dark corridors of Westminster – of the Commons and the Lords and speaking to colleagues down there with the Marine Bill and all the intricacies of it. It’s good to get out and actually speak to you and hear your comments here as well and from such a wonderful location.

The Deep here has played a very active role, not only in pushing behind this Bill but also co-ordinating support for the Marine Reserves Now campaign. I think it’s the most letters I’ve ever signed as a Minister in response to that campaign.

When the Bill becomes law, your legacy will be the various Marine Conservation Zones that will be set up around this island of ours. It will be a legacy that will help conserve marine habitat species for future generations to enjoy as well as ourselves.

Thank you very much.

[Applause]

Questions

DJ: What we’re going to do is… if we take three questions at a time and then Huw responds, and we’ve got until about half past seven, so we’ve got an hour, so hopefully everybody will have a chance to say what they want to say. Do you… should I…?

HID: Go on, you chair the…

DJ: OK, then I’ll chair this and if people could perhaps put their hand up if they’d like to speak and it’d also be nice if you could say who you are and if you are from an organisation or a business, that would be helpful. I’m going to take this lady in the front row because just before I take her, she’s the lady who actually sort of nudged me in to inviting Huw along today, so perhaps you’d like to introduce yourself?

Haris Livas-Dawes: Yes, I’m Haris Livas-Dawes and I’m a lobbying officer for Marinet. Marinet is the marine arm of Friends of the Earth and on your seat, you’ll find what our idea is of an appropriate Marine Bill. You spoke about the Bill being ambitious – in our opinion it is not ambitious enough and one thing that’s missing here is – you talk about Marine Conservation Zones. These are not the Highly Protected Marine Reserves that we think are necessary to save the seas and I’m sure you’ve read The Economist this week. They had quite a long article about the perilous state of the world’s seas, including our own and in that article they’ve actually reccommended the solution being bigger and better Marine Reserves and Marine Conservation Zones aren’t the bigger and better… what you really need is Highly Protected Marine Reserves where no exploitative activities are going on in these zones. I’m sure your experience with the Marine Conservation Zones that you already have shows that they’re not protected enough, so I’d like your comments on where in this bill we could have Highly Protected Marine Reserves.

DJ: So, would anybody else like to comment? The gentleman there…

???, the Ramblers’ Association – but maybe my comments should come a little bit after the questions on the reserves, but I would like to make some comments about the Coastal Access at some time if I may…

DJ: Do it now…

Ramblers’ Assoc: What I’d like to say… I was a trustee of the Ramblers’ Association when the CRoW Act came through in 2000, I think we really… the Ramblers’ Association, representing walkers in this country really greatly appreciated what this Government did – it had taken since 1949 to get that and I think we feel exactly the same about this Coastal Access being part of the Marine Bill – and I’ve been told that it’s going to the Lords next week – some amendments put forward by the Lords, some of which are critical of Natural England and I would like to say how much the Ramblers support the stance of Natural England in this bill and I would say the CRoW Act, during the time it went through the Lords, there were some … there was one particularly critical amendment that went through that affected the amount of land accessible on the chalk – the Minister mentioned the chalk. In fact, only about 50% of the land was accessible in the end because of this amendment – I don’t know how it got in – so I think what I’m saying is these amendments are very important to watch what actually is put forward during the time it’s going through. I would like to thank the Minister for the Marine Bill – I think we greatly appreciate especially the access part from the walkers’ point of view. Thank you.

DJ: OK, I’ll take this gentleman.

Russ Gabbot, chairman of the Shipping Committee of the Hull and Humber Chamber. I’ve a few points to mention – firstly on the interface between the sea and the land – I don’t see any mention in the Bill of coastal protection or land reclaimation mentioned at all. Also, you mentioned wind farms. It specifically states in the Bill that oil and gas fields won’t come under the jurisdication of the Marine Management Organisation. Will wind farms come under the judisdiction of them? OK, that’s my questions.

DJ: OK, would you like to take those three?

HID: Yeah, there we go, brilliant. Thank you for those diverse … Wonderful to respond to the first question from someone else with a double-barrelled name! I was always told “Never stand for Parliament with a double-barrelled name – you’ll never get elected,” but, er, thank you for your question and the issue of whether the Bill is not ambitious enough. I recently – the book I put down about a fortnight ago was one you’re probably familar with – “The Unnatural History of the Sea” – a fascinating book, a good read, very interesting indeed. I know the arguments to put something on the face of this Bill. The Bill is a framework Bill – the Bill is deliberately a framework Bill, let me explain why. The essence of where we are with the marine environment – where the science currently sits, where the science is currently emerging not only in our own seas by globally as well means that the challenges we face are going to be increasingly illuminated every year. It’s going to change. We’re also going to have changing demands on the sea environment. So the question becomes: is it right for a Minister on the face of the Bill to say either we will have a certain type of Marine Protection Area which will be a completly no-go area and I’m telling you that’s what it’s going to be and not only that, I’m telling you here’s the proportion of the seas that should be covered on it. Or do you actually put the framework in and the nature of this Bill is a framework Bill that allows all the stakeholders here – *all* the stakeholders to actually engage in that and there’s plenty of science out there, as you say, which has indicated – some people are much of the opinion now – and certainly the postcard campaign that I’ve recently signed thousands letters on is focussing on this issue of 30% should be Marine Conservation areas and then it’s what should those be? Should they be complete no-go areas? I honestly don’t think it’s right for me as we take a bill through in six months to say here and now, this will be it, here’s the prescriptive limit – that’s it – stick at that and that’s your lot there. What I should be doing is actually giving the framework so that people like yourselves can actually sit down in the following six months and twelve months and say “In the North Sea, in the Celtic Sea, in the South-West, etc. what is the appropriate level? Is it 30% or is it 25%, is it whatever. Where should the no-go areas be? Where should the areas be as you come out of the Humber, where there’s all that traffic that I’m talking about – where it’s actually much more complicated than no-go areas. It’s actually to do with the very detailed over-planing of many uses to get it right. So the whole nature of this Bill is predicated on a Minister actually giving the tools to people to get on with it. With the science, with balancing the social, economic and environmental factors within it, but yes, with a background knowing that unless we actually do something to protect properly, and, you know, when I actually speak to fishermen as well, I have to say, fishermen will say this to me as well – they have an interest in making sure that whatever stocks they are fishing are going to be healthier and bigger and fatter and larger next year than they are this year. I’ve just come out of three months of fisheries negotiations in Brussels. I think there is a real change among everybody that’s partly been helped by this Bill to recognise that, but I don’t want to be the Minister that simply says here today, that’s exactly what it’s going to be and here are going to be the no-go areas and so on. What I would say is that we have a real commitment and it has to be a shared commitment from everybody to actually get on and identify those areas that should be preserved areas, that should be complexly managed areas and so on. And we won’t be doing it all overnight either, that’s the other thing – we simply don’t have the ability to simply flick a switch and say there are some areas I’m anticipating that because of the intensity of their use will be right up there at the top level and there are some areas that are so fragile that they will be right up there at the top. But I think this argument will go on and I welcome the ongoing argument as this goes through the Lords and also in the Commons because I think it’s right that we are pushed on this. But if you want my… you know, my frank opinion is I would prefer to give the tools to people and say “Now, get on with it,” rather than me as a Minister from Westminster say “This is what I think is right.” Also, by the way, the other thing is, as you’re aware, this also fits into the other International aspects of Natura 2000 and so on – other Marine Protected Areas as well so it doesn’t sit in isolation – we want it to work together.

Gentleman from the Ramblers’ Association, thank you for your welcome of this Bill and the work that’s been put into it, and the support that everybody’s given it. The two issues in the Lords – let’s be quite … – I said in my opening remarks that we want to make sure that this is done sensitively – we don’t want to ramrod this down people – but we think that there should be an England Coastal Path, that has integrity, yes? Now on that basis, the two things that we are being pushed on in the Lords at the moment are over appeals and over compensation. I’m pretty clear as a Minister that whilst we… I mentioned one example there in coastal access – there are good examples already of where working sympathetically with people, we’ve got very good coastal access. Wales, as you know, has got a different way, Wales is done on voluntary agreements, but they’re looking with interest at us – you know, my discussions with the Welsh Ministers, they’re looking with interest. Because they recognise that they may come to some points where they have to then work a little bit harder and perhaps have a legislative tool. But on compensation and appeals, we don’t want to turn this Bill into a lawyers’ charter – we do not want to do that. We don’t want this simply to be funding … I’ve got nothing against lawyers…

DJ: Good, because you’re sitting next to one!

HID: Yeah, but you’re a full-time MP. I don’t want you going off and doing part-time appeals on this. So we’ll work through this in the Lords, but we will not give way on the principle that we have under this of having a proper coastal path with integrity. What I do want to do is make sure that both in the Lords and in the Commons we have support. If this had started off in the Commons, it might be slightly different as well. I welcome the fact that it’s in the Lords, because some of these issues come to the front very early on. We knew that they would and we will work with those concerns to find a way through, but we won’t conceed on the fundamental aspect of this, which is a joined-up England-long coastal path. We have issues on parks and gardens that we need to get through.

Ross on the shipping – this Bill links in to… and there’s a timescale issue here as well with the Planning Bill. If this Bill had come before the Planning Bill, we might be having a slightly different discussion at this point. However, the Planning Bill has gone through and within the Planning Bill and curiously, the Floods Bill, which might well be appearing in draft come the summer, which will be one of my things as well, those do talk about coastal protection and planning guidance and so on and land reclamation. There is within this Bill the necessity to have due regard backwards now to the Planning Bill because the Planning Bill has come first, this Bill now has to have cogniscence of what is going on on terrestrial planning. There is also, by the way, in the way the Bill is structured in the local planning aspects of this, a necessity for any stakeholders on not just in the marine environment, but on that coastal area as well, to actually engage, whether it’s in the consortiums that bring forward the plans and so forth, so local authorities, AUMBs, national parks, etc. who have been saying “Well, couldn’t we have national parks extended out into the sea?” well actually, they will be able to buy in to this Bill and the Bills will have regard to each other. There might be some tweaking to do as this Bill goes through to get that legally tied down, but they will. And the wind farms is one of those points because in terms of energy, there’s what some people might describe as an arbitrary cut-off point in terms of wind farm applications, as you know, yeah? OK. And that will remain as it currently is, but in terms of what we are talking about, in the different interests such as the conservation needs, I’ve had some interesting discussions with conservation groups recently on the potential possibly of wind farms actually to benefit in terms of conservation, curiously. But certainly, wind farms do fall within the Bill, although they’re not specified but this Bill will have to have regard to other policy planning guidance, the Planning Bill, etc. etc. as well. As I say, if this Bill had actually come a year before, which I know a lot of people … or two years before, as people would have wanted to have seen, then it might be slightly different worded.

DJ: OK, so we’ll take another round of three. So I’ll take that gentleman in the second row, and then I’ll take Sonya, and then I’ll find someone else. So that gentleman first.

Peter Byron: Thank you. My name’s Peter Byron and I work for Associated British Ports and the first thing I’ll say is: thank you for the kind words you said in your opening statement.

HID: I didn’t know that you were here!

Peter Byron: I was going to say that the cheque’s in the post! I think that I was very pleased that you mentioned those two initiatives at Chartness and Berwick because they are very good examples of how industry has learned in the past few years to work with conservation bodies to not try and come head-to-head but actually to come up with win-win solutions and English Nature were very praise-worthy of the initiatives at the time and … models of sustainable development and best practise so against a background of the Marine Bill, I think the first thing that is worth saying from the industrial point of view not just in my industry but in lots of other marine industries, there is already a good background of good working practises and I think we need to see those built on and I think we need those used and learned from in the way that the Marine Bill is taken forward. You know, I’m not saying that the marine industry has a clean bill of health, but there is an awful lot of good practise that we could and should be using and that as regulations are set up and streamlined, we should be learning from that.
The second thing I want to say, and I’m not going to speech too much, but the second thing I want to say is that industry has really strongly welcomed the Bill and I think that’s something that certainly we made clear to your predecessor. I chair a group called the Seabed User and Development Group and we met Jonathan two or three times and we welcome the Bill. We’ve also prepared joint statements with Wildlife and Countryside Link to show that industry and conservation can work together and I’ll make sure you get a copy of that statement. But I really want to concentrate on three main points, and I’d like to hear your views in that there are a number of things we are saying that the Bill could deliver and which we’d like to see some work on and going back to one of your comments, we’re very keen to be involved with you, or your civil servants. The first one is that if there is to be better regulation and more streamlined regulation, we really – and I’m not criticising – we really need to see better regulators as well as better regulation. You know, you yourself said that there is quite often a fairly considerable overlap at the moment and I think that the Marine Bill, particularly with the setting up of the MMO offers real opportunities to streamline their approach and linked to that is the opportunity to say if we understand better the nature of impacts associated with development, the scale of it perhaps, there’s a greater opportunity to say well how those are judged is dependent on scale as well. At the moment, we can spend a lot of time looking at trying to resolve some very very tiny issues, which is time-consuming, expensive and overall frustrating, so there is a degree of scale of risk that we would like to see looked at and linked to that is the idea that the more certainty we have about what we are looking for in the marine environment, the better and shortly before your appointment, DEFRA put out some consultation on marine objectives which I think the world heartily agrees we do need, and I think what we are saying in industry is if you can make those objectives more certain and including conservation objectives in there, then we can plan developments that will help to achieve those objectives. If we have conservation objectives and simply say we need a fully functioning integrated ecosystem, then we’re going to be back to the sort of trench warfare situation. The more certainty we can have in those, the better. And the third question I would like your thoughts on is I’m not aware of anyone, certainly in the industrial groups that I represent through the SUDG and certainly through the ports industry who says there shouldn’t be marine conservation zones. We all welcome that. I think nobody disagrees with the need for more environmental protection, but one thing we are asking for is if they are going to be established, there will be some activities which will be damaging and certainly those need regulating but better science and you yourself referred to science, better science will allow us to understand what industries are potentially capable of having an impact and we can use that information also to say can those impacts be mitigated. In other words, if there are industrial activities that are not having an impact, like shipping, etc. that are not having an impact on the marine conservation zone, we really don’t need to see them excluded because that will just simply be an economic failing without any environmental improvement. So those are three sort of small points, but overall, we very much welcome the Bill. Thank you for what you have said so far.

DJ: So I’ll take Sonya next.

Sonya: Yes, I’m also one who has a double-barrelled name, which I hardly dare to mention. I’m a geographer at the University of Hull, retired now, and I welcome this Bill hugely because when I did my PhD on marine pollution and the marine environment at a global level in the 70s, people were calling for it then. I’m getting on a bit, but I used to be a very keen under-water person, but as a political scientist, I really would like to support this concept… I want to oppose this concept of no-go areas and too much protection. I think as you rightly pointed out, the negociations of what is and should be protected and what purposes we should be at the local, regional and the various stakeholders. Otherwise, you will get so much conflict that nothing will happen and you just, you know, and this all depends on what I call an exaggerated environmental alarmism, which is fashionable at the moment, you see, and even when I did my work the ocean was dying and the forests were dying and the world was coming to an end because of that, politicians know they have to be careful of these exaggerations. Here comes my question now. It’s a jolly good question. What will the role be – and you have much more detail than me – what would be the role of local government? How is a national Bill coping with the European Union and its tendency to have its fingers in everything, including the fisheries treaty and you know, I know a bit about that and on the one hand there’ll be Europe and on the other hand there will be local powers maybe lost and you’ve got quite a lot of politics coming towards you, haven’t you?

DJ: There’s one more – this gentleman at the front.

Bill Rigby: Hello, I’m single-barrelled – my name is Bill Rigby. With Haris, I am part of the Marine Reserves campaign of Friends of the Earth and I would like to ask a supplementary to Haris’ question and certainly, the issue of working in collaboration and harmony, rather than promoting conflict and the expression “trench warfare”, I think is very important and I know you have to balance these siren songs of all these three agendas – economic, environmental and social – which is an extremely onerous burden, but I would like to… in response to your response to Haris, I would like to mention a couple of things: one is that the Marine Reserves lobby, so to speak, is not an isolated institution. Within the UK, we already have got strong alliances with Greenpeace and the Marine Conservation Society and the Co-operative Wholesale Society, who are a big purchaser of fish, and secondly internationally, there is now a growing what I would call clamour of statements around the need for this particular innovation in marine management. Only yesterday, the late lamented, well almost late lamented George W. Bush set aside as completely exclusive no-take zones half a million square kilometres of sea, which is two-thirds the area within the jurisdiction of the UK exclusive economic zone. Now, similarly, last year, California – the state of California has done the same with an area the size of Texas, as being … and again, done it with consensus, in that case, certainly with consensus between the extractive industries, like fishing and so on and the Government. So we’re not actually promoting in this area something which is a sort of fringe activity which might then be an embarrassment to a Minister and just in conclusion I would say, the one concern about the Bill the way it is written at the minute in regard to MCZs and progress is its leisurly approach and lack of urgency. You know very well you have obligations under the Marine Habitats Directive to have good environmental status for all UK waters by 2020 and plans in place by 2015 and I would ask you: are you able within the framework of the legislation you have of MCZs and so on and the ability of you as a Minister to approve individually each of these MCZs with all their qualifications and reservations and management idiosyncrasies to create a plan for good environmental status for UK waters within that timetable?

HID: Jolly good. That’s a good place to finish. I’ll come back to that at the end. OK, thank you. Right. Peter, yes. First of all, thanks for your comments and I know and I welcome the fact that this Bill has got to where it is with a lot of support from industry of all different sorts there. I know what you mean when you talk about better regulators as well as better regulation. It’s a fair point. Clarity from regulation, faster decision-making, etc. needs to be part of this and you rightly flag up the MMO. The MMO will be, as far as I’m concerned, something of a world-beater in terms of a centre of excellence and it will bring together those expertise, not only in conservation but also understanding of fisheries, understanding of industrial uses of the seas and understanding of recreation, understanding of sea anglers, understanding of the … framework directive and everything else. It will be the one stop shop that will do it. Now, how does it do it? And to come back to the final point, it might be helpful if I explain in a real… sorry, a certain age-group here… a real Janet and John style – right, if I explain in a simplistic way how the structure will work. The Minister… my statements… sorry, the Minister… the Secretary of State (I’m a junior Minister). The Secretary of State will set the overall aims of what we are trying to achieve here. He will be saying very similar things to what I am saying in terms of actually bringing together interests that can work together on the seas, etc. etc. etc. and you’re right, it’s a tricky one to effect, but I think it is… we have seen examples of where it can work and we have got examples in terms of sea fisheries off the South-West of England with the sanctury project, which Natural England are involved with, with sea fisheries which er… it’s in its early days but it’s showing just how well conservation and sea fisheries can work together in a very complex area of water. So, the Secretary of State will set the overall aims of what this is all about and will continue, by the way, because in the Bill there are report-back functions to Parliament within this as well.

Bill Rigby: Every six years.

HID: Yeah, yeah, but I don’t want to be there every year. We also, there are other ways we will monitor this as well. Under that, then, there is essentially a big circle. Right at the top of that circle are the Marine Policy Statement approach, which will set with clarity those items both to do with conservation zones, to do with different uses of the seas and so on. That will set it and the great thing about this Bill, having got it to this point, is that we have now agreed that it is a UK Bill, so that green policy statement will be binding, will be the one ring that binds them all, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England. Then when you come down, and the reason I am describing it as a circle is because they do feed into each other, you then come down to the marine planning stage. Now that, as some of you will be aware, part of the agreement, in recognition of where we are with devolution is once the marine policy statement will bind everybody, then the actual planning will take place with the Scottish Executive, the Welsh Assembly Government, Northern Ireland and with me. Now then, that means that those overall aims coupled within that ring of marine policy statements and so on means that we are constantly chivvying this forward, pushing it forward, looking at how it’s working. You’re right in saying these zones will come actually to the Secretary of State for approval and so on, but that will give it that level of certainty and clarity. There’s no point in bringing this Bill forward if we have such a big mess that nobody understands what it’s about. But to come back to the point that both you raised and Haris raised, what I don’t want to do is actually prescribe all of that… sorry, all of that [hand gesture] is prescribed in the Bill. What I don’t want to do is spell out the detail of how this will work 6 months time, 12 months time, and so on on the face of the Bill. I want *you* to get on with that with the Secretary of State overseeing how it is working and keeping an eye on how it is working. I’ll come back to the other points you raised. On a scale of risk, it’s an interesting one. I’d be interested to hear some more about that and as the Bill goes through. One of the things we are doing, by the way, as the Bill travels through is we want to keep the high level of engagement the same as we have up to this point, so as it goes through Committee, by all means write to me, speak to me, grab me in the Committee corridor and say “you’re doing that right, you’re doing that wrong.” But I’m interested in finding out more about that and how that would work and the certainty one, I think I’ve dealt with. On the better science, you’re absolutely right. There is an issue here and we’re getting there through places like what the various University sectors are doing and so on, through what’s happening down there and what’s happening in other areas, but also what’s happening with NGOs and with people on the ground, and with industry. We’re getting to a point where science is getting better, but it isn’t there yet. It’s good – it’s excellent in some parts of the sea, it’s patchy at best in others. What this Bill will hopefully do, it will give the impetus to actually develop the science a lot better around the seas, so that we can get the decisions right more often. I don’t think that this Bill will mean that we avoid making the odd wrong decision – OK, I must be frank about this – in the marine environment, but it should get us to the point where we are making it with more certainty and getting it right much more often.
Sonya, I certainly welcome what you say about the stakeholder engagement. I think this is the issue: if the science out there is compelling, if the science says – you know, I’ve just been through some very complex discussions on what we are doing about cod in the North Sea, and other species. If the science says that in order to actually regrow cod in the North Sea or in the Irish Sea or whereever, that actually what would benefit is closure in this area or avoiding the spawning area and so on, then that needs to be in here, but that is the last decision you want a Westminster Minister making. What you really need is the people on the ground getting together and putting the arguments and coming to a consensus on. And what was rightly pointed out was – you mentioned about George Bush – that is absolutely George Bush trying to cement a final something of a legacy to do with environmental issues. Wonderful and so on, but of course what is distinctive about the areas he’s gone at is the lack of intensity of use within those areas. In our seas, our crowded seas, that’s going to be quite a different kettle of fish there. But we should still have that objective in mind about how we make it work. On the California consensus model, I think that that’s quite a neat one to look at *but* California have done it – this has not been done on a US – I’m not comparing our system with the US federal system – but they’ve decided that this – getting everybody together – that this is a priority to do this off our coastal environment. That’s what this Bill will enable us to do. Your final point was: am I confident that we can avoid being called in by the European Union for a breach of the Habitats Directives or other international treaties – um… famous last words of any Minister – yeah, I think we can, but I think in order to do it, there are many other aspects that come into it, including things like the Water Framework Bill and other Directives coming through at the moment, which will challenge us even beyond where we are now. So can we do it? Yes we can. The truth of the matter will be seen when we get this Bill through and if I, as I hope, if we can avoid too much ping pong – you know, our great democracy – being kicked back and forth – and avoid it being torn to bits, which I don’t think it will. I have every hope that this will come through well and in time. If we have this Bill in place, let’s say at the most optimistic, which I hope by the end of this summer, then we are in a position to move ahead with the MMO rapidly – you know, by the following spring – then we are actually in a position to get some of this bedded in, which will enable me as a Minister to go back to my European counterparts and say “We are doing it” when the proposals of the Marine Conservation Zones are brought forward. But not all of these – you know, to be clear – not all of these Marine Conservation Zones will be no-go areas, some of them, I’m sure, will be, but some of them will be more complex. One at the Humberside will not be the same as one off the Rockall or whereever. They will be different, they will be clever, the will be hopefully what informed people have said “This is the right way to go ahead” on.

DJ: OK, so we’ll take three more. So the gentleman at the end of the row there first of all…

HID: I didn’t answer the bit about the European Union, but I’ll come back to that.

Mike Elliot: In fact, that is … I might continue with that then. Thank you, Diana. Mike Elliot from the Institute of Estuarine and Coastal Studies at the University of Hull, and before that I worked for the former Scottish Environmental Protection Agency for many years. My institute has been involved in the Bill for quite a long time. In fact, we wrote three of the policy papers – the evidence based papers for DEFRA before and post-consultation the white paper, and some of those policy papers were looking at what don’t we protect that needs protecting and what species aren’t protected that need protecting and so on. So I’ve been involved with it for quite a long time. One of the things we were looking at was this whole idea of governance. If I can take you a bit further on the MMO and what it can do and what it can’t do. As an example, when we asked DEFRA “Have you got a diagram that shows how all the marine management aspects actually fit together, they said “No, we haven’t got one, but if you draw one then could you let us have it?”. So then we drew one, well actually we drew two which became… we talk about these complex diagrams as “horrendograms” – and showed them to them and it just shows how complex it was and so one of the starting points, and I fully agree with you saying we don’t actually need – we’ve got many of the instruments in place, we’ve got many of the organisations in place. What we need is clarity and streamlining and so on. So we were involved in that level and trying to look at what we’ve got. We have more than seventy pieces of major legislation for the sea – let’s try and simplify it. So when I first read the consultation document and the white paper and now the Bill, you know, congratulations to everybody, you know, it makes the hairs on your neck stand up – this is great. It gives us – you mentioned at the end there about the European Directives. It gives us, if I can use the phrase, to get our retaliation in first, of the marine strategy directive – it does that – it allows us to unify and continue taking the habitats directive out to 200 miles, which the UK were leaders in. But if I can add a note of caution – one of the last times the hair stood up on the back of neck with a possible piece of legislation was one we were talking about bringing the Environment Agency in in the middle of the 90s – 1994 – now that was under a previous administration, but the difference between the rhetoric coming up to the Bill and the Act afterwards was a huge amount and by the time that Act – those proposals had been watered down and what we finally got, we ended up with a … that was very fragmented, where you know, nature conservation in one area is being protected by one body, in another by someone else. Coastal erosion by one body, flood protection by another body, and so on. Pollution from ships by one body, pollution from pipes by another. So, this gives us the ideal opportunity to simplify that and I say, if you can achieve that, then it will be really wonderful. Now let’s come to the MMO. From what I’ve seen, the MMO could be anything from a co-ordinating committee with some staff all the way through to… well it can’t quite be a marine agency, but some of us have been asking for a marine agency. Have you taken your thinking any further on the MMO about the powers that it could take from everybody else, because what we don’t want at the moment is a continual battle where English Nature… Natural England – sorry, old habits die hard! – Natural England have got some powers, the MMO have others, or the Environment Agency have some, the MMO others and so on. So it’s how much can we unify some of those, bring them together to give, as Peter says, industry the clarity that it’s calling out for and give us what I think – I think we need a marine agency, but the thinking is that we’re not going to go – we’re not going that far, but I would be comforted if you said “Well, we are thinking about those things.” So it’s a bit long…

HID: No, no, that’s good.

DJ: So, have we got any more? Stephen, right at the back.

Steve Barker: Steve Barker. I’ll speak on behalf of fishermen in the area because I think they need a bit of protection as well. They’re all communities, especially at Bridlington. I don’t know whether you’re aware. I was very enthused by the Minister and I must pick up very quickly on the American model. Let’s say we protect a lot of deep water off-shore when we live on a continental shelf here, which is a totally different way of looking at things with the … as well as … areas. So it’s easy to say we’re going to shut that area of sea because nobody is using it. Most of our seas are heavily used. What wasn’t mentioned on there was the aggregate dredging off our shores, which is massive. Where I do have a question – we do have sea fish industry, which is local to six miles, we’ve got our own waters up to 12 miles. Where would the jurisdiction finish? Fish have fins – they swim. Six miles, twelve miles, where are we talking about? Are we going to have waters? Are we going to be interested in what really matters within the areas? On regards to local knowledge, many years ago I did a lot of work for MAFF. After it was called White Fish, it became MAFF. Colin Bannister was heading it at DEFRA, in the department, now he was working in the same area and we first did experiments on lobsters. Part of the experiment we wanted to do was shut an area, so I did a lot of voluntary work there for a few years in the 70s to shut an area for trawling. That area’s still shut, you’re not aware, obviously, because it’s not been mentioned. The area works from Skipsea all the way to Mappleton one and a half miles off shore. It’s to protect the nursery areas of fine gravel areas. The first lobster experiments that were done there for depositing miniature lobsters. They grew the first lobsters at Conway in Wales. If you look at your history, you’ll find that that’s the case. I know that they say that there’s ones at Padstow and various… I’ve spent some time in the South-West. I was ill unfortunately, so I’ve done a lot of research down there in the last few years, but the first ones were done by MAFF from Lowestoft and it was done in this area and the first film from the BBC was taken on one of our vessels off this shore. It was a ground-breaking thing. We’ve still got that no-trawler area – a protected area – it’s still in a by-law. We’ve got two areas off this coast that have been overlooked. We’ve got Donna Nook, which is shut and we’ve got [???] Ranges, which are shut – both by the armed forces, shall we say. We’ve got shut areas for armed forces, where you can’t walk along the clifftop as well – it’s another area where you’re going to have to get into. These are just little problems. I don’t know – I’m just saying from a local point of view. One other point of view, when we talk about more statistics which can be utilised in all sorts of ways – because of the pound falling quickly against the euro and everything else, everything that’s virtually caught of this coast and shell fishing is a very protectionist way of fishing, because when you lay pots and traps offshore it does very little damage to the seabed, but it’s a good way of farming. You’re only taking the actual species size that you require for the table. You’re retaining everything else quite healthy – it’s not destructive. It protects the sea bed. Smaller animals live in those areas. You have to actually work that position to realise that. It does shut the area – stops people trawling and stops the dredging, so it’s quite good, as are wind farms. But the thing for shellfishing is that if you were at Grimsby, you would be very worried about hearing some of these things because with the way the pound is, this year, the income from shellfish, which the biggest port in Britain is Bridlington for shellfish landings, will go up about 50% due to the difference in the pound value against the euro and everything else. You’ve got to be very very careful. There’s a lot – for every person employed at sea, six people are employed on-shore. That is the ratio. So we have to bear in mind that there’s a lot of relatives, probably sat here, that are involved in some way. We have to look at it in a sympathetic way. The fishermen want to protect for their interests for the future but I think that there should be more investment into the local area, and of course British Ports, Grimsby, they’ve got a huge – the whelks – a massive whelk trade goes to the Far East, mainly through Grimsby and Bridlington. And I just want to make that stance and to say most important where we are on the six and twelve now, where will we be looking at? That’s basically the question.

DJ: OK, anyone in this area here like to ask anything? OK. I can see a gentleman at the back with his hand up.

Rob Stoneman: Rob Stoneman, Chief Exec of the Yorkshire Wildlife Trust and again, I’d just like to echo my thanks to the Government for bringing forward the Bill, which we’ve been campaigning for for years. It’s fantastic. [???] very supportive. Good stuff. With regard to the framework, I think that’s right. We at the Wildlife Trust aren’t supporting the 30% on the face of the Marine Bill. But it is important that the framework has the right powers and the right purposes [???] …coming out of the Bill at the moment. For example, the Marine Management Organisation should have a duty to [???] not just balancing different interests [???]. There’s a clash with the planning legislation over the Infrastructure Planning Commission. It’s surely right that the MMO has primacy over that commission when we’re talking about marine legislation else you’re never going to get [...] and that the marine plans, which make an awful lot of sense, they need to be a purpose not just a power because you can have powers and it goes back to [...] you know, the MMO could be a very small body that is quite ineffective. It has to be given that real power and purpose in order to be very effective and although it’s right that a framework shouldn’t specify for example highly protected areas or the proportions which should be protected, it must surely be the case, I think, that the legislation could be [...] has to contain some highly protected areas, so that should be [...]. Not specifying how, but it should be spelt out that that’s going to be part of it. Otherwise, again, that’s missing the opportunity to actually have what was a ground-breaking Bill but has become very very weak [...].

HID: OK. Can I just thank you for the quality of the questions. This is lining me up very well, I have to say, for coming into the Commons. Mike, one of the things that we’re trying to do as in fact we’ve done some of it already, as this Bill progresses, knowing that because it is a framework Bill, we need to give greater clarity about what the MMO is going to do and so on, we’ve actually brought out, I think, just before Christmas, we haven’t widely circulated it yet, but an underpinning document that explains more about the powers on licensing, regulations, etc. enforcement, that the MMO has. Happy to get copies up to you one way or the other, either whether it’s via Diane and she can disseminate them or whatever, so we can get those out. And that’s our intention as this goes forward is as we’re discussing, we won’t be able to do it with everything – we have a limited team – but we’re going to try and put some more flesh on some of the framework so that you know and the MMO one is currently out there. Certainly in terms of what you were talking about in terms of streamlining regulation, and what I describe as the one stop shop we won’t retreat from that. We will make sure that everything that we promised within the MMO – I’ve just gone through, as has Hilary Benn and colleagues sitting down, putting together the – there will be a shadow body for the MMO, sorry, a skeleton organisation for the MMO to make sure that when it’s ready, bearing in mind that there are a lot of staff coming from the MFA, but they will be augmented by other skills that there is a skeleton body there ready with a Chief Executive. We’ve just been through the job description and we’ve been singing very much from the same hymnsheet on how we see this organisation. I mean, you were talking about a marine/maritime organisation. We see it as that and more. We don’t want to overburden it and it will, this is an organisation that will have to draw on as well the sort of people that will be in it will draw on expertise from industry, from conservation bodies, from the university sector and others to grow in strength, but it will be an independent entity. It will not be governed by a Minister in Westminster. We’ve made this clear to them. The way we’re structuring it is they will have the independence to within the overall aims that we’ve set to get on with the job and do it. And that’s the way we’d want to see them doing it.

Steve, yeah. It was first said to me when I came into this job that if fish would only stay still, this would be an easy job to do and of course they don’t. What we do want to try and do with this, I take on board the points that you’ve made, what we want to try and do with this is to avoid this part of the sea where stocks like cod and mackerel and whiting and so on as well as the mixed element of some of the smaller fleet there – what we want to avoid is the Newfoundland situation where cod was fished to the point where it was exhausted and then it moved onto another species, which later found that it was actually one of the underpinning species that cod fed on, so even when they banned cod fishing off Newfoundland, it never recovered because they fished out the species that the cod preyed on, so I think you are right in what you say in that actually, both the essence of the Bill and what I have been quite encouraged with with fisheries leaders and individual fishermen that I’ve spoken to is that they want to see this work. They have a vested interest in actually working with the science of the seas, working with some of the observations that they have to make sure that their livelihoods are protected. I thought it was more than one in six actually in terms of jobs on land. [???] I went to Grimsby recently, and looked at the … what was it two, two and a half thousand jobs within the Young’s seafood processing and then all the jobs that went off that. Quite astonishing. And then you’ve got the small – that’s the big city, if you like, if you go to the West coast of Scotland, of course, you’ve got small communities with small boats out there doing predominantly [???] but mixed fisheries as well where they’re even more important curiously than what’s coming into the Grimsby docks because they are not just part and parcel – they are the fishing folks, they are the community in some of the western coast of Scotland. So we have to get it right and Rob, the points that you make – I’m happy to have them tested as we go through on Committee. I do want to get the Bill right so that it has the teeth without being overly prescriptive. You mentioned about the duty for sustainable development and the marine plans having primacy I think was one of your points. I’m happy to have that tested. The problem we have as I mentioned at the start is the time lag with this that it’s now come out after the ones like the Planning Bill and so on – we have to get the wordings right, but I also have to bring – one of the curious things with this Bill is not only has it been predicated on a consensus from people here, it’s also been predicated on consensus from Whitehall departments. I have to make sure that I get this through in a shape that other Whitehall departments don’t run a mile, but I’d be happy to have those points tested as it goes through Committee.

Rob Stoneman: What is the process for testing it?

HID: That’s where members stand up and actually probe the Minister on it. And sometimes the Minister says “here’s the reason why I don’t go with it”, sometimes the Minister says “well I can see what you are saying, there might be a way through” – that’s our great democracy.

DJ: OK, so I think we’ve got time for one more round of questions. Anyone who hasn’t already – gosh! Lots of people now. Well if people are fairly brief in what they say, we can probably get everybody in. So we’ll start with the lady in the red jumper first of all.

Hilary Byers: Hilary Byers[?]. I’m a member of Friends of the Earth and I understand that the Bill refers to just the seas around the UK, but of course Britain controls seas in other parts of the world. Is there any intention to spread these controls to cover those other areas as well?

DJ: We’ll take this gentleman.

Guy: Guy [???] I’m a member of Marinet, I’m also a member of the local Friends of the Earth group. You mentioned you read “A Natural History of the Sea” and that describes how all sorts of marine life has been severely depleted. How much difference do you think the Marine Bill will make to stocks of species, commercial or not, around our waters and how far back to historic levels of abundance do you think we will be able to achieve?

DJ: That gentleman there.

Gerald Murray: Thank you. Gerald Murray, National Federation of Fishermens’ Organisations. As far as the designation process for Marine Conservation Zones is concerned, we certainly welcome the approach in that in that it aims to deliver a network of least cost from a social and economic perspective, which is great for the designation of most Marine Conservation Zones. However, there maybe a number of designations and we don’t know at this stage because it is very much down to local analysis, local science and there could be cases where the stakes are very high, both potentially from the conservation point of view but also from a social and economic and livelihood point of view. At present in the Bill, there appears to be no provision for dealing with those specific circumstances – there’s no procedures for dealing with that. As a follow-up to… well my question would be: is there a possibility that such a provision could be included and as a follow-up to that, we’re also will be transposing the Marine Strategy Framework Directive into national legislation, I understand, by 2010. Now this has specific provisions for actions to be taken that would be contrary to conservation and environmental interests, but would be taken into account in a broader, wider public interest remit. We feel that this should be explicit within the Marine Bill, the language that that is written in needs to be recognised within the Marine Bill.

HID: Sorry, could you just bring that a little bit further. How would that work if that was within the Bill?

Gerald Murray: Well, it’s essentially about a process – having a balanced process between the conservation objectives and the social and economic needs. At present, the guidance in the Marine Bill says in such situations that it’s likely that conservation objectives would override and we feel as though there should be no automatic override in such circumstances and there needs to be a balanced consideration of the evidence and that’s not to say that automatically, you would run in favour of the social or economic considerations, it’s about having a process to deal with those particular circumstances.

HID: Right, OK, thanks.

DJ: Is there one other person who… ah, the gentleman at the back.

John: Hi, John [????]. We met a few weeks ago. We welcome a lot of what has been said, both in terms of the clarity that’s going to be provided. I think the point I would make is the three real growth sectors for the future for this sub-region and I’m delighted you’re focussing so much on the value of the port and what that brings in terms of economic prosperity. The statistic I do like to hear quoted is that there’s 40 million people can be reached within 4 hours’ drive time of the Humber group of ports – strategically very very important as a global gateway, but the other areas are renewable energy and also health care. I think the sub-region is really sort of working together – North and South banks – with the regional development agency and the other agencies to really promote the whole of the sub-region and really take us to the next level in terms of world-class companies that we do have. We’ve got the World Trade Centre as well, which again is acting as a conduit in terms of promoting the Humber companies on the world stage. But I think the devil is in the detail, obviously, but in terms of trying to bring greater planning clarity, in terms of moving all three of those particular growth areas forward is very very important. The port have some particularly ambitious plans and obviously moving that forward. There’s a two hundred million pound investment going on just a couple of miles away [...] and again that’s really putting us on the world stage in terms of bioethanol and various other things that we can bring, but I think it’s just to have as much clarity as possible in terms of trying to move forward on the various developments, particularly off-shore wind farms, where we can’t develop, where we can develop. But I just want to emphasise that I am a relative newcomer to this city and am particularly impressed with how the various agencies are working together and the new growth areas that are embedded within the regional economic strategy and how there’s a real opportunity to move forward.

HID: OK, thank you. Right, OK, let’s look here. Hilary first of all. Could this be extended into our other seas? Let’s do this one first! Let’s do this one first. This is our waters, and there are issues within this. I didn’t address fully the issue that I think you raised before about the European Union. There are parts of this Bill that we are going to take through which probably we are then going to have to persuade, cajole and whatever our European counterparts are the right approach. We’re going to stretch the envelope on it. I think we’re going to have a receptive audience. We’ve got to do that first, before we actually go further. However, of course the UK – myself as a Minister, Hilary Benn, are involved in a number of international treaties, some of which I know disappoint in that they are not effective as they should be and so on, and there are recent ones that I’ve had officials at, and sometimes the reason that they aren’t effective is because like all of these great environmental issues, you require buy-in from everybody and there is a point that you know you are not going to get that, so you aim slightly low. But we will continue to push because there are issues, not only – and mention was made – our waters are somewhat different from others, in that we have a continental shelf and then we have the great mix of fisheries that we have. We have a huge range of issues, but we have issues with migratory species, especially larger species that are being affected because of fish in different parts of the world, because of big fleets that are out there harvesting these, sometimes inadvertently, sometimes deliberately. So we have to as the UK Government, continue on something of a mission to try and work with others, persuade others to go as far as we can in conservation way beyond our own waters and on species that are highly vulnerable at the moment, we don’t always get there and it frustrates me as much as everybody, but…

Guy, in terms of stocks in seas and what this will lead to and what levels of abundance, I can’t actually tell you that. I can’t tell you any figure, what size stock will be and so forth. But I do anticipate that this will lead to better management of the species that we have all around our coast and as a result of that to actually grow and regrow and expand the numbers of stocks out there. However, this Bill will not do that on its own. What’s equally of importance in this, we always talk about the Common Agricultural Policy reform, is Common Fisheries Policy reform, and control measures that are not only on our fleet but on other fleets that fish within these waters and elsewhere. Issues – what we do internationally will affect abundance levels within our own waters as well. So this Bill won’t do it all on its own, but I think it is a significant step forward in what we do in our own waters. What I’m quite keen to get my teeth into and as we left the December Fisheries Council, speaking with colleagues out there – the incoming Czech presidency and a group of like-minded countries – eight or nine countries that meet together outside of the 27 and who have these interests in mind – is that we need now in February/March to get right into the meat of what we do with Common Fisheries Policy reform. Both to sustain the livelihoods of fishermen and also to look at what we do with quota reform and we have to consult on this; we have to engage people on this. But what is the best way to do this? How do we avoid this situation where we are discarding. I speak to fishermen who are dismayed with the fact that they have to throw over sometimes half of what they land, sometimes 90% of what they are landing. What is going on – what is going on there? So, but how do we reform it and how do we get the French and the Germans and the Spanish and all the other 26 nations to come with us on that? What I will say to you is: we are unashamedly right at the front edge of arguing the case for quite a radical reform of CFP as well. Sometimes not to the pleasure of other nations.

On the network of Marine Coastal Zones, and that is important – having a network of Marine Coastal Zones – one of the issues with this is, and it’s interesting in comments that you were saying that there should be another type of approach within the Bill, but ultimately the Secretary of State, of course, will have to sign off on these and we set the overall aims of what we are trying to do with this Bill as well, so ultimately all the Marine Conservation Zones the Secretary of State will have to sign off. Now, you may suggest that there is a different way of doing it that recognises the social and economic aspects as well. One of the things that I mentioned that we are trying to do with the MMO and the reformed sea fisheries conservation agencies as well is to actually embed within them as well as the conservation aspects, the socio-economic expertise as well so that it has that wide buy-in. Now that combined with the Secretary of State having to sign these off should be sufficient in terms of democratic input and expertise input, I hope, to get to where we want to go. And it’s also, I think, the right thing – the final buck stops with the Secretary of State on this.

John, thank you, first of all, for the previous visit. I really enjoyed it and you’re right in what you say about the clarity for developers. Part of this Bill – and we mentioned about the MMO and the one stop shop and the necessity to have clear guidance underpinning it – is the ability for developers, once we’ve got the… once in an area in the marine plan – what are the priorities? where is the science in this area? – then a developer can have the clarity, with the support of everybody, including conservation groups, to actually say “Yeah, that is the right place to go ahead. Now let’s go ahead and do it” without having to leap over all the different hurdles again. That’s what this is about as well. It’s not only to do with conservation, it’s to do with actually saying to developers: “We can give you certainty and clarity because by the time you bring forward your proposal, we will have been through all of these arguments and we will have come to an agreed position on it” so that developers can get on with it, whether it’s renewables or whatever.

DJ: I’d like to start off by saying I think all of us would like to show our appreciation for Huw coming to Hull tonight and actually, I would just like to say the quality of the contributions and the questions that were asked have certainly put him through his paces! So thank you Huw for travelling up to see us.

[Applause]

Just before we go, can I also say thank you very much to The Deep and to Colin for hosting tonight and actually showing Huw round, because I think he’s actually been very impressed by The Deep and we are certainly very proud of having The Deep in Hull. And I also just wanted to say thank you to Haris and to the Yorkshire Wildlife Trust for sort-of nudging me into this invitation when I came here in the summer. I think it was Marine Week that was being hosted here. So I’m very please that you did that Haris, and I’d also just like to thank Darren and Jane and Kevin for helping to organise this event as well and thank you to everyone for coming along.

HID: Well done there.

[Applause]