Oral question asked in the House of Lords, by Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (Liberal Democrat). It was answered on Tuesday, 31 October 2006.

Marine Environment

Question: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. Natural England advised Defra to close some 60 square miles of Lyme Bay, where the seabed containing some of the most vulnerable marine life, including sea corals, sponges and all sorts of wonderful things, was being destroyed by scallop dredging. That advice was supported by the Southern Sea Fisheries Committee, so the closure was supported by both environmental and economic interests. How does the noble Lord explain the Minister’s inexplicable response of closing only three small areas, making enforcement extremely difficult, and of closing them to all activity, including crab potting, line fishing and recreational angling? Is not Defra’s approach nonsense?

Answer: My Lords, the noble Baroness is misinformed. English Nature requested closure because of the pink sea fan, not because of the reef. That was done, and in fact four small areas containing 92 per cent of the known pink sea fan sites—part of the corals—have been protected. The reef is at risk, but we were not asked to deal with that. That will come later, but so far the case has not been made for it. As I said, English Nature did not request us to do what the noble Baroness implied.

Secondary information

Type: Oral question
Reference: 686 c153
Session: 2005-06
Oral question type: 1st Supplementary
Chamber / Committee: House of Lords chamber
Related items: Marine Environment
Wednesday, 8 November 2006
Written questions
House of Lords
Subjects: Fisheries Environment protection Nature conservation Seas and oceans Shellfish Seabed Scallops Lyme Bay
Link: View this Oral question on www.publications.parliament.uk