Marine Wildlife Conservation Bill

House of Commons, 26 October 2001.

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Winning the ballot for private Members' Bills is like winning the national lottery, except that one does not get the money. However, one does get all the begging letters. Coming out of the Committee Room where I had gone to see which poor soul had come top in the ballot, I felt rather like someone coming into a mediaeval court, having petitions thrust into my hand.

Sometimes I feel that we in this place make too many laws and regulations, and the idea of adding to the burden on our population was a little much for me. However, I decided that deregulating was not my job—nor would I be capable of it—so I thought carefully about the Bill that I wanted to introduce. Ever since I was very young, I have had a passionate interest in wildlife and wildlife conservation, so despite the many obvious and worthy candidates for a Bill, I decided on the present subject.

The Bill fills a significant gap in protection for the marine environment. I should say at the outset that the Bill should not be the final word: the Government need to take action on a much wider scale than my Bill would hope to achieve. Indeed, they have made such statements, and we in all parts of the House will make sure that they keep their word. A comprehensive approach is needed to marine management and conservation, including integrated planning and strategic environmental assessment. I hope that the Government's working group reviewing marine nature conservation will take matters forward.

I introduced the Bill because I passionately believe that the marine environment needs better protection. The postbags of parliamentary colleagues on both sides of the House, which are full of letters from constituents supporting my Bill, indicate that the wider public share that passion. That may to some extent be fuelled by the BBC's excellent series "The Blue Planet".

At least half of the United Kingdom's biodiversity is found in the marine environment, but existing laws do not adequately address its protection and management. Protection for marine habitats and species is far weaker than that for their equivalents on land, where protection was recently further improved by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. The UK has international commitments to protect marine wildlife through the habitats and birds directive and the Ospar convention. However, there is no domestic legislation to underpin those obligations or for us to meet our national aspirations to conserve wildlife.

For too long, the marine environment has been the Cinderella of wildlife conservation—a case of out of sight, out of mind. Surely it is a matter of great concern that such sensitive areas as Lyme bay in Dorset are unprotected, and that in areas where dolphins, porpoises, puffins and gannets can be found, their habitats are still vulnerable.

Peter Bottomley (Conservative, Worthing West)

When I was Northern Ireland Minister looking after agriculture and environment, we found that to be the case with Strangford lough, where it was difficult to find the powers to stop beam trawlers wrecking the lough bed. Proposals such as those that my hon. Friend is making would be useful not only outside territorial waters, but inside them.

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

I thank my hon. Friend. He will know that Strangford lough is now a marine nature reserve and the Bill does not deal with Northern Ireland, but the point is well made. Such areas need protection.

Coastal policy guidance states that sites of special scientific interest do not normally extend below the mean low water mark but can do so if there is local authority jurisdiction. That means in general that SSSIs—a land-based designation—are doing very little for the marine environment. My hon. Friend referred to Strangford lough, which is one of three marine nature reserves. They can be designated in coastal waters out to a distance of three nautical miles. However, since 1981 only those three marine nature reserves have been designated, the other two being Lundy and Skomer. The Government have accepted that the concept of MNRs

"has not been as successful as had been hoped"

and concluded that

"procedures are regarded as complex and unwieldy, and in need of an administrative overhaul".

Since the passage of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, successive Governments have undertaken reviews which have identified the need to address shortfalls in the Act with respect to the marine environment. I am a relatively new Member, but I understand that in 1985 the Environment Select Committee suggested that one solution might be to extend the SSSI provisions of the Act to marine sites. In 1992, the Committee recommended that the Government address the issue of how to protect sites of marine conservation importance, and considered an option to extend SSSI-type mechanisms below the low water mark.

In 1999, the House of Lords Committee Select Committee on the European Union concluded that a new approach was required to protect sites in the marine environment and that the relevant provisions of the 1981 Act should be reviewed to provide workable and effective protection for important marine areas of nature conservation interest.

Tam Dalyell (Labour, Linlithgow)

My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett) and I were active members of the Committee that considered what became the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. We struggled hour after hour to wring out a concession for marine nature reserves. The hon. Gentleman is right when he says that the outcome has been a disappointment. Is part of the disappointment the fact that insufficient effort has been made to get local people, especially the fishing community, to accept MNRs in areas such as Loch Sween? I know that that is a Scottish example.

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

I am sure that there was concern in the past, and I am sure that local people will be concerned about in today's environment. There is usually some reaction. During consultation on the Bill, we did not find significant local opposition. It might be true that the world has moved on—people are much more aware now of the importance of such sites and their responsibilities to them.

As the hon. Gentleman will know, there is an important economic benefit in being near areas of marine importance, as with any wildlife area. There is increasing eco-tourism, and people want to visit pleasant places to enjoy them. The Government responded to recommendations by establishing the review of the marine nature conservation group, which was chaired by the then Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. Earlier this year, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs submitted an interim report to Ministers that was based on work and discussions with the group. The membership of the group was a broad representation of interest groups, Government Departments and conservation bodies. The report concluded that only retention of the status quo seemed likely to require no statutory action. New duties imposed on DEFRA and the National Assembly for Wales, which apply throughout the territorial waters of England and Wales, coupled with new duties on public bodies, open the possibility of protecting sites and marine waters. I agree entirely with the marine nature conservation group's view that retention of the status quo is not desirable, which is why I have introduced the Bill.

I wanted there to be an inclusive process. At the end of July, I put my initial proposals out for wide consultation. Those consulted included the participants in the Government's review of the marine nature conservation working group, including ports, fishing organisations, energy interests and leisure interests. The response to the consultation paper was excellent. Most respondents agreed on the need for nationally important marine sites to be designated, although views on how to go about that varied.

I listened to the respondents' views and took account of them. For example, my initial idea of simply extending SSSIs into the marine environment was dropped in favour of something specifically designed for the marine environment. The idea of introducing an offence of recklessness for users was dropped. I have been grateful for the assistance of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds both in helping me to consult and assisting me in drafting the Bill. I mention particularly Duncan Huggett, Ben Stafford and Sharon Thompson. I thank also David Lloyd of the Public Bill Office, who was waiting for an addition to his family. I am pleased to say that that addition has arrived safely.

I put on record also my grateful thanks to DEFRA, which has helped me to define what should be achievable. I was happy that the Department undertook a more joined-up approach by consulting other Departments.

There are extensive explanatory notes, which I hope will be helpful to Members in understanding the intention behind the Bill.

John Pugh (Liberal Democrat, Southport)

My constituency has an SSSI for wildfowl. Indeed, it is an area where there is a great variety of wildfowl. There are, however, quite promising environmental proposals for wind farms, which would be adjacent to the SSSI. As I understand it, the intention behind the Bill is not to have no development in a marine environment but to have controlled and sensitive development, and it will not necessarily prevent wind farm development out at sea. Is my understanding correct?

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

The hon. Gentleman has hit the nail on the head. I have a feeling that there is some confusion in the wider world. It is thought by some that the Bill will mean no further economic development and no wind farms, for example. That is untrue. The Bill will lay down a designation of an area to ensure that if any development is considered, its importance as a scientific site will be taken into consideration.

David Chaytor (Labour, Bury North)

Is there not an argument that the Bill would assist the rational development of offshore wind farms? It would make possible an agreed protocol for the development of wind farms. At present, the development of onshore and offshore wind farms is fraught with controversy. Sometimes there is irrational opposition from the Ministry of Defence as well as from local protesters. Is there not an argument for supporting the Bill in that it would enable a more rational, planned development of renewable energy in the United Kingdom?

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for making a valid point. Some of the objections to the Bill stem from a misunderstanding of the objectives that lie behind it and of what will be achieved by it. I think that those who support the Bill would also support the idea of renewable energy sources. In doing one thing, it would be foolish to shut off something else in which we all have a great interest. I shall possibly touch on wind farms later in my remarks.

Gareth Thomas (Labour, Harrow West)

I take up the point about renewable energy and offshore wind farm development. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman is well aware that the British Wind Energy Association has been clearly opposed to his Bill. I support what the hon. Gentleman is trying to do, but does he recognise that SSSIs—the terrestrial equivalent of what he is trying to achieve—have been used by onshore objectors to wind farm projects as a way of delaying, stalling and thwarting onshore wind farm proposals? Should the House agree to the Bill being considered in Committee, will he agree to meet representatives of the British Wind Energy Association and to address their concerns before the Bill makes further progress?

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

The British Wind Energy Association is one of the groups that I consulted. Its representatives expressed the notion that there was absolutely no need for this sort of Bill. It was the only organisation to express that view.

Of course I will meet representatives of the BWEA. My approach throughout, and that of the RSPB, for example, which helped me to prepare the Bill, has been to consult. However, there must always be a compromise. I would not necessarily wish to place wind farms or any other development over and above a scientific interest. Neither would I say that a scientific interest should be placed first. That is why the Bill provides that the Secretary of State has ultimate power. I hope that my commitment to meet BWEA representatives and to consider in Committee any amendments that they may propose will go a long way to sorting out any problems that they have.

It may be useful if I point out what my Bill does not do: it does not overlap with terrestrial SSSIs or duplicate the international designations of special areas of conservation or special protection areas; it does not give English Nature or the Countryside Council for Wales the power to designate sites without any further safeguards; it does not give new powers to anyone to prevent development in the marine environment and it certainly does not impose further restrictions on port expansion—most major ports already operate within internationally important wildlife sites; and it does not provide any new powers to constrain existing uses of the marine environment, such as fisheries, except when powers to manage those activities do not exist.

Hon. Members may find it useful if I gave a couple examples of candidate sites. Worthing lumps is an area which my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley) probably knows well. It is an expanse of sub-tidal chalk cliff exposures with rich wildlife, including the black tar sponge, leopard-spotted gobies, tompot blennies and, of course, the lesser spotted dogfish. The Bracklesham balls are also off the coast of West Sussex. Sites that have been identified are widely scattered, but those in West Sussex have interesting names. The Bracklesham balls is an area of spherical and hemispherical boulders embedded in the sea bed. It is much beloved of anemones, soft corals, sponges and sea squirts.

Economic benefits of designating and protecting areas in the marine environment will help to increase fish stocks and tourism revenue and will create safer tourism. For example, I discovered that the diving fraternity is concerned about ghost nets—drifting fishing nets—in which divers can get entangled. Hopefully, the designation will result in those areas being cleaned up.

Brian Iddon (Labour, Bolton South East)

Will the hon. Gentleman tell those of us who have not followed the arguments in this field in as much detail as he has why he is introducing separate legislation, rather than including his proposals in the existing SSSI legislation?

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not hear that in fact that was my original intention. However, after consulting all the interested parties, it seemed that terrestrial designation—things like marking the location of a site—is much easier on land than at sea, so a separate designation is more appropriate.

I am pleased that several Ministers have recently acknowledged the importance of protecting the marine environment; I therefore hope that they will support the provisions in the Bill that do so. During the passage of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, Lord Whitty, speaking on behalf of the Government in the House of Lords, said:

"I accept that there has been a lack of progress on designating marine conservation areas, as compared with land-based ones".

I agree wholeheartedly with that. Referring to the review of marine nature conservation, Lord Whitty said:

"We now have the will to pursue an increase in identification and powers to enforce marine conservation areas of all kinds".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 October 2000; Vol. 617, c. 840-41.]

In March 2001, the Prime Minister said:

"We will be launching measures to improve marine conservation here and abroad".

The commitment of the Minister for the Environment is well known, and I should like to thank him on the record for what he is doing for marine conservation. Only on Wednesday evening, at the RSPB's parliamentary reception, which many of my colleagues attended, the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), paid tribute to the work that the RSPB and I have done on the Bill. He said that he looked forward to working with me; I certainly look forward to working with him.

This week, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, speaking at the Royal Horticultural Halls, said:

"Biodiversity too is an area where the new department can make a real difference . . . At least half of our biodiversity is found in our oceans and seas. Protecting marine areas around the UK and more widely will be one of our key goals."

I am happy to find something on which I can agree with the Government wholeheartedly.

I am sure that the Government will welcome the opportunity to move towards that key goal. However, I have seen signs in the last 24 hours that seem to suggest that their interest in the marine environment has gone from lukewarm to cold. If that is the case, my colleagues on both sides of the House, our many constituents who have expressed interest in and support for the Bill and I would be grateful if the Minister would explain the Government's objection.

Tam Dalyell (Labour, Linlithgow)

Who is the sea squirt that is causing the trouble?

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

I am not sure that it is a sea squirt; I think that it is a much larger beast that is beached a little further down Whitehall. I still hope to persuade the Government to support the Bill, so I do not want to finger anybody at this point, but it may well be a spotted blenny.

If there are Government objections to the Bill, I should be grateful to be told what they are. I have approached the measure in the mood of trying to consult and make sure that we get good legislation; I do not want bad legislation or something that, perhaps, is thoroughly worthy but causes problems for interest groups. I come from a business background and, as I said at the outset, sometimes regulations do not help the economic environment. If there are problems, such as those suggested by the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) with regard to wind farms, I would be willing to discuss them in Committee. If Second Reading is completed, I am sure that many concerns could be looked at; I approach that with an open mind.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

My hon. Friend talked about economic interest. Obviously, inshore fisheries are a crucial economic interest. Will he come to that point in a moment? What consultations and discussions has he had with those bodies?

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

By and large, the fisheries have welcomed the Bill because they realise the great importance of conserving fish stocks; it will not be a problem for them in any way. Indeed, the Under–Secretary of State, who has a great deal of expertise in the fisheries directorate—not always the best directorate to be in charge of, hon. Members may agree—said he believes that fisheries will welcome the measure. I am pleased about that.

I know that many Members wish to speak. Our debate will be interrupted for an important statement and, at a time when we have international concerns and worries, people may feel that marine conservation is not the most important matter. However, conserving our environment for future generations is every bit as important as current problems. I am sure that the Government will welcome the opportunity to move towards achieving one key goal of their biodiversity policy now. The Bill will allow them to do that and I commend it to the House.

Andrew Bennett (Labour, Denton and Reddish)

I congratulate the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) on his good fortune in coming first in the ballot and on all the hard work that he has done to get the Bill to this stage. Let me say very firmly that I hope that it succeeds in getting on to the statute book.

The United Kingdom has a pretty appalling record of neglecting the natural environment during the 19th and 20th centuries. During the 20th century, we gradually learned how to protect the land, but our record on the sea is still appalling. The view is that we can tip almost anything into it and try to extract anything from it. It is seen as a sort of piggy bank without a bottom, or a dustbin that never has to be emptied. We must change that attitude, and this Bill could achieve much in that regard.

My hon. Friend the Father of the House referred to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Along with one or two other hon. Members, he and I kept the Standing Committee that considered the Wildlife and Countryside Bill sitting for long hours. Eventually, we were offered a sop. We were told that, if we finished reasonably early, the idea of marine nature reserves would be included in the Bill. We got that sop, but nothing happened for about 15 years. The Government had the powers, but they did not designate any areas. I think that we now have three designated areas in the United Kingdom. That is a very sad record of inactivity, especially as, under Governments formed by each of the main political parties, we were making pretty good progress on land. As far as the sea was concerned, however, we made virtually no progress at all.

I do not want to make a long speech, as I am well aware of what is happening today, but I should like to apologise to the Whips Office. In yesterday's business questions, I suggested that the Whips might be plotting to stall the Bill today. I have been working hard to find out what was happening and I am assured that the Whips, and especially my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), have been trying very hard during the past three weeks to persuade all the Departments to agree a common-sense approach. Sadly, as I understand it, my hon. Friend has not succeeded. We are likely to hear a series of speeches made in support of the Bill, but it will probably then run out of time. That would be tragic, as I am sure that we could introduce the legislation that is needed via a private Member's Bill. As I understand it, the Government are saying that they want legislation on the matters with which the Bill deals, but perhaps not just yet, and that they need a bit more consultation. Surely consultation can occur as the Bill progresses, and now is the time for the knotty problems to be sorted out.

Piecing together the situation, I understand that the Ministry of Defence has objected to the Bill, but that those objections have been overcome and we now have its support. Allegedly, there were to be some problems with fishermen, but I understand that their objections have also been overcome. So where is the objection coming from? I am told that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is still making objections because it is alleged that people who use high-powered speedboats, go water skiing and so on are worried about the Bill. However, I am sure that negotiations could be conducted to allay their worries. It is very sad that people who have an interest in big boats do not have an interest in ensuring that the beauty of the sea can be conserved.

I understand that the Department of Trade and Industry is worried. I know that offshore oil and gas interests must also be considered—again, there are legitimate needs for pipelines and so on—but surely their concerns could be allayed in negotiations.

We have heard about people who are promoting wind farms. I very firmly believe in wind farms, but those who promote them seem to be brilliant at destroying public support. I am sure that thousands of people will be absolutely appalled if they believe that the wind farm industry has scuppered the Bill. I do not see why we cannot accommodate those with interests in wind farms. Of course, they will want to build some wind farms in the sea, and I would commend such development, but it should be possible to negotiate some way around the problem. I am told that there is also concern in ports and harbours, but surely it is not beyond the powers of negotiation to meet their needs.

The final argument that has been put to me concerns devolution. It is suggested that the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales are unhappy about the Bill. I would not like the Bill's remit to be reduced to cover England alone, but I am sure that the hon. Member for Uxbridge would be prepared to consider making such a change if it was necessary to secure its passage. All those groups say that the Bill should be blocked, but they do not have fundamental objections, and the Government have made a commitment that they want the legislation.

I do not want to take up any more time. My plea now is that we get the Bill into Committee and initiate effective negotiations. I remind the Whips and those who pull their strings that, even if the Committee stage begins and we cannot secure agreement on all the issues, there is still Report and Third Reading. But, please, let us get it moving today.

Colin Breed (Liberal Democrat, South East Cornwall)

I wholeheartedly support the views of the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett). I welcome the Bill as a contribution to much-needed environmental protection and conservation.

It is not always necessary to have grand international conferences about environmental conservation measures, which do not always have to be introduced in huge Bills. We can introduce varied legislation that works in the same direction and helps to achieve the ultimate aims. The range of international agreements and national designations needs to be complemented by local initiatives. Private Members' Bills should be given the same support and assistance if we are to achieve the real aim of ensuring the environmental stability that we all want.

As has been mentioned, the current system of marine conservation in this country is highly inadequate, in contrast to that of conservation on land, where significant progress has been made without some of the perceived problems about which concerns were expressed when legislation was introduced. The Bill would provide much-needed protection for marine sites of special biodiversity interest.

The sea is extremely important to my constituency. In the fishing ports of Looe and Polperro it makes a significant contribution to the local economy. Sailing takes place from Saltash, Torpoint and Fowey, and there are commercial docks at Fowey and Par. I have not received a single letter from any organisation representing interests in fishing, sailing or ports in objection to the measures, of which I am sure that such organisations have been properly notified.

Bob Spink (Conservative, Castle Point)

The hon. Gentleman may be aware that there are also fishing interests in my south-east Essex constituency. Does he agree that small fishermen want a measure such as the Bill, as biodiversity is very much in their interests? They, more than anyone else, want to protect our marine environment.

Colin Breed (Liberal Democrat, South East Cornwall)

That is absolutely correct. Many fishermen are beginning to recognise that their economic livelihood at sea will not depend only on fishing. Leisure interests—especially diving and so on—will provide a significant proportion of their work and income.

A number of areas in south-east Cornwall could benefit from the Bill, including the Eddystone rocks. Although I have been out to sea above water, I have not ventured down below, but I understand that the rocks are formed by a huge outcrop of pink granite that rises from a level sea bed in a wonderful cliff-like structure that dominates the area. The rocks are extremely important not only to fishermen, but to divers. Like other sites, they should be protected as use of the area increases. Of course, protection assists the continued use of such features. Thus, the ingredients of protection and economic well-being can be married.

Cornwall has a considerable number of wind farms. Although some may object to wind farms at sea, I suspect that many would prefer wind farm development at sea rather than on land.

Environmental protection needs to be continued, both on land and at sea. Although we are a long way behind in marine protection, we are not as far advanced in land environmental protection as we would wish. I hope that the Government will not only support the Bill today but, during this parliamentary term, introduce even more legislation to ensure stronger sustainability throughout the UK marine environment.

The Bill is a useful stepping-stone; it certainly goes in the right direction. Judging from the considerable number of letters that I have had from constituents and other residents of Cornwall, there is significant public interest in this matter. If the Government somehow prevent the Bill from proceeding, people will want clear answers about why that happened.

We require a broader range of measures to achieve real sustainability of our marine resources, but we must also encourage others in that direction. The Bill deals with measures taken in our territorial waters, but the whole subject of marine conservation needs to be further up not only our agenda but the European agenda as well.

My final point is about the growing problem of bycatches from fishing, which include porpoises, dolphins, birds, sharks and turtles. Although some of those are protected by law, the number of victims is causing concern because it is increasing, albeit inadvertently. The problem is particularly acute in the south-west approaches. Will the Government consider funding more conservation research to increase our understanding and knowledge of how bycatches occur so that we may find ways of preventing that tragic loss of marine life?

For now, I wish to give the Bill a warm welcome and I hope that it will be strongly supported today.

Linda Gilroy (Labour/Co-operative, Plymouth, Sutton)

I congratulate the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) on coming first in the ballot for private Members' Bills in this Session and on his choice of topic. My reasons for saying that are particularly strong because of my constituency, Plymouth, Sutton. I am delighted to have a chance to speak in this Second Reading debate.

I wish to discuss why the subject matter of the Bill is of growing interest and importance to our constituents, particularly those who live in Plymouth and the surrounding areas of Devon, Cornwall and the south-west peninsula. I hope then to relate that to the measures proposed in the Bill.

To most people, the seas are inaccessible and mysterious. Why should we be concerned about what we cannot see? To those hon. Members present in the Chamber, most of whom are enthusiasts, that may seem anathema, but many people do not understand these matters. They regard the seas as either grey and choppy or, when the tide is out, a load of old mud. We know little about the sea and treat it as an endless cornucopia. It is a treasure chest on the one hand and, as others have said, a carpet under which we can sweep our waste—anything and everything, from human to nuclear waste—on the other.

We reap but we do not sow. We exploit with little knowledge of what we are doing and of how it might affect the ocean ecosystems, yet 1 cu m of that unattractive load of mud contains the same amount of energy as five Mars bars. All chocoholics, including me, should take an interest in the quality of our marine environment, because seaweed extract is present in much of the chocolate that we eat. As nearly £4 billion of chocolate is eaten every year in Britain alone, we have an interest in ensuring that the environment in which seaweed grows is healthy.

We need to conserve our coastal waters because they are still richly biodiverse and still have much to offer us. We know that they are essential in the food and reproductive chains that eventually bring us food from the sea. The tiniest organisms, the plankton, have a profound influence on climate and will play an even greater role as changes in global climates accelerate. However, we need to gain a much deeper understanding of how they work; we then need to encourage public appreciation and participation through education.

If we are to do all of that, we must ensure that the marine environment is conserved—that we hold it as much in trust for tomorrow as we do the atmosphere, and the land mass and its waterways. The United Kingdom is already a world leader in marine-based research, much of which is carried out through a unique partnership in Plymouth—the Plymouth Marine Sciences Partnership, which is a world leader in research, education and, of course, conservation. It consists of five organisations: the Plymouth Marine Laboratory; the university of Plymouth; the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom; the National Marine Aquarium; and the Sir Alister Hardy Foundation for Ocean Science.

Colin Breed (Liberal Democrat, South East Cornwall)

Have those organisations written to the hon. Lady to support the Bill?

Linda Gilroy (Labour/Co-operative, Plymouth, Sutton)

I have consulted them, and they are certainly most interested in the Bill and in all the other developments that the Government are pursuing, as well as those that form part of our manifesto commitment to the marine environment. Each organisation is independent, but works closely and often collectively to deliver world-class marine research, education and conservation.

Bob Spink (Conservative, Castle Point)

Is the hon. Lady saying that, in her opinion, those organisations would want the Bill to make progress so that the issues can be developed?

Linda Gilroy (Labour/Co-operative, Plymouth, Sutton)

I shall come to that in a moment, and to the views of the Devon Wildlife Trust, which has briefed me on matters that affect Plymouth sound in particular.

Tam Dalyell (Labour, Linlithgow)

As a Member of Parliament from the other end of the country, may I just say how excellently the organisations to which my hon. Friend has referred cope with casual visitors? Our family was entranced by what we saw in Plymouth. They are to be congratulated.

Linda Gilroy (Labour/Co-operative, Plymouth, Sutton)

I thank my hon. Friend. I hope that he was able to visit the National Marine Aquarium, about which I shall say a few more words in a moment.

Barry Gardiner (Labour, Brent North)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend; she has been most gracious in giving way. I know that she is an avid reader of the Plymouth Evening Herald. Did she see the article that appeared in it the other day about a 30 ft piece of wood on which more than a million goose barnacles were found? I understand that a 3 ft section of it has now been lodged in the National Marine Aquarium and is proving to be one of the strongest visitor attractions.

Linda Gilroy (Labour/Co-operative, Plymouth, Sutton)

I have indeed read about that development this week, although I have not been to the marine aquarium recently. However, I hold an annual membership and hope that I can visit it soon. I urge other hon. Members to make the journey to Plymouth, far though it is, to view the Jewels of the Sound exhibition, which has been running this summer. Some hon. Members may already have visited it.

Plymouth overlooks one of the finest natural harbours in the world and is the largest city on the UK south coast. Its maritime heritage goes back thousands of years. Some of the organisations in the partnership that I mentioned can trace their roots back well over 100 years to the middle of the 19th century. The Plymouth navigation school, which eventually evolved into the Institute of Marine Studies within Plymouth university, was founded in 1862; and the Marine Biological Association of the UK was formed in 1884 and opened its Plymouth laboratory in 1888. The 20th century saw the consolidation of Plymouth as an international centre of excellence in marine research, education and conservation with the formation of the partnership organisations.

In the 21st century that lead position will be enhanced and developed in the spirit of discovery. Society will need to grapple with the oceans' role in sustainable development, regionally and globally, and the trends in and consequences of climate change.

The oceans, with an average depth of several kilometres, cover 71 per cent. of the earth's surface. They provide the largest, mostly unexplored, living space on the planet and contribute enormously to global diversity. There is growing awareness of the need to manage the world's seas and their coastlines sustainably to ensure the maintenance of biological diversity and productivity. It is right to try to be at the forefront of developing the best possible framework for the marine conservation that the Bill's promoter envisages.

Natural stresses and those from our activities are increasingly important through the economic impacts that threaten the quality of life for communities around the world. To monitor, understand and predict those impacts, we must identify the processes and interactions that are involved, and understand the role of the oceans in the global system.

Oceans play a crucial role in many natural cycles and processes that support life on earth, controlling global weather patterns and key chemical processes in the atmosphere. The oceans sustain and dictate the shape of life on earth. However, to study, we must be able to conserve and vice versa. The Bill is therefore especially relevant to my constituency and the people who live and earn their living in it.

Independent organisations from the research, academic and education sectors in Plymouth have come together to pool expertise and resources and to increase understanding of the many questions that will help us to appreciate fully the operation of marine systems and how we can sustainably use them. That includes the identification, development and exploitation of alternative energy sources. I was interested in the points that hon. Members made earlier about renewable energy. That is of special interest to Plymouth, which has dramatic sites where such developments could occur. Some people in Plymouth have an ambition to make it the first city to become carbon neutral. Hon. Members who understand such matters will realise the extent of that challenge.

Indeed, if it was not already possible to claim that Plymouth is now the focal point of marine sciences in the UK, it soon will be, especially as it continues to extend its influence and breadth of interest. An exciting new development is the proposed national centre for marine science and technology, which will bring the partnership together on a single site in Plymouth. This will greatly enhance the ability of the separate organisations to work together to unravel the mysteries. That will lead to greater knowledge of the oceans and how humans can interact with them without destroying them.

The centre will have a strong emphasis on outreach work in the community, drawing on the expertise of the National Marine Aquarium and the Plymouth Marine Laboratory. The new centre could become a focal point for the popular as well as the academic interpretation of the sort of marine sites that the Bill covers.

There are already strong links between the National Marine Aquarium and the renowned Eden project in Cornwall. That visitor centre is becoming a focal point for people to appreciate land-based biodiversity in all its glory. So, too, could the marine science centre build on the sound base that the National Marine Aquarium established, and prove an enjoyable and attractive showcase for the challenges of climate change, and the link between our use of energy and floods, tides, the sea and all that lies within it.

That is a major project of considerable vision and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment will take an interest in it. It could have great relevance to the Bill's provisions and to their environmentally responsible interpretation by the world at large. One of the centre's major aims is to inspire and encourage nine to 13-year-olds to take an interest in marine science and technology issues and careers.

The centre is the subject of a major bid to the Treasury for money from the capital modernisation fund. I hope my right hon. Friend will be able to lend his support to such an important scheme when it is considered by his colleagues. I know that he will understand that the technological spin-offs of such a centre can generate employment output similar to that from our successful Tamar science park. In addition to building on the experience of the National Marine Aquarium, the centre will also have at its disposal the experience of the Plymouth Marine Laboratory. It undertakes numerous projects that are linked to marine conservation and would be enhanced by the provisions that the Bill proposes. The laboratory's biodiversity group has a long and active involvement with nature conservation agencies in the United Kingdom.

In the marine environment, too little is currently known about the distribution of species and habitats for researchers to employ methods commonly used in terrestrial and freshwater habitats. Part of the laboratory's role is to contribute to understanding the distribution of species and habitats in nature and how they are affected by man's activities. The main thrust of its work is to develop methods and techniques that are useful to those who do the work that the Bill envisages, or those with regulatory responsibilities for the conservation of marine and estuarine areas.

The methods that the laboratory has developed are widely used by the Environment Agency, English Nature, wildlife trusts and the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science as well as environmental consultancy companies and universities. Those methods and the associated training are marketed successfully by a spin-out company and continue to be developed as part of the laboratory's continuing core programme. The prospects for that company will be enhanced by the Bill.

The laboratory is currently celebrating because, in the past month, the National Environmental Research Council has unanimously approved its business plan for the next five years. After a difficult period, staff are excited by the prospects for their science and the exploitation of their intellectual property.

Successive Governments have already done much on marine conservation. Some hon. Members have already referred to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and its weaknesses. There is no statutory basis for regulatory bodies that operate in the marine environment; they rely on voluntary consensus and tend to be established in areas where human activities and impacts are remote or non-existent.

In addition, the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 provide for establishing special areas of conservation and special protection areas. The habitats directive is Europe's most important nature conservation measure, creating a range of safeguards for the Community's most endangered plant and animal species.

The Government's commitment to improve habitat conservation is being developed through the directive, with the help of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, which is due to report to DEFRA in March 2002. It is important that the Bill takes account of that work, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will tell us today that that will be possible. I also hope that he will comment on the work of the review working group, which was established in 1999 to evaluate the success of previous nature conservation measures, and the resultant pilot project.

The Prime Minister announced on 6 March in his speech, "Environment—the Next Steps" that the Government are committed to launching measures to improve marine conservation at home and abroad, including a series of marine stewardship reports. The first report will set out the Government's goal for integrated and sustainable management of the marine environment across the range of marine sectors. As I have said, a commitment to improve marine conservation overseas and in the UK was made in the manifesto.

I want to consider some of the Bill's possible implications for Plymouth. I am indebted to the Devon Wildlife Trust for a specific briefing on that. It is especially keen for the voice of Devon's Members of Parliament to be heard, and I am sure that it would also welcome the contribution of the hon. Member for South–East Cornwall (Mr. Breed). It has pointed out that, with the exception of two, the constituencies of all Devon Members of Parliament border the sea, and that the coast is a natural capital asset essential to tourism in the whole county. No other county has two discrete and very different coastlines to protect. I hesitate to say this, as I look at the hon. Member for South–East Cornwall, but I think that there is a marked contrast between the north and south coasts of Devon, whereas the coastlines of Cornwall have many more similarities.

The Devon Wildlife Trust has been active in marine conservation for many years. It has a team of marine experts second to none in the country; it regularly conducts sea bed surveys and monitoring in support of its marine conservation programmes; it runs two voluntary marine conservation areas at Wembury near Plymouth and on the north Devon coast around Ilfracombe; it has been involved in the Lyme bay reefs project for many years; and it has been instrumental in drawing up and agreeing voluntary conservation measures with local fishermen to protect two of the reefs, Lanes Ground and Saw Tooth Ledges. It is currently working on a similar initiative for Beer Home Ground, and supports a large team of volunteers working on the seaquest south-west project to report sightings of marine megafauna. It is in the process of developing an "estuaries for life" project for the conservation of these special habitats. Richard White, its marine conservation manager, will be well known to those who follow Select Committee inquiries into reform of the common fisheries policy.

The trust tells me that the marine life of Plymouth sound and the approaches has been well studied, and the presence of the Marine Biological Association, the Plymouth Marine Laboratory and the university of Plymouth ensures that valuable research work continues in this area. As well as work on the shore, underwater surveys are also carried out. Indeed, some of the earliest diving surveys were carried out in Wembury bay adjacent to Plymouth.

In 1993, the Devon Wildlife Trust carried out a survey to fill gaps in the knowledge of this important area, which reported:

"Plymouth Sound and its approaches were found to possess a wide variety of habitat types many of which are of high nature conservation importance."

A number of species were found that are rare in the UK, or at the limit of their natural distribution in UK waters, including seaweeds, sea slug, the yellow trumpet anemone and soft corals such as the pink sea fan. Those species were found among rich and diverse plant and animal communities. In addition to the importance of the area's marine wildlife, the estuary complex of the Tamar is valuable in its own right, providing an important feeding and breeding area for large numbers of waders and wildfowl.

The international conservation value of the wildlife in Plymouth sound and the surrounding estuaries is recognised by its designation as a European marine site under both the birds directive and the habitats and species directive.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

The hon. Lady mentioned wildfowl and other species. What sort of wildfowl is she talking about in particular?

Linda Gilroy (Labour/Co-operative, Plymouth, Sutton)

There is a wide range of wildfowl. As a result of these designations, English Nature has drawn up conservation objectives for the area.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

Does the hon. Lady not know?

Linda Gilroy (Labour/Co-operative, Plymouth, Sutton)

I do, but I am not going to stop.

Those objectives are implemented through a combination of management plans for the Tamar estuaries complex, the Wembury voluntary marine conservation area and the Yealm estuary, which together cover the geographical extent of the European marine site. The Devon Wildlife Trust sits on the advisory groups for the management of the Tamar and Yealm estuaries, and manages the Wembury voluntary marine conservation area.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

My hon. Friend the Member for North–West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) made an important point about wildfowl. It would be helpful if you could explain to the House which wildfowl you are talking about and how you feel—

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

Order. The hon. Gentleman must refer to other hon. Members in the third person.

Linda Gilroy (Labour/Co-operative, Plymouth, Sutton)

As I said, these points were made to me by the Devon Wildlife Trust. My key interest in this subject arises from my close association with the National Marine Aquarium. I am more familiar with the flora and fauna in the sound, but I trust that through my developing association with the Devon Wildlife Trust I will learn a great deal more about the birdlife in both estuaries that surround my constituency.

The Bill establishes a framework for the notification of sites of importance for marine biodiversity, geology or physiography, and for the setting of conservation objectives for those sites. The Bill is unlikely to have any effect on the management of those areas of Plymouth sound already designated as European marine sites. The initial designation excluded some important habitat features, but a recent review has addressed that problem, so current conservation objectives cover all key marine habitats in the area.

However, the Bill would allow the notification of some important areas of rocky reef habitat in the approaches to Plymouth sound that fall outside the current boundaries of the European marine site. The reef habitats support some unique seabed communities, and include dense beds of pink sea fan, which is a species protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act. As a result, the wildlife trusts have suggested an extension of the proposed boundaries in our response to the original Government consultation on the designation of coastal and marine sites in 1995.

The Bill would enable English Nature to notify and set conservation objectives for those sites that remain outside the current boundaries of the European marine site. In the wider context, the Bill would enable the notification of new marine sites of importance for biodiversity, and as such would add to the effectiveness of site-based conservation in the marine environment. However, there are limits to what could be achieved by this site-based approach alone, and a wider approach to marine management is required. In addition, we have seen in Devon that the emphasis on specific sites has tended to divert resources from other areas that are just as important for biodiversity, but which fall outside the network of protected sites.

The wildlife trusts, including the Devon Wildlife Trust, are calling for a significant improvement in the way we manage the activities and demands that we make on the marine environment. Ideally they would like the Government to publish a White Paper on an integrated approach to marine policy and management. An aspect of that approach would be a marine Act to provide the framework for legislation to manage our use of marine resources and provide protection for wildlife and habitats. Such a new approach would improve on previous regulation by integrating the management of the full range of activities that take place at sea, to which a number of hon. Members have referred.

The trusts see the Bill, which aims to protect wildlife and habitats within territorial waters, as one step towards achieving the wide range of improvements that are needed if our seas are to receive the protection and management they deserve. I look forward to discussing with them the outcome of today's debate.

I hope, too, that the trusts will confirm that there could be some benefit in protecting seahorses, which I am keen to see. The National Marine Aquarium in Plymouth is home to the largest collection of seahorse species in the world. Working in collaboration with the university of Plymouth, the NMA carries out research into the diets and consequent growth of seahorses with a view to captive breeding and rearing as a means of eventually minimising the pressure on wild specimens that results from the oriental medicine trade and other forms of exploitation.

Seahorses are particularly susceptible to disturbance of coastal habitats, as they are generally regarded as shallow water species with restricted habitat preferences, such as sea grass beds. The status of the two UK seahorse species is largely unknown, although it is generally felt that they are threatened by a variety of human actions that affect coastal waters. The two species are Hippocampus hippocampus, the short-snouted seahorse, and Hippocampus guttulatus, the long-snouted seahorse.

The south-west region is geographically one of the UK's largest and most sparse. It contains 60 per cent. of England's heritage coastline. It is one of the most rapidly growing regions, due largely to inward migration arising from its attractive environment. We have two national parks on land and parts or all of 12 areas of outstanding natural beauty. Almost a quarter of England's listed buildings are there, as well as more than 1,200 conservation areas. Parts of the region have been designated as special protection areas because of the wildlife and wetlands found there.

Developing the infrastructure for marine conservation can only further enhance the environmental attractions of our region. Indeed, the environment has been identified as one of the key drivers of the regional economy from a number of perspectives. Undoubtedly, a strength of the region is the attraction that a good-quality environment generates, both in its direct impact on tourism and as an attractive location for business.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

The hon. Lady mentions SSSIs in Devon. Which ones does she have in mind in particular?

Linda Gilroy (Labour/Co-operative, Plymouth, Sutton)

The flatlands around Torbay. I have forgotten their exact name at the moment, but, as I have said, the marine environment represents the main thrust of the Bill and my interest. I am also representing the views that the Devon Wildlife Trust has expressed to me, and I look forward to developing with the trust a greater knowledge of those wetlands and the birdlife in my area. I have been birdwatching only once in Devon, when I visited the birdwatching area at Dawlish warren, with which the hon. Gentleman may be familiar.

Virginia Bottomley (Conservative, South West Surrey)

Does the hon. Lady support the Bill; or, having spoken for 30 minutes, is she really trying to talk it out?

Linda Gilroy (Labour/Co-operative, Plymouth, Sutton)

I have almost reached a conclusion. I have been representing very significant interests, as the right hon. Lady will understand, and trying to outline the Bill's impact on my constituency. I will come to my position on the Bill in my concluding remarks, which will be heard very shortly.

Some assessments rate the environmental protection industry as second in potential only to the information and communications technology industry. Ensuring and contributing to sustainable development is a key role for all of us, and I welcome the opportunity that debating the Bill offers to explore how we can make progress on issues of exceptional interest and importance to my constituency. I am sure that the Bill's promoter and, indeed, the Minister will be welcomed if they visit my constituency to find out more about why many people now regard Plymouth as the United Kingdom and European centre for marine science and technology.

The hon. Member for Uxbridge is to be congratulated on his choice of Bill. I am sorry not to see him in his place. [Hon. Members: "He is here."] I beg his pardon. I am particularly pleased that he chose the Bill. He may remember the number that he selected in the ballot. He selected the number that I try to obtain in each ballot—usually successfully—but he just pipped me to the post this year. It was the number that secured me a place in the ballot during the first Session of the first Parliament in which I served. That, of course, involved me in the ill-fated Fireworks Bill, which has the doubtful privilege of holding the record for being the Bill that most nearly reached the statute book without actually doing so, as the last two technical amendments were being debated on its Report stage from the House of Lords when it was talked out. I wish the hon. Gentleman's Bill a better fate.

Virginia Bottomley (Conservative, South West Surrey)

I, too, warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) on his success in the ballot and, indeed, on his selection of subject. It is a matter of very great importance. I do not wish him to misunderstand my support—I am not demonstrating such abject support simply because he is my Whip. I wondered whether the Whips had anything to do with speech made by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy), because we have read much in the newspapers this week about the activities of Whips in political parties, but my support for the Bill is heartfelt and sincere.

Like the hon. Lady, I also have a strong constituency interest. Given that Surrey is landlocked, it might not be thought of as an immediately obvious marine site, but when I became a Member of Parliament the Institute of Oceanographic Sciences had its headquarters in Wormley. I am sorry that it took sight of its new Member of Parliament and moved to Southampton, but Sir Anthony Laughton and his team were extremely vigorous in their campaigning for such subjects. Of course, the institute continues to make an extremely important contribution.

I am pleased that the hon. Lady mentioned the Eden project, because one of the key aims of many of those Millennium Commission projects was, in fact, to promote sustainability and the environment. I include not only the Eden project, but many of the new forests and cycleways, and even the ill-fated dome, before it was given a dose of new Labour rhetoric, was actually a regeneration project. But the message of regeneration and protecting the environment for the new millennium echoes widely in the wider community.

The primary reason why I am so energetic about such issues is that I have the privilege to have in my constituency the United Kingdom headquarters of the World Wildlife Fund. It has made a very important contribution in raising the priority given to this subject. Robert Napier, its chief executive, leads an excellent team. I particularly mention its communications director, Perdita Hunt, an extremely good lobbyist who ensures that this subject and others are given the priority that they deserve in the House.

The WWF has been calling for some time for a significant improvement in the management of the marine environment and for the delivery of an ecosystem-wide approach. It believes that an aspect of that approach is strong legislation to protect our marine wildlife and the habitats on which it is dependent. In its view, it is also important to integrate that protection with improved legislation for the management of the wider marine environment, as that will ensure that the seas are healthy and clean.

In the WWF's judgment, the Bill provides an opportunity to stimulate parliamentary debate on the need for greater protection and management of the marine environment. It thinks that the protection that the Bill would enforce would be important to species and habitats in the territorial waters of England and Wales. Like others, it thinks that the Bill represents a first step in forging a new approach to the management of our marine environment and the economic and social resources that we gain from it. The idea that the Bill represents a first step is widely echoed.

Again, like the hon. Lady, I congratulate the wildlife trusts on their work. Surrey Wildlife Trust acknowledges the perhaps apparent anomaly in its position. It says:

"Although at first glance, this may not seem to be an issue of direct impact to the residents of Surrey, we should not overlook the impact of our lifestyle on our coastal waters, nor that many Surrey residents will be regular visitors to our beaches."

I was extremely worried to hear that one of the obstacles to the passage of the Bill is the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. I hope that it does not think that fast motorboats, jet skis and water skiing justify preventing the Bill from reaching the statute book. As someone who always spends her holidays in this country and on the Isle of Wight, in a marine environment, I hope that the DCMS will certainly tell the jet skiers, water skiers and others to leave our shores, but that view may just be a reflection of my age.

The Surrey Wildlife Trust argues that this country's system of marine conservation is extraordinarily inadequate. The Bill would provide much-needed protection to the special diversity interest of marine sites. The trust wants the Government to go further to ensure sustainability throughout the United Kingdom's marine environment and to introduce additional measures that meet those wider needs. However, it believes that the Bill should be viewed as a useful stepping-stone towards a much broader range of measures that will be required to achieve the sustainable use of marine resources.

I hope that the Minister will recognise that it is now widely appreciated that the British isles comprise island nations with a maritime heritage of which they can be proud. They also possess one of the highest diversities of marine habitats and species in any European country. It is time for the legislation that protects the marine environment to catch up with some of the interesting and important improvements in land protection.

The Minister will be well aware that, in my earlier days as a junior Environment Minister, I had some involvement in the SSSI programme. My primary concern on SSSIs now is that the A3 improvement at Hindhead should continue to ensure that that SSSI gets the protection that it needs.

Before I am called to order for straying from the subject, let me wish my hon. Friend's Bill well. I know he will be disappointed that I did not mention Worthing lumps, but I suspect that others can refer to them with more knowledge than I can.

At a time when there is often cynicism about what we debate in Parliament, and a lack of interest, many of our priorities do not seem to reflect the priorities of our generation. I think that the Bill has an important future in terms of the stewardship of our planet and the sustainability of our marine areas, and I hope that all Members will support it.

Tam Dalyell (Labour, Linlithgow)

I want to follow the important speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett). I hope that, even at this late stage, inquiries can be made into who is behind the failure to grasp the opportunity to do something about an issue that we all want something to be done about.

To establish my credentials, let me quote from Hansard of 27 November 1962. The passage is headed "British Territorial Waters (Undersea Development)". In Question 3 to the Prime Minister, I asked whether he would

"appoint a Minister responsible for development underneath the sea within British territorial waters".

Harold Macmillan replied "No, Sir."

Then I asked a very stupid question:

"In the light of the remarkable breaks through in marine science, is not the Prime Minister prepared to look into the future and, so to speak, beyond his own nose"—

Steve Pound (Labour, Ealing North)

Young puppy!

Tam Dalyell (Labour, Linlithgow)

Exactly.

I asked the Prime Minister to

"recognise that here is a vast potential for British exploitation in a completely new sphere of industry".

I earnestly went on:

"In particular, will not he consider the possible manufacture of marine equipment for the new sciences in areas such as the north-east of England, Northern Ireland and Scotland?"

Well, I was a young puppy.

Steve Pound (Labour, Ealing North)

Insolent, too.

Tam Dalyell (Labour, Linlithgow)

Insolent—cheeky.

Steve Pound (Labour, Ealing North)

No change, then.

Tam Dalyell (Labour, Linlithgow)

I was put in my place. Harold Macmillan got up and said—in an accent that I cannot imitate—

"This is not a question of looking beyond one's own nose; it is a question of looking three miles under the sea."

The House erupted at my expense.

The Prime Minister went on to give a serious answer. He said:

"I do not think that it would really help to have a single Minister in charge of these very varied methods of exploiting mineral power."

Sir James Duncan—now departed—asked:

"Would it not be enough to put the Minister of Agriculture into a skin-diver's suit?"

Macmillan replied:

"We must not impose undue strains on Ministers."—[Official Report, 27 November 1962; Vol. 668, c. 203.]

To complete the tale, I should say that the leader of the Labour party, Hugh Gaitskell, was not at all pleased. He said that that would teach me not to ask silly questions. It was the last silly question I asked in the House.

There is, however, a serious aspect to this. May I echo the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish—although I shall express them less eloquently than he did? We naturally understand what the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall), to whom a great deal of credit is due, has tried to do, and it is clear that a great many people have worked hard on this, not least the Department. If the Department is prepared to work hard and we all agree that something must be done, surely something should be done. It may not be perfect, but what on earth are House of Commons Committee stages for? Their purpose is to iron out, to allow negotiation, and to get it right.

Given the shortage of parliamentary time, I do not know whether there will ever be another opportunity in the foreseeable future for us to do what we think has to be done very soon. Following what was said by my hon. Friend the Chairman of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, I beg those in charge, before 2.30 pm, to go to those who are objecting and say "Do you really know all the facts? Even if you think you do, are you entitled to put a stop to parliamentary discussion on a Bill proposed by the person who has come top of the so-called lottery?"

Responsible Bills should not be snuffed out if they are in the top five. That makes a mockery of private Members' time. I plead with those in charge to go back to Downing street, or wherever it is, and say, "For heaven's sake, change your mind. Let the House of Commons have discussions." If, at the end of the day, the position is not satisfactory, that is an entirely different matter; but the Bill should certainly not be snuffed out at this stage.

My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish said that he and I, Lord Hardy of Wath—as he now is—and Ted Graham, led by Denis Howell, had spent hours in Committee speaking at enormous length about Halvergate marshes and a number of other important subjects in order to wring out of Hector Monro and Tom King the principle of marine nature reserves. I do not think that Tom King would recall it any differently. Those in charge became exasperated. They did not want a closure on the Floor of the House, or a guillotine. Eventually, they gave way—quite honourably, but they gave way.

As my hon. Friend said, MNRs have been a terrible disappointment. Earlier I interrupted the hon. Member for Uxbridge, and I will tell him why. An MNR was proposed at Loch Sween, a beautiful loch in Argyllshire. It was ideal, almost top of the list, for an MNR.

Some years after the debate to which I have referred, I went to Loch Sween as a paying spouse with an annual visitation from the Historic Buildings Council of Scotland, of which my wife was a member. Late at night we had a reception, and after a good deal of conviviality it became clear why the MNR at Loch Sween had not gone ahead. In their cups, the locals said "Of course we do not want a marine nature reserve here. If we have one, inspectors will come." I asked "Which inspectors?" They said "The inspectors from the Inland Revenue." They did not want the tax men messing around Loch Sween, poking their noses into their business and asking awkward questions.

There are all sorts of extraneous reasons why MNRs may not have gone ahead. I hope that, following the introduction of the Bill, sense will prevail, and a great deal of trouble will be taken in proceeding with this worthwhile concept. It is vital for fish stocks, and for a number of other reasons eloquently deployed by the hon. Gentleman.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

It is always a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). I was delighted to hear his Macmillanesque comments of 39 years ago.

I want to speak briefly—I realise that my speech will soon be interrupted—to support my hon. Friend the Member for landlocked Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) on his excellent Bill, the purpose of which, to put it simply, is to establish, protect and manage nationally important marine areas.

Of the 6,500 SSSIs, only about 300 border seas or estuarial levels, and even they do not go beyond the low tide. I believe that there is an urgent need for marine sites of special interest to be protected. I appreciate that the Bill is confined to England and Wales.

It being Eleven o'clock, Mr. Speaker interrupted the proceedings, pursuant to Standing Order No. 11 (Friday sittings).

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

I was saying an hour ago, before a most important statement, that my hon. Friend's Bill—I welcome him to his Front Bench post, and hope that it is a good omen for his measure—deals with the marine waters of England and Wales. Northern Ireland and Scotland have devolved powers. I hope that those countries will follow us by introducing similar legislation, which is vital to the interests of conservation.

I appreciate that through the Bill my hon. Friend is not trying to interfere with existing European marine sites. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy) mentioned one that is near her constituency. My hon. Friend has targeted his Bill correctly.

Many of the Bill's provisions are mirrored in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994. I shall make two rather detailed points. I agree that such matters are perhaps best kept for consideration in Committee, but I would like to give them an airing now.

Clause 1(3) replicates clause 28(3) of the 1981 Act. It provides for one month for public consultation and comment before the Secretary of State or the Welsh Assembly decides whether to designate a marine area. A special case could be made for providing a slightly longer period—perhaps two or three months—for reasons that I might explore in Committee. On the other hand, the Secretary of State in England or the Welsh Assembly have six months to confirm, or otherwise, the designation after hearing comments and public consultations. I believe that that period could be shortened. I see no reason why it should not be limited to three months.

I have a detailed point to raise on clause 7, which relates to areas where the marine sites can be designated. For good reasons, they are restricted to areas seaward of the "mean low water mark" of ordinary tides. I understand the reason for that: it is to avoid any overlap with existing sites of special scientific interest. As there are so few sites bordering esturial waters or the seaside, I suggest that when new areas are designated and they are not adjacent to SSSIs, there should be provision for the designation to go inland to at least the high water mark. Shores can be crucial to maintaining conservation.

I shall support the Bill. I am conscious that it has all-party support. I know that these issues are strengthened by having across-the-Floor support. I pay tribute, for example—this will not be a comprehensive list—to the hon. Members for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett) for the tremendous contribution they have made to conservation measures, not least the 1981 Act. The Minister is rightly highly regarded for his interest in conservation matters. It would be a terrible pity and a keen disappointment if this most worthy Bill, which has the noblest of objectives, did not at least proceed to Committee.

Finally, I ask the Minister immediately to consult his right hon. and hon. Friends to ensure that the Government come up with a joined-up approach to this vital measure and ensure that it takes its place on the statute book.

Gareth Thomas (Labour, Harrow West)

It is a pleasure to follow my north London neighbour, the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman), and to support the principles outlined in the Bill. I congratulate the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall), another north London neighbour, on his excellent introduction of his private Member's Bill. As someone who has been relatively lucky in the ballot for private Members' Bills, I believe that he set a high standard for the rest of us to follow. I shall probe his case and raise one or two concerns, but I hope to do so in a way that does not provoke his ire or that of other hon. Members.

I come to the Bill with no great constituency pressure, although the excellent Hertfordshire wildlife trust is keen that I support the Bill, as are one or two other constituents.

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

The hon. Gentleman has a Middlesex constituency, so I should just like to point out that it is the Hertfordshire and Middlesex Wildlife Trust.

Gareth Thomas (Labour, Harrow West)

I am grateful for that chastisement and vaguely helpful intervention.

My interest in these matters derives partly from the pleasure that I get from kayaking. I believe that Denis Healey said that every politician should have a hinterland; canoeing forms a small part of mine. In that respect, the timing of the Bill is not fantastic, as one could not hope to go sea kayaking at the moment. One would have to go to inland waters such as the Tryweryn or the Dart to get some practice for the summer, when sea kayaking is much more feasible around our coast. In the last seven or eight years, I have very much appreciated the marine life around the coast of Pembrokeshire, the Llyn peninsula near Anglesey and, indeed, the Hebrides. The pleasure of seeing whales, porpoises, seals and sea birds and recognising that their survival depends on our efforts to provide further protection for the marine environment makes me want to support the hon. Member for Uxbridge today.

As my intervention on the hon. Gentleman demonstrated, I have a particular interest in renewable energy. I am lucky enough to chair the parliamentary renewable and sustainable energy group, and the potential for offshore wind farms around our coastline to contribute to our energy needs is huge. As I suggested, the wind industry supports the progress of the Bill, but it wants further discussion of its concerns. It is worried that a network of designated marine reserves would further hinder the development of offshore wind sites at a time when the Government are trying to streamline the consents process for such sites.

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

Will the hon. Gentleman outline why the wind industry thinks that those reserves will be a hindrance?

Gareth Thomas (Labour, Harrow West)

If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I shall do so in a moment.

I have a further point of contact with the Bill through my roots at Aberystwyth university. Nobody who was a student there could fail to be aware of the excellent Friends of Cardigan Bay, and its campaigning work over the years to protect bottlenose dolphins in the bay. To be fair, the Government have not been at all idle in the last four years in trying to protect the marine environment. The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 touched on the marine environment and additional protection for areas of outstanding natural beauty has rightly been incorporated in legislation. Where AONBs are on the coastline, additional protection is provided for the marine environment. That is also true of SSSIs that border our coastline.

Another key dimension of the 2000 Act in relation to the marine environment is the section that makes it an offence recklessly to disturb marine animals. I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Clwyd, West (Gareth Thomas)—my namesake—and for Peterborough (Mrs. Clark) for their campaigns to get that provision into legislation. Much as I enjoy a jet-ski, I recognise the damage that it can cause and the need for protection. The Government were therefore right to take action.

I commend the Minister for the Environment for an initiative of his that led to a positive Government measure—the United Kingdom's adoption of an internationally agreed strategy under annexe 5 of the Ospar convention to reduce, and indeed eliminate, discharges of hazardous and radioactive substances into the Atlantic. As I understand it, the measure was opposed for some considerable time by the previous Government. The fact that the Government have taken action under the agreement on the conservation of small cetaceans of the Baltic and North seas, to examine further the reasons why porpoises are being caught and their numbers reduced, is also positive. I welcome the development of a UK bycatch response strategy, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for South–East Cornwall (Mr. Breed).

The process of strengthening environmental regulation of the offshore oil and gas industry was also important. That regulation was tightened in May. However, probably the single most important initiative for the future protection of our marine environment was the establishment of a review of marine nature conservation some two years ago. Its purpose was properly to evaluate the success or failure of marine nature conservation measures. Other hon. Members have mentioned the crucial conclusion of the interim review, which says that the one key option available to us to protect the purely national parts of our marine environment—the marine nature reserves specified in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981—has been a failure, as only three sites in the UK have so far been designated.

Given the length of time that my hon. Friends the Members for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett) and for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) spent some 20 years ago trying to get the marine nature reserve initiative on to the statute book, I hesitate to ram home the message about its failure. Sadly, however, the review was brutal about the failure of MNRs. It pointed out how bureaucratic the MNR process had become and spoke of its unrealistic reliance on the need for complete consensus before designation could occur. It said that the legislation had been too prescriptive. The failure to designate the Menai straits as a marine nature reserve, despite the considerable effort that has been made in the past few years, is proof of that fact.

There was some doubt in the minds of those who undertook the review about whether the initiative was purely a legislative failure. Some thought that the policy position requiring total agreement to be reached among all the relevant interests before an MNR could be established was clearly a crucial contributory factor in its failure. Some marine waters in British waterways that are of European importance are already protected through their designation as special areas of conservation or special protection areas under the EC habitats and birds directives, to which the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman) has already alluded. As I understand it, there are already some 133 marine SPAs and 151 special sites of marine conservation in our territorial waters. They are part of the Natura 2000 network of sites that is being created. The crucial point about them is that they are designated because of their European and international significance. If sites are significant only to our marine environment, they cannot be covered under European directives.

I welcome this week's confirmation that the habitats directive is to be extended to all waters over which we exercise sovereignty, with a 200-mile limit. I also welcome the fact that we are going to be the first European state to incorporate the initiative in legislation.

We have already identified the first possible special area of conservation beyond the 12-mile limit: the Darwin mounds, a site that is situated near the north-west coast of Scotland. That is excellent news. I am told that the Darwin mounds site has a level of biodiversity equivalent to that of a tropical rainforest. Apparently, its importance relates to the substantial population of deep-water coral, Lophelia pertusa, which, for those not expert in Latin, is a cold-water coral. Another factor that gives the site such international importance is that the coral appears to be growing on sand, whereas before the discovery of the site such a phenomenon was widely thought to be impossible.

Clearly, the protection of such internationally important sites beyond the 12-mile limit is further excellent news for the protection of our marine environment. The problem with the habitats directive is that it covers only sites with elements of European significance. For example, two marine areas with special protection can be found on the coast of Wales in Cardigan bay—the Llyn peninsula and Cardigan bay itself. The Llyn peninsula was designated because of the importance of its estuaries and reefs, whereas Cardigan bay was designated because of its 100-plus colony of bottle-nosed dolphins. Other elements of national importance do not have the protection of the habitats directive, so the sub-tidal sea caves at Maen Meltt, which support a variety of sponges and cobblestone habitats, are not protected by the Llyn special area of conservation designation. The area would therefore benefit from the measures that the Bill seeks to introduce.

Just up the coast, there are nationally important marine sites, outside the internationally important sites, that receive no legal protection whatever. The inland sea between Holy island and Anglesey has sub-tidal basins that are extremely important for a range of marine invertebrates. The Skerries is a wonderful area in which to see seabirds, and crucial tidal rapids support a wide range of sea life, again with no legal protection.

Thus marine sites of special scientific interest need to be established to secure further protection and to manage nationally important wildlife sites—even if they are not of European significance. The urgency of the case for action has been chronicled by a number of organisations—the excellent World Wide Fund for Nature published a report in September last year entitled the "Marine Health Check", based on 16 case studies of key species or habitat indicators representing different levels of the marine food chain. The report says:

"Among the habitats seen to be in severe decline are eelgrass meadows, home to the seahorse, which have disappeared from 85 per cent. of the UK's estuaries, and saltmarsh".

That is just one example of the need for action.

An example highlighted by the excellent RSPB, touched on by the hon. Member for Uxbridge and my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy), is Lyme bay, which has some of the most diverse marine habitats in Devon and Dorset and is known for its rocky reefs. Concern about the reefs has grown ever since local fishermen and divers started to report damage and decreasing catches. Some three years ago, a dive survey confirmed the need for action by nature conservation agencies to protect the most biologically sensitive reefs.

Work is under way in partnership with local fishermen to find an agreed method of promoting and protecting the reefs and the fish in that area, but designation as a marine site of special scientific interest would give added clout to the work. Stronger enforcement action will also be necessary to protect any sites that are designated as marine SSIs. The duty under clause 3 would further the conservation of sites, which is important in that regard. However, there is an issue about the funding for bodies engaged in marine conservation enforcement. Some of the non-governmental organisations that have commented on the Bill are worried about the need for additional funding.

I want to deal with a specific anxiety about the Bill's impact on offshore wind farms, partly in response to an intervention by the hon. Member for Uxbridge. The British Wind Energy Association is keen for the Bill to make progress and for it to be considered in Committee, but it is worried about the law of unintended consequences. Offshore wind farms tend to require shallower waters, which are often potentially important wildlife sites. It points out that the criterion for designating sites of special scientific interest—the terrestrial equivalent of marine sites of special scientific interest—is that the selected area should contain more than 1 per cent. of the British population of a specific species.

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

I am aware of that anxiety. It should not be assumed that the current threshold of 1 per cent. will necessarily be appropriate for the marine environment. It is important to understand that the Bill would not grant any new powers to stop developments in the marine environment.

Gareth Thomas (Labour, Harrow West)

I agree especially with the second element of the hon. Gentleman's intervention. However, the use of that 1 per cent. threshold until now may help the hon. Gentleman to understand the anxiety throughout the wind energy community, which is nevertheless keen to discuss the matter further with him.

The two most common species on the 18 offshore wind farm sites that the Government have designated so far are the common scoter and the red-throated diver. Their numbers tend to go beyond the threshold. On 10 sites, the threshold is easily reached.

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

Common scoter have almost disappeared as a British breeding bird. Although it may be inconvenient, it is important to conserve that species.

Gareth Thomas (Labour, Harrow West)

I appreciate that and I support the hon. Gentleman's aim of protecting sea birds, such as the common scoter, which face the threat of extinction. However, we do not want to prevent sensible wind farm development.

The wind energy industry is also worried about the lack of data on much of our marine environment. The possible adoption of the precautionary approach may mean that the sites where wind energy developers have collected data on the marine environment may take on greater importance because of a lack of information on others.

The hon. Member for Uxbridge will also understand that experience of the hunt for onshore wind farm sites shows that the designation of SSSIs and the justified anxiety to protect wildlife in those areas have been used as an excuse—sometimes a genuine excuse—by energy conservatives, who are desperate to stop wind farms.

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that SSSIs are valid, or does he believe that such designation should not occur?

Gareth Thomas (Labour, Harrow West)

Of course they are valid. I was an enthusiastic supporter of the additional measures that the Government introduced in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act to toughen up their protection. I merely make the point to amplify and explain the concern of the wind farm community about the possible designation of marine sites.

I have had experience of the hon. Gentleman's persuasive powers in the context of hospitals, in which we have a mutual interest. I have confidence that he and those working with him will be able to persuade the wind farm community of the need for the Bill to make further progress, and I hope that he will meet them.

Ironically, wind farms may help to bring wildlife benefits by creating no-go areas in the marine environment, which may become havens for wildlife. I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's point that no existing organisation would be given new powers under the Bill to prevent marine developments such as wind farms. Nevertheless, I hope that after this discussion he will have a further understanding of the concerns of the wind industry.

I welcome what the hon. Gentleman is seeking to achieve with the Bill. I hope that given the particular anxiety to which I have referred he will meet the wind energy community to try to resolve the issue. I wish the Bill well in its progress through the House.

Keith Simpson (Conservative, Mid Norfolk)

I compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) on his presentation of the Bill. Hon. Members have recognised that my hon. Friend has put a vast amount of work into this legislation, with the support of hon. Members from both sides. He rightly emphasised the support given by non-governmental organisations, especially the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds.

My hon. Friend is a distinguished ornithologist, and he has a specialist interest and knowledge in this area. I congratulate him on the way in which he presented the Bill and on his contributions in the give and take of the debate. The Conservative Front-Bench team welcome the Bill, and we wish it every success and a swift passage.

In the debate so far—I hope that other hon. Members will catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker—we have had good, short contributions from my right hon. Friend the Member for South–West Surrey (Virginia Bottomley) and my hon. Friends the Members for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman) and for North–West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) in his interventions. We have had experienced contributions from the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett), whom I have had the privilege of hearing on a number of occasions on such subjects, and from the hon. Member for South–East Cornwall (Mr. Breed). We heard a long, well-read speech from the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy), who I assume was in favour of the Bill, although I was not quite sure. The hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) supported the Bill, but rightly raised concerns that we hope to address.

The basic question is whether my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge has identified a serious gap in nature conservation. I think that we all agree that he has—that is the most important principle that we have established. He has much evidence to support that from the specialist Committees of the House of Commons. I shall not go into great detail, but I shall briefly refer to the 20th report of the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Select Committee on UK biodiversity, of 22 November 2000. Its conclusions said:

"The Government must address the range of problems and inadequacies in their approach to marine biodiversity. As an island nation, the conservation of marine biodiversity should be paramount and the Government should consider whether a new statutory agency is required to deal with marine biodiversity issues."

There is a great deal of other evidence on this subject.

What have the Government done? To be fair, they have moved a considerable way, and I praise them for that. In particular, like other hon. Members, I want to put on the record my appreciation of the work done by the Minister for the Environment, who has a long and distinguished track record in this area. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge, he speaks with a great deal of knowledge.

The Government have identified that a gap exists in nature conversation involving marine wildlife. In 1998, they set up a working party to consider the options to improve protection for marine sites and species, and the interim report of its review of marine nature conservation was published by DEFRA in March 2001. Its most important conclusion was contained in paragraph 153, which states:

"The one option that the report cannot recommend is the retention of the status quo. At the very least, the continuing evolution of marine conservation regulation threatens to make an already complex situation even more confusing: some rationalisation—even if only at the level of the adoption of more common objectives—is essential. On this matter, there is consensus between conservationists, regulators and regulated."

Many hon. Members know that it is rare to get those three groups together, singing off the same song sheet.

As I have said, the Government have recognised that something needs to be done, and the Minister is on record as saying just that. In fact, in the 13 July edition of Tribune, he made this comment on the Government's approach to United Kingdom biodiversity:

"Labour did a lot in its first term to improve the protection of the terrestrial environment. I believe that we need to do much more to protect our oceans and sea—which contain over half of our biodiversity. We are committed to producing a cross-Government, Marine Stewardship Report."

That is excellent news, but many hon. Members and those outside Parliament would argue that we now need to go beyond producing reports. In all such complex situations, the danger is always that we study them to death. Genuine reservations have been raised, but we now need some form of implementation.

I have great faith in the Minister because he has already effectively accepted that something needs to be done. My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge, by introducing the Bill—which he has said does not contain a vast number of rules and regulations—is taking a first but important step on something about which consensus exists in the House. We should bear in mind the comment by the WWF in its update for June 2001:

"There is no national vision or policy for the marine environment. There is no single Government statement on the marine environment which draws together the areas of responsibility in DEFRA, DTI, MOD and others, nor is there any coordination of devolved and non-devolved matters."

By this private Member's Bill, we may be able to bring together all those interested parties. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish implied that several Whitehall Departments had reservations, so ironically, we may well be able to use the Bill as a tool to make a considerable advance in marine wildlife conservation.

I warmly welcome the Bill. It is an excellent example of a private Member's Bill that has all-party support, and it has been proposed by an hon. Member who is much respected on both sides of the House. I hope that the Minister, whom I know feels very sympathetic towards the Bill's aims, will give it Government support. He will undoubtedly flag up reservations, but I hope that we can proceed actively into Committee.

Helen Clark (Labour, Peterborough)

I, too, welcome the Bill, which has been introduced by the hon. Member for Uxbridge, Mr. Randall, and I deeply congratulate him on doing so.

The need for better protection for marine wildlife is very real, and the arguments in favour of such protection have been rehearsed in the House before. DEFRA is carrying out a review into ways to improve the conservation of the marine environment, and the Bill would help to achieve the objectives of that review, in which the need for more action to protect our nationally important marine wildlife sites has already been recognised.

In February last year, as the House will know, I introduced a Marine Wildlife Protection Bill, with the support of the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society and others, to tackle the problems of harassment and disturbance of marine wildlife by motorised marine leisure vessels and jet skis. The Bill sought to enable local authorities to stop the use of such vessels in coastal areas, to protect marine wildlife and promote safety, and to make it an offence to disturb marine wildlife. The Bill would also have given local authorities power to designate, on either a temporary or permanent basis, any coastal marine area within their power a motorised marine leisure vessels-free zone.

Since my Bill was considered, we have had the Government's own piece of environmental legislation, the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. I was delighted to be chosen to be a member of the Committee. The Act represented a significant advance for nature conservation. As a result of it, intentional or reckless disturbance of whales, dolphins and porpoises is now an offence. My Bill would have addressed that, too.

The Act represented a giant leap forward for terrestrial nature conservation, but its passing into law has meant that, despite one or two improvements such as the example I have just given, protection of the marine environment has fallen yet further behind. The Bill that we are discussing today will, I believe, begin to redress that terrible imbalance.

There is much to be welcomed in the Bill. In particular, it will mean proper and correct enforcement of protection measures through the establishment of management schemes for marine sites of special interest. One of my personal concerns, when I introduced my own Marine Wildlife Protection Bill, was the level of hidden disturbance and, indeed, persecution of marine wildlife. This Bill will tackle those problems head-on, as they should be tackled.

I am also pleased that the Bill will ensure that those with the power to protect our best marine wildlife sites will have to exercise that power. It gives the Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales authority to direct the development and implementation of management schemes for marine sites of special interest in cases in which it is felt that not enough is being done to look after those sites. It is right that relevant marine authorities will have to observe their responsibilities to protect our precious marine wildlife. I hope that those measures in Mr. Randall's Bill will be used to tackle the problems posed by motorised marine leisure vessels that I highlighted in my Marine Wildlife Protection Bill, and which were also highlighted very well by The Sunday Times.

Early research commissioned by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has revealed a significant number of sites around the coasts of Wales and England that would benefit if this Bill became law. I am told that off the Sussex coast is an area called the Royal Sovereign shoals, where a variety of habitats are present. They include a sandstone reef and outcrops of chalk. Local wildlife include a variety of sponges, anemones and starfish, as well as more bizarre-sounding creatures such as the elephant's ear sponge—a new one on me.

Steve Pound (Labour, Ealing North)

You'll find one in the Strangers Bar most nights.

Helen Clark (Labour, Peterborough)

Perhaps my hon. Friend would know more about that than I would.

There is also the chimney sponge. However, another important area that will be more familiar to hon. Members is the large expanse of Poole bay, off Dorset. The bay is sheltered from the prevailing southwesterly winds, and is an area of gentle underwater slopes punctuated in places by hard ironstone reefs. Not surprisingly, this sizeable area is home to a rich community of wildlife.

Of particular interest to me are the frequent sightings off Durlston head of bottle-nosed dolphins, common dolphins and pilot whales. There are also significant wintering populations of several bird species, including red-breasted mergansers—a new one to me—and great crested grebes. The Bill offers an exciting opportunity to improve protection for the Royal Sovereign shoals and Poole bay, and for many other sites.

I do not believe—nor does anyone else—that the Bill will solve all the problems facing our marine environment and wildlife, although I hope that I have helped to show that it can and will be a significant step forward. Again, I congratulate the hon. Member for Uxbridge for introducing it. I hope that the Government will give a commitment that comprehensive marine legislation covering all United Kingdom waters will be forthcoming later in this Parliament. In the meantime, there is no doubt that the Bill takes us in the right direction, and I hope that others will join me in supporting it today and working for it.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

I am pleased to learn that the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mrs. Clark) supports the Bill. I hope that in the few minutes remaining before the end of today's sitting, she will speak to some of her colleagues who have reservations.

Helen Clark (Labour, Peterborough)

Indeed I shall.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

It is only a small point, but perhaps it is time the hon. Lady learned to refer to hon. Members by constituency, not by name.

I welcome the work on the Bill done by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) and the efforts that he has made in promoting it today.

Helen Clark (Labour, Peterborough)

I referred to the hon. Gentleman as the hon. Member for Uxbridge, Mr. Randall. I suggest that the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) listens more carefully.

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

Order. We should get on with debating the Bill.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

The hon. Lady and I can discuss that point afterwards in the Bar.

I have an interest in the Bill because my constituency extends over a large section of coastline along the Wash. As several hon. Members have mentioned, this country contains many sites of special scientific interest and other designated sites. My constituency contains a significant number of SSSIs that cover the coastline itself. They run to the low water mark—the hon. Member for South–East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) and the Bill's promoter pointed out that fact. There is therefore a gap in our habitat conservation policy. I shall not repeat what has been said today about the numerous reports that have been produced. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) summed that up very well.

My constituency contains a thriving commercial fishing community, which is based on the inshore fishery. A significant number of fishermen fish out of Lynn fishing fleet. There is also an important plant processing sector based on the inshore fishery, which mainly produces mussels, cockles, whelks and shrimps. The fishery is one of the most important in the country and local people feel strongly about it. They and their families have been fishing it for generations, and their views are highly traditional. Their primary concern is conservation of stocks—to them, that is paramount. They are concerned about other issues, not least control of fisheries and access to their waters, which fall within UK territorial waters.

I am concerned that, at some stage, those waters might one day be opened up to other European Union countries. That would be a disaster. The common fisheries policy has failed dismally to control North sea stocks—just look at the populations of cod, herring and haddock. Those reserves have been hideously depleted. The time has now come for this country to repatriate its fisheries. If we do so, we shall at least have control over a precious resource, which could be managed through bilateral agreements with other EU countries. Our local fishermen feel strongly about that, but they feel particularly strongly that their inshore fishery should not be opened up in any way to other EU countries.

Our fishermen also feel strongly that they must work with other competing interests in the Wash. Obviously, the Bill is highly relevant to that. They already have to work within the confines of a Royal Air Force bombing range on the Wash. At this time of international conflict in particular, when local RAF squadrons are being deployed to the Gulf and flying out of RAF Marham near the Wash on reconnaissance missions over targets in Afghanistan, those ranges play an important role in ensuring that the RAF is properly trained. The fishermen, many of whom are war veterans, understand their importance.

The fishermen also have to work with dredging and alongside the threat of wind farms. I shall say a quick word about dredging.

David Chaytor (Labour, Bury North)

Do I understand the hon. Gentleman to have referred to the threat of wind farms? Does he consider wind energy a threat?

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

I shall elaborate in a moment, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman accepts that wind farms are a threat to the interests and livelihood of some local fishermen. I support the Bill, however, as do most fishermen in my constituency.

Helen Clark (Labour, Peterborough)

I would like more detail about how the lives and livelihood of local fishermen are threatened by that renewable energy source.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

I shall come to that in a moment, but I must first deal with dredging, if the hon. Lady does not mind. I shall return to her point. The fishermen want to work within the confines of the Bill, but they also have their concerns, which I hope will be addressed.

Worries have been expressed over the past few years about dredging, carried out with permission from the Crown Estate, for the building industry, the replenishment of sea defences and export. About 28 per cent. of all marine-dredged sand and gravel is exported. I want that to be reduced. It is one thing to deplete a precious national resource for our own needs, but its export should be queried.

I understand that new planning guidelines are being introduced for marine dredging, and I would be grateful if the Minister commented on that. The system known as the Government view is to be replaced by more formal planning guidelines, which is important because dredging obviously has an impact on biodiversity. There is a significant short-term impact and recolonisation begins soon after dredging, but it can take up to five years for an area's biological status quo to be restored. That is very important.

In the run-up to the 1997 election, at which time I temporarily left the political arena, there was a significant debate in north-west Norfolk about Docking shoal and Race bank. Local fishermen were concerned as they thought that insufficient account was being taken of their interests. They are also convinced that the significant dredging for sand for the Skegness to Maplethorpe section of sea defences impacted on their industry.

I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge is so open-minded and I hope that the respective marine authorities that the Bill would introduce have a mechanism to deal specifically with dredging applications. I hope, too, that the new planning guidelines will play a significant role and that the new authority can be involved in shaping them.

On wind farms, the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) pointed out that the Government's objective is for renewable energy to make up 10 per cent. of the UK's electricity requirement by 2010. I understand that the Crown Estate alone has 13 sites on which draft agreements have been entered into, and that two are in my constituency: Cromer and Lynn. On the Crown Estate sites alone, about 480 turbines will be constructed.

I agree with the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mrs. Clark) that it is essential that we meet the renewable energy requirement or, indeed, surpass it. We must place as much emphasis as possible on renewable energy. I accept that wind farms will play an important role, and obviously offshore wind farms will play a critical role in providing that energy. My concern relates to the impact that those wind farms will have on inshore fisheries.

Obviously, during construction, those inshore fisheries will be disturbed. The site at Lynn will have 60 turbines. I think that there will be 30 turbines on the Cromer site. It will be a huge construction operation. That will certainly have an impact on local fisheries, including that at King's Lynn. Exclusion zones will, rightly, be in place around wind farms, and we do not yet know what effect propellers on turbines will have on fish shoals and other marine habitats. More research needs to be done.

I am not trying to be negative about wind farms. We must have wind farms, but their location will be crucial. I would like the competent marine authorities to co-opt on to the particular bodies the relevant fishing interests: for example, in my constituency, the Lynn fishermen's co-operative and the eastern sea fisheries committee. When the Bill goes into Committee, we could consider writing in a requirement to give paramount importance to inshore commercial fisheries. There is currently nothing in the Bill about fisheries. I have no doubt that if such a clause is inserted and we have a mechanism whereby the relevant marine authorities are involved in the planning process—both the Department of Trade and Industry consents for wind farms and the new planning guidelines for dredging—the Bill will have a beneficial effect for inshore fishermen.

I have no hesitation in supporting my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge. He has been fortunate in the ballot.

Steve Pound (Labour, Ealing North)

Before the hon. Gentleman moves off the rather strange subject of the problems of wind farming, as one who spent some time before the mast and has rubbed up against a few fishing folk in his daily, I have found that the average fisherman gets a richer crop if there is some obstruction on the sea bed such as a gun turret or ammunition platform. He describes wind farms as a menace to fisheries, and prays in aid the problem of the propellers. Is he concerned about the flying fish quota? How on earth can an aerial propeller cause any problems for marine fishermen?

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

I think that we need more research on the matter. I am flagging it up as a potential problem. If the propeller of a large turbine is going around very fast in a high wind, it is bound to create huge ripple effects on the water within its vicinity. I am merely pointing out what a number of fishermen who are far better qualified than me have pointed out—that that could have an effect on shoals coming in. What we surely need is more research. I am not didactic.

David Chaytor (Labour, Bury North)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

Of course I shall because the hon. Gentleman is an expert on wind farms.

David Chaytor (Labour, Bury North)

It is very kind of the hon. Gentleman to say that, but it is not true. I was simply curious about the logic of his reasoning. If there is a high wind, it is fairly obvious that there will be more than a ripple effect on the water. Any additional ripple effect by the turbines of a wind farm will surely be absolutely negligible.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

The hon. Gentleman overlooks the fact that there will be a counter ripple effect by the propellers of the turbine. It has been pointed out to me by various fishermen that a man-made system that interferes with the delicate ecosystem may well produce side effects that we are not aware of at the moment. That is why there should be proper research into this.

In conclusion, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge. As the shadow Deputy Leader of the House said, he is highly regarded and respected on both sides of the House. He came first in the ballot and he has put a huge amount of effort and research into the Bill. I am particularly impressed by the extent to which he has discussed the Bill very openly with all the different groups, bodies and organisations involved.

As I pointed out, the Bill is not perfect, but it is certainly an important step forward. We are all aware that there is a critical need to preserve this type of habitat. It is vital that the Bill is given a Second Reading and is discussed in great detail in Committee so that we can improve it and make it acceptable to every organisation involved.

David Chaytor (Labour, Bury North)

I also congratulate the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) on coming first in the ballot and on choosing this Bill to present to the House. I am very pleased that a Conservative Member is promoting such a Bill. The Conservatives' new-found support for environmental policies is most welcome. Perhaps this Bill provides a new interpretation of the concept of clear blue water.

If Conservative Members have not yet read last Saturday's edition of The Daily Telegraph, I would very much commend to them the article by the editor of The Ecologist. It is essentially an appeal to members of the Conservative party, suggesting that in their fundamental review of policies and principles there may be considerable mileage to be gained by taking a much more proactive view in support of environmental policies. In the past, there has been a suspicion that their affection for the environment has been largely due to the fact that some of them owned so much of it. Now there is an opportunity for them to show their support for sustainable development out of genuine principles and care for the wider good of the community.

The hon. Member for Uxbridge has done the House a service in bringing the marine environment to our attention. My constituency is a long way from the sea, so it is important that I speak on behalf of my constituents, some of whom have contacted me on this issue, to demonstrate that it is not just an issue for those of us with coastal constituencies. The marine environment is important to us all. As my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy) said earlier in the debate, the oceans are the drivers of our international climate system and it is completely impossible for us to separate ourselves from what happens in the oceans.

I have a particular interest in what happens in the north-west coastal waters and the Irish sea and I am particularly concerned about the historic levels of contamination of that sea not only from the normal economic processes of extraction, the laying of pipelines and other forms of mineral exploration, but the radioactive emissions that have been pumped out from the Sellafield nuclear reprocessing station in Cumbria for many years. I congratulate the Government—and to some extent the previous Government—on the steps that have been taken in recent years to tighten the regulations over radioactive emissions into the oceans, but we still allow far too much radioactivity and radioactive materials to leak out into the seas around the United Kingdom, and particularly into the Irish sea from Sellafield. I would be very grateful to hear the comments of the hon. Member for Uxbridge on that and grateful if my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment referred to it in his reply to the debate.

I endorse the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett) that if the Government have any reservations about the detail of the Bill, for example if the Department of Trade and Industry has concerns about the impact on the oil and gas industries, they can be dealt with in Committee and should not lead to the Bill being sabotaged today.

As other hon. Members wish to speak, and as other Bills for consideration today deserve progress, I shall be brief. I hope that all hon. Members in the Chamber will support the Marine Wildlife Conservation Bill. I support it for two main reasons, the first of which is the absolute need to recognise the importance of maintaining and enhancing biodiversity. I think that there has been a new public understanding of the issue in recent years. People now appreciate that there has been a drastic loss of wildlife and plant species and that that loss cannot continue. We have to take action to conserve and reverse the loss of biodiversity.

The second main reason that I support the Bill is the opportunities that it will create for greater scientific understanding of what happens in the ocean. I think that many people have started to realise that understanding the secrets of the oceans can provide the key to dealing with the problems facing the continuation of civilised life on earth. Other hon. Members have already mentioned the potential benefits of increasing our understanding of what happens under the sea, including the possibility of generating new sources of renewable energy, and I entirely endorse those comments. We have to gain greater scientific knowledge of what happens in the deeper parts of the ocean.

I should like to raise two issues. Although the hon. Member for Uxbridge may not be able to address them today, I should be grateful if the Minister will address them briefly. The first issue is European legislation, because much of the environmental legislation that has effective or been adopted by the United Kingdom has been driven by Europe. I think that that fact is one of the very good reasons why we should have closer and not more distant links with the European Union. How will the Bill relate to current European legislation on the environment?

Secondly, and returning to the issue of radioactive emissions to the seas surrounding the United Kingdom, because of emissions from the Sellafield nuclear reprocessing plant, the Irish Government have announced their intention—they may already have taken action—to cite the United Kingdom Government in legal action over a breach of our obligations under the Oslo and Paris—Ospar—convention. That convention seeks to reduce radioactive emissions to the ocean almost to zero. I should be grateful if the hon. Member for Uxbridge will say how his Bill might link with the provisions of the Ospar convention, and if the Minister will say something about the Irish legal challenge—although I appreciate that it might be difficult to say much about it at the moment.

Bob Spink (Conservative, Castle Point)

My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) showed great judgment in selecting to promote the Marine Wildlife Conservation Bill, and he has demonstrated his characteristic eloquence and his great passion for the subject both in his speech and his interventions. It is a most important issue and I welcome his collaborative approach to it. I hope that all hon. Members will accept that, because of his responsible approach to the issue and his diligence in consulting on it very widely, the Bill should be considered in Committee so that all the issues that it raises can be properly explored.

My constituency of Castle Point has important coastal and marine sites and bird colonies of international importance, although I shall not go through their names lest Labour Members challenge me on my knowledge of the subject, which is very small indeed. I am not an expert.

My constituency includes Canvey island and Two Tree island, with its population of avosets, and the coastal areas of Benfleet and Hadleigh. They are most important natural habitats, particularly for marine wildlife and for birds. In the early 1990s, in my first term in the House, I had some success in gaining some protection for those habitats, and I would welcome the opportunity to win more protection for the marine habitats around my constituency. Consequently, I support the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge to enact his Bill. It is certainly a step in the right direction, although I accept that some fine-tuning is necessary. For that reason, I hope that the Bill will go through to a Standing Committee.

On renewable energy, the arguments about wind farms are understandable. I share the concerns that have been expressed and welcome the comfort offered by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge. I share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for North–West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) that there should be a great deal more research on the impact of such devices on the marine environment, the fishing industry and so on. It would be nonsense to proceed with such an innovation without doing that research and without knowing the consequences of that action.

I know that hon. Members want to make progress, but I shall raise one more key issue. My hon. Friend the Member for North–West Norfolk mentioned dredging. That issue is important to my local area of south-east Essex, which includes much of the Thames estuary. The proposal from P&O for Shell Haven port development will have consequences yet unfathomed for the marine environment of the Thames estuary and beyond, out to sea. It is proposed to dredge millions of cubic metres of spoil from the sea bed. As my hon. Friend the Member for North–West Norfolk said, not only will that destroy the biodiversity in the local area for at least three to five years, but as dredging must be repeated every three to five years, the local marine environment will never recover. The proposal has not been thought through. I hope that we can focus on it in this place and in other places when the time is right.

I hope that the Bill will proceed to Committee, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge on his initiative.

Barry Gardiner (Labour, Brent North)

This morning's debate was, of course, interrupted by a statement at 11 am on the deployment of military forces. Those of us who are regulars on a Friday morning sometimes feel like the poor bloody infantry, because we come to the Chamber armed with our speeches, which we have spent long hours preparing, and sometimes we feel that our commanders are rather like those in the first world war.

Andrew Dismore (Labour, Hendon)

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Barry Gardiner (Labour, Brent North)

To a distinguished long-serving member of the infantry, yes.

Andrew Dismore (Labour, Hendon)

Does my hon. Friend agree that long hours are spent not only in preparing our speeches, but in delivering them?

Barry Gardiner (Labour, Brent North)

Indeed. All the infantry who came into the Chamber on the Government side this morning support the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) and wish his Bill well. I came armed with a good many more words than I now intend to speak because I wish it well. I support it fully and fulsomely, and my hon. Friends agree that it is an excellent Bill. If it is talked out, we certainly will not be responsible.

If and when the Bill gets on to the statute book, it will be a major achievement for the hon. Member for Uxbridge and a tribute to the dedication of all those involved in marine wildlife conservation. It will be a triumph for the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the World Wide Fund for Nature and the Marine Conservation Society. They have all lobbied for a long time to address the anomaly between land conservation and marine conservation. I acknowledge the continued commitment of my right hon. Friend the Minister to introduce effective marine legislation. His support from the Government Benches, which I trust will continue today, is welcome.

The Bill is fundamentally sound, and sets out a practical and positive way in which marine sites can be protected. It will fill in the gaps in the protection of the marine environment by designating nationally important sites in the waters around England and Wales, which are not covered by European designations. Earlier this year, the RSPB commissioned research in support of the Bill to highlight marine environments that could receive protection and management. I shall cite just two for their importance.

Dungeness is on a headland on the Kent coast between Folkestone and Hastings. The site is nationally important for populations of great-crested grebes—there are more than a 1,000 birds at that site—and red-throated divers, of which there are more than 300; they feed offshore in winter. The area is also a vital feeding ground in summer for birds, including internationally important breeding populations of common terns, little terns and mediterranean gulls. Sometimes it is right to follow the advice of one's parliamentary researcher, and sometimes it is wrong. When I was filling in the slip for my entry in "Dod's Parliamentary Companion", my researcher advised me most heartily not to say that I was an avid bird watcher. I ignored that advice and am pleased that I share the distinction of being a member of the RSPB with the hon. Member for Uxbridge. I know that he will appreciate the importance of the bird colonies that I have just mentioned.

Another important site is Waldrons reef, offshore to the east of Bognor Regis, where there is an extensive area of sandstone bedrock. Mystery surrounds the origin of the angular boulders that are known as sarcens; some people think that they are glacial deposits, others that they are discarded ballast stones from early shipping. However, the underwater wildlife there includes an amazing collection of 24 species of sponges, as well as cuttlefish, tompot blennies, burrowing anemones, slipper limpets and hermit crabs.

Earlier, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) spoke about an article in The Daily Telegraph. I shall refer to one published on 13 October 2000 which told a wonderful story about the discovery of a wildlife-rich reef offshore near the Isle of Purbeck in Dorset. Apparently, the reef is the size of 50 football pitches and lies in just 25 m of water; it is not a coral reef but a reef built of ross worms, which construct protective hollows using mud and sea shells. The fact that such amazing natural features are still being discovered around our coasts illustrates perfectly the need for a proper inventory of those sites so that they can be protected.

The Bill has the potential to protect specific species as well as species-rich sites similar to those that I have just outlined. I pay tribute to the research of Mr. Chris Wood into Eunicella verrucosa or the pink sea fan, a species that will undoubtedly benefit from the Bill. Eunicella verrucosa is one of only two sea fans that grow in British waters. It is a soft coral found in south-west England, unlike the northern sea fan, Swiftia pallida, which occurs in western Scotland. It is a slow-growing and long-lived species, which is especially prone to damage caused by fishing gear and careless divers. It is a protected species under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 2000 and is one of the marine species for which a biodiversity action plan has been prepared. The aim of the current recording of the sea fan by the Marine Conservation Society is to add to the knowledge of sea fan distribution, habitat and condition and complement other research aimed at preserving the species.

Sea fans are filter feeders and can be found in rocky areas. They are oriented across the current and are sufficiently flexible to withstand quite a bit of buffeting. The problem that the hon. Member for North–West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) highlighted with wind power and the cross currents that it could create will probably not trouble the sea fan too much. Sea fans normally live deeper than any wave surge, so are not usually seen in water shallower than 20 m. Fans grow typically in an open rocky habitat among dead men's fingers and ross coral.

The species is located in the south-west waters of the British isles, but can also be found around the south-western coasts of Europe, the Mediterranean and north-west Africa.

David Chaytor (Labour, Bury North)

Does my hon. Friend agree that listing the idiosyncratic habits of obscure species is a technique that is often used by those who wish to delay the progress of a Bill?

Barry Gardiner (Labour, Brent North)

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, but he will notice that I am speaking at twice my usual rate in order to put on record the reasons why the Bill is important without impeding its progress. I want to allow time for other hon. Members to do exactly the same thing. The Bill deserves our support and I have many sheaves of paper to help me to express that support. I assure him and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I shall make absolutely sure that I try to keep well within time on this occasion.

The pink sea fan is what I call a "sodof". I should point out that I use that term not to try to stop any further interventions, but to explain why the pink sea fan is important. We are all familiar with items that are "bogofs"—buy one, get one free—but the pink sea fan is a "sodof", as people can save one, develop one free. That is the case because it supports a further unique species, the sea fan anemone or amphianthus dohrnii. For the benefit of our Hansard reporters, let me say that I shall ensure that they receive the correct spelling. The sea fan anemone is another biodiversity action plan species. This little anemone, which rarely exceeds 1 cm in width, generally attaches itself to the branches of sea fans, although it may also occur on other tall structures such as hydroids and worm tubes. As it normally reproduces asexually by basal laceration—a process whereby small fragments of tissue tear away from it and regenerate into tiny anemones—its distribution can be patchy and changeable. Where one occurs, there will often be others nearby, but it is difficult for them to spread. Recent information on distribution is limited, but suggests that there are concentrations along the south-western coast. Its small size means that it is likely to be overlooked.

The Bill offers the potential to protect both species. The Marine Conservation Society considers that such protection would be hugely significant for the anemone and could lead to an increase in the number of sites in which it can be found. Both species are threatened by damage caused by unmanaged marine environments. As such, they are excellent examples of why the Bill must be enacted. That is why I have laboured my points at such length.

I could talk further about the reasons why basking sharks will also benefit hugely from the Bill. They are incredible creatures, as anybody who is familiar with the marine environment will know.

Linda Gilroy (Labour/Co-operative, Plymouth, Sutton)

May I invite my hon. Friend, and, indeed, all hon. Members, to visit the National Marine Aquarium, where the basking shark is celebrated? I encourage him to continue his peroration about the pink sea fan, which I mentioned earlier. It is exactly the sort of organism that is not captured by current measures, but could be protected by the Bill.

Barry Gardiner (Labour, Brent North)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her comments. The basking shark is an extraordinary creature of which we should be proud, as it inhabits our native waters. It is a filter feeder that mainly consumes plankton. In the UK, basking sharks appear to favour a copepod called calanus finmarchus. Amazingly, they can filter almost 2000 cu m of sea water every single hour that they feed. Let me put that into context: it is the equivalent of an Olympic-size swimming pool of 50 m in length, with eight lanes.

I shall not speak as much as I could about the basking shark. Suffice it to say that the Bill will protect the feeding areas of the shark. I hope that it will provide us with an opportunity to get more information than we currently enjoy about that unusual species.

The Bill will require the sea fisheries committees, the local statutory inshore fisheries management bodies that operate in England and Wales, to be heavily involved in the management of sites set up as a result of the Bill. The SFCs are funded by a levy on local authorities but, with local authority finances under such pressure, funding for SFCs is not always a political priority. Let me mention at this stage that, should the Bill become law—I hope that it does—it is fundamentally important that a review be undertaken of the funding necessary to secure the future of both coastal fisheries and the marine environment.

As SFCs will have a major role to play in ensuring that the Bill works in practice, the case for better funding of the SFCs is stronger than ever. Historically, they have had a role in managing special areas of conservation and sites of special scientific interest. The demands on their resources are for administrative work, including work on management plans, practical work on enforcement and fisheries monitoring.

The Association of Sea Fisheries Committees of England and Wales has for some time been pressing for an arrangement that would share responsibility for SFCs' funding between national and local government. That would maintain SFCs' local base while making them more financially secure. The association is supported in its request for a review of funding by a recent House of Commons Agriculture Committee report on sea fishing, which recommended that

"the funding arrangements for SFCs be re-examined in order to establish a secure, permanent, financial framework within which they can plan and perform their duties".

In view of the SFCs' experience that managing a special area of conservation or an SSSI with a significant marine interest costs some £20,000 a year, I hope that local authorities will receive the funding necessary to fulfil their responsibilities under the Bill.

I shall bring my remarks to a close so that others can speak in support of the Bill. I could not close, however, without speaking as the joint Chair of the all-party parliamentary sport and leisure industry group. I am fully aware that, when new legislation is introduced, there is often concern about the cost of implementing it. I mentioned earlier the costs that may be associated with the SFCs. However, at a time when we are becoming increasingly aware of the benefits of eco-tourism, and when we have a new Government Department, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, one of whose aims is to build links between farming, recreation, economic development and a range of activities, we should recognise that the Bill also has the potential to bring financial benefits in eco-tourism.

Linda Gilroy (Labour/Co-operative, Plymouth, Sutton)

I wonder whether my hon. Friend noticed from my earlier contribution that the south-west regional development agency has said that eco-tourism is almost as important as information and communications technology to the economy of the south-west, which is pre-eminent in these matters.

Barry Gardiner (Labour, Brent North)

I recognise what my hon. Friend is saying. As she knows from her area, and as many other hon. Members know from theirs, this is an extremely critical time for tourism in England and Wales. It has suffered much in recent months and the industry should realise that the Bill could help in the development of eco-tourism. I hope that the Government, when considering cost implications, will also consider the net benefits that could be achieved from supporting the Bill.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Uxbridge not on his good fortune for coming first in the ballot—that is a matter of luck—but on his sound judgment in bringing the Bill to the House and on the way in which he has piloted it through. I wish him God speed and a fair wind.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

I support the Bill and join other hon. Members in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) on promoting it.

It is surprising that, as an island nation surrounded by marine life, we have paid so little attention to the sea. The sea is a place of work in terms of fishing and energy, and has historically denoted our boundaries and signified our power. Although Britannia ruled the waves, we spent little time considering what is beneath them. Perhaps that is because we are not blessed with warm climates, and the cold waters put people off trying to understand the sea.

Clearly, there is a new appreciation of marine life, the beauty of our environment, the dangers of pollution and the need for a proper environmental balance. On land, much thought has already gone into achieving such a balance and weighing up the rights of industry and those of local people and visitors. The balance between historical and future use has also been considered. However, that cannot be said about our marine environment.

The existing legislative framework is haphazard. There is no shortage of laws to govern activities on our seas: they include legislation on merchant shipping, water resources, water industries and fisheries, and European regulations and various treaties. However, they tend to reflect effects on the marine industries rather than marine life. Indeed, the complexity of our laws often hinders the ability to introduce policies in favour of marine life.

There is therefore a need for legal and policy frameworks to be directed at the protection of habitats and species. However, they need to balance environmental needs, to cater to the needs of industry and those of leisure and to provide a strategic and consistent approach, which has been lacking in the past.

Our thinking about the sea is too disjointed. There have been many significant and worthy projects to clean up the nation's beaches. That has resulted in many excellent beaches, but most of the efforts have been directed at cleaning up the mess from the sea rather than considering the reasons for it. That is a good example of lack of strategy and joined-up thinking.

Debates about fishing policies are also often disjointed. We argue with our neighbouring countries about who has rights over our fish, and we highlight the genuine plight of our fishermen, but we say little about why fish stocks are depleted. We need a framework whereby we can better understand our fish habitats and form our policies in the context of a proper understanding of the environment in which fishing takes place. We can thus prioritise and balance the interests of consumers, fishermen and the environment.

As on land, conservation at sea is about not only protecting beautiful sites but understanding the environment so that we can make proper choices about development. Unlike the sea, little is natural about our land environment. Fields and hedgerows are man's invention, and foxes have to be controlled because we have chickens and lambs. The environment that we enjoy has been moulded over the centuries. As we develop in different ways, our views about the sort of environment that we want have changed. We have developed a regulatory environment to provide a framework for that.

That has not happened in the marine world. It could be said that that was because the sea was inaccessible, but that would undermine the beauty and value of the vast range of habitats and species that exist in our marine environments. I shall not argue in favour of any specific sort of marine environment or weigh up the value of different sorts of habitats or species. However, we must create the regulatory environment for doing that. Indeed, in some local marine environments the national interest may better be served by the presence of oil and gas industries or by carrying out exploration, but that is not the case in many areas. Some areas will be suitable for touristic development of the sea from an environmental point of view, and some will be unsuitable. There needs to be a regulatory environment for the enforcement of policy decisions that also allows the proper consideration of the issues.

The key will be adaptability, which will be even more necessary at sea than on land. For instance, a suitable place to allow fishing this year may not be suitable next year, fish being more transient than, say, cattle. The same point could be used to show that there is a need better to understand the fish habitats around our shores so that we can strategically evaluate fishing in environmental terms.

It is also important to consider the marine environment, how it relates to current sea industries, such as shipping, fishing, oil and gas, and how it relates to the industries of the future. Many hon. Members have referred to that aspect.

Steve Pound (Labour, Ealing North)

Before the hon. Gentleman moves off the subject of marine fauna, will he join me in paying tribute to the promoter of the Bill for introducing for the first time in the House a discussion of the worm-like Enteropneusta of the phylum hemichordata, commonly known as the sea squirt? For the first time we have had a sensible discussion on this simple but pleasant creature, which is noted in biology primarily for having undiscernible gonads. We have been educated by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall).

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it has been a pleasure to hear about sea squirts. I admit to knowing very little about them before this debate.

One of the great impending debates for the House and the nation in the next few years is the future of our energy policy, which could involve harnessing wave or wind energy. Either of those sources of energy used at sea will have important official, aesthetic and habitat implications for the environment of the area in which they are sited, as has been discussed.

It would be preferable to have a clear strategic view of where hundreds, possibly thousands, of windmills are to be positioned, rather than to bumble through on a one-off application basis, which would lack consistency. An effective strategy could save huge costs, would reduce inconsistencies and enable the benefits and disadvantages to be considered on a balanced basis. It should not be assumed that having a proper regulatory framework would work to the disadvantage of sea industries, or the tourism industry.

Linda Gilroy (Labour/Co-operative, Plymouth, Sutton)

Would the hon. Gentleman also acknowledge that those interested in marine conservation should be able to accommodate those needs, because climate has a significant impact on our use of energy and on the health of the seas, and of plankton in particular? It would be imperative for us to find such accommodation, and that should not be a difficulty.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

I agree with the hon. Lady. That is another reason why adaptability will be important—as the hon. Lady said, climates affect the sea.

The Bill could also be used to encourage marine-related tourism and to develop educational facilities, which are currently significantly underdeveloped in Britain compared with other countries. At the moment, most consideration goes into securing rare habitats and species, but the emphasis needs to be changed so that we also encourage the study and enjoyment of the many excellent habitats that are currently thriving but about which we know relatively little because not much data are available.

Where we have identified species or habitats that are considered to be of such national importance that they should be protected, it is necessary that the power exists to enforce that policy if it is to work. Again, that will require flexibility because of the significant variations in habitat movement, as the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy) has said, and seasonal changes that exist in the sea. The relevant statutory conservation agencies should be able to implement management schemes on a site-by-site basis.

As we are an island nation, the sea is the key part of our national psyche. We should value it as an important part of our environment, and the Bill should provide the mechanism for us to give marine conservation the status that it requires and deserves.

Tom Watson (Labour, West Bromwich East)

I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) on achieving the Second Reading of this important Bill and on initiating a debate that has perhaps occasionally been more educative than we would require or even like. Like Uxbridge, my constituency is landlocked. In fact, it is probably about as far from the sea as any constituency in this country, so I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for presenting a Bill that would ensure that future generations of people from Uxbridge, West Bromwich, East and beyond would enjoy marine habitats for years to come.

I speak in this debate because West Bromwich is the nature capital of the midlands. I am lucky to have at the heart of my constituency the beautiful Sandwell valley—an ancient woodland and green space that has brought pleasure to countless generations of ramblers, anglers, scouts and guides, boaters and pond dippers, amateur botanists and swan watchers. In fact, the valley lies at the centre of the Black Country urban forest, and its important role in black country life has been protected only because of the laws that have enabled us to resist the tarmackers and the bulldozers. I welcome the Bill because it would allow us to extend that protection to our marine environments throughout the country.

Our valley is home to many of England's key species, including the speckled wood butterfly, the pipistrelle bat, the wood anemone and the wood warbler, so the hon. Member for Uxbridge will know that, like him, we in West Bromwich take our wildlife protection seriously. In fact, we have heard that he is a keen ornithologist, as is my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner). I invite them to come, at any time, to join generations of bird watchers who have walked along the streets of West Bromwich to Sandwell valley patiently to spot kingfishers, snipe, grey herons, willow warblers, whitethroats, skylarks, kestrels, green woodpeckers, redshanks, little ringed plovers, shovellers, swifts, sand martins, house martins and swallows.

The provisions for the protection of nationally important sites in England and Wales are substantially strengthened under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. The Government recognised that they had to take further action to protect SSSIs on land and the species and habitats in them, but I also welcome the Government's recognition that we should do more to protect our marine environment. I understand that DEFRA will publish a marine stewardship report next March because it recognises that today the imbalance between land-based and marine wildlife is greater than ever before.

We should not forget that three out of four of the world's biggest oil spills have threatened the British coast and waters. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) mentioned the salt marshes, three quarters of which have been lost during the past century. Some 50 per cent. of the deaths of the endangered northern right whale—sadly, now extinct in British waters—are caused by being hit by ships in coastal waters, so it is now time to shift our focus to tackling the multitude of problems that face our unique natural environments.

I praise my hon. Friends the Members for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett) and for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) for the work that they did in 1981 in securing the marine nature reserves. I afraid that I was not around on 27 November 1962, when my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow first raised the issue, but the action that some hon. Members have wanted to take has been overdue for some years.

We have had a very good debate today, and it has involved my first foray with the infantry on a Friday. This is my second contribution after my maiden speech, and I welcome the easy ride that Opposition Members have given me, but I shall now sit down and let my right hon. Friend the Minister reply to the debate.

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

I thoroughly agree with the last point made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Watson). This is one of those debates that, in my opinion, make private Members' days well worth having, not only for the purpose of finding out about obscure marine species such as the sea squirt—sometimes given its Latin designation, of which I have never heard and of which I dare say I shall never hear again—but, mainly, for the purpose of engaging in a serious, non-partisan examination of a very important but relatively neglected issue.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall), as sincerely as all who have spoken, on his choice of Bill. Having, as he said, won the lottery, he may not have got the money, but I think he has dealt with all the begging letters and petitions extremely well in coming up with this as his final choice.

The hon. Gentleman made a very fair, balanced, reasonable and supportive speech, to which I shall try to respond in like manner. He did say, however—I noted this particularly—that a much wider strategy than that contained in the Bill was needed if the marine environment is to be fully protected. That is true.

I shall take this opportunity briefly to set out the Government's approach to the marine environment and conservation, because, as others have said, such opportunities regrettably do not occur very often. I am aware from the speeches of Members in all parts of the House that there is a general wish to ensure that we act together to conserve our precious marine biodiversity. The Government entirely share that feeling. Indeed, in a keynote speech in March this year, the Prime Minister set the tone when he said that the Government would launch measures to improve conservation here and abroad, including the preparation of a series of marine stewardship reports. I shall return to that in a moment.

It has been said that some 50 per cent. of Britain's biodiversity—more than 40,000 species—exists in the marine environment. Our oceans and seas cover more than 70 per cent. of the earth's surface. Oceans and seas offer us food from fishing and aquaculture, and opportunities to exploit renewable energy sources such as wind power. I shall return to that later as well. They are an important influence on the climate, and are important in breaking down waste. One speaker referred to the mess coming in from the sea; the mess going out to the sea from the land worries me much more, but there is certainly a problem. On or under the sea bed are minerals and energy supplies.

As others have said, we have made major strides in improving conservation on land, notably in the landmark Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, which I was privileged to take through the House. It will give English Nature and the Countryside Council for Wales all the tools that they need—I think—to ensure that sights of special scientific interest on land are brought into a favourable condition. The Government, indeed, have set a pretty testing specific target to bring 95 per cent. of them into such a condition by 2010. However, as almost all hon. Members have said, the sea surrounding us deserves similar attention.

We acknowledge that not enough progress has been made on the marine environment. For several reasons, we do not have a comprehensive system of marine protected areas in British waters. One reason is that we do not yet possess the same depth of knowledge about marine ecosystems as we have about the terrestrial environment. As my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy) said, we are sometimes unaware of the biodiversity because we cannot see it, so we are not immediately aware when it is lost or damaged.

Another reason is that the marine environment is ecologically more complex: setting the limits of protected areas is problematic in an environment whose nature is fluid and ever changing. A further reason is that the sea has historically, for 2,000 years or more, been available for us to use, exploit and traverse as we please. There are few individual ownership rights over the sea—that should not change—and the uses of the sea are subject to a range of different mechanisms for the management of human activities that has developed over time. A large percentage of those mechanisms are agreed in European and international forums, which I must admit adds to their complexity.

We should not underestimate the problems associated with developing an approach, which the Bill is designed to do, to managing our influences on the marine environment, in recognition of its great ecological value. It would be a mistake to develop a system of protected areas that could give rise to the presumption that the rest of the marine environment was of no concern. To be fair to the hon. Member for Uxbridge, he said no such thing—in fact, he acknowledged the other legitimate interests in our marine environment. Although the designation of protected areas is important, as Minister for the Environment I am the first to say that it is not enough. That is why the Government have already started initiatives to take a broad view of the needs of biodiversity in the marine environment as a whole.

Despite standing by my statement that we have not done enough, we have recently made a good deal of progress in protecting the seas surrounding our coast. Many activities that damage the marine environment have now been banned or brought under tight controls. We no longer dump sewage sludge or low-level radioactive waste in the sea—those initiatives were started under the previous Government. Tighter controls have reduced the amount of mercury and cadmium going into the north-east Atlantic. Furthermore, we have banned the use of many pesticides that are harmful to marine life, and played a full part in European and international efforts to protect the oceans globally.

The Bill, which is about identifying and conserving nationally important marine sites, needs to be seen against the background of the habitats and birds directives, both because they already exist and so must be taken into account, and because their presence adds to the complexity of the mosaic that is our legacy.

My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) gave some details that I can now confirm. To date, within territorial waters, there are 133 marine special protection areas and 151 candidate special areas of conservation. Our best estimate of the total area of coastal and marine Natura 2000 sites is about 1.5 million hectares—a considerable area. The new regulations that we are introducing will place a duty on the Secretary of State to designate SACs and SPAs between 12 nautical miles—the limit of national waters—and 200 nautical miles from baseline. That, too, represents a substantial extension of conservation areas. The UK will be the first EU member to introduce such regulations.

My Department has let a contract with the Joint Nature Conservancy Committee to identify and agree relevant habitats and species in that 12 to 200-mile marine zone, to develop selection criteria and refine habitat definitions and to collate known data on those habitats and species. The committee is due to report in March, after which the Government will move to consider potential site identification.

One Member—my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West, I think—referred to the Darwin mounds, which are interesting. They are likely to be the first candidate for declaration as a special area of conservation once the new marine regulations are in place. The Darwin mounds—this is new to me—are an example of sandy coral mounds and they are no less fascinating for being in the cold, deep waters of the Rockall trough rather than the tropical waters in which we would normally expect coral reefs to reside. They are important not only as species in their own right, but as the habitat for sponges, starfish, worms, sea urchins, sea stars, gastropods, crabs and deep-sea demersal fish. I am amazed to find that all those marine species, let alone the coral mounds to contain them, are so near our shores, but that is a fact.

The key point for the hon. Member for Uxbridge is that we recognise that there may be gaps where data have still to be obtained and reviewed and in the coverage of nationally important marine wildlife and habitats. In our view, that should be addressed by the review of marine nature conservation.

I established that review and the working group to undertake it in 1999 to evaluate the success of previous marine nature conservation measures and to make proposals to improve marine nature conservation. The review is led by my Department and made up of a wide range of stakeholder organisations. I must say that I hate the word "stakeholder", but it applies to the relevant interests. The review includes other Departments, countryside agencies, the non-governmental organisations and, significantly, the commercial and recreational interests, which need to be part of the debate.

I should make a point in parenthesis. Several Members said that three marine nature reserves are designated under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. There are in fact four: Skomer, Lundy, Strangford Lough and St. Kilda, but that is a small matter of detail.

The working group published its interim report in May. It is a good review that attempted to highlight the full range of options on the way forward, from a complete overhaul of the current system to making minor changes. I am very interested in the working group's proposal of a regional seas pilot scheme in the Irish sea to test some ideas developed during the review. We shall consider that and, if we decide to proceed, we hope that the scheme might start in early 2002, with the results of the pilot available in early 2004.

Several hon. Members referred to the marine stewardship report, which is relevant to the Bill. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced in March that the Government are to launch measures to improve marine conservation here and abroad, including a series of marine stewardship reports. The first will set out the Government's goals for an integrated and sustainable management of the marine environment across the range of marine sectors.

The views of key stakeholders will be listened to at three workshops, the first of which I chaired in the past week. It was a hard-hitting session, with the commercial and industrial interests and the conservation interests discussing their differences frankly and straightforwardly. Both sides want to find a compatible way forward.

Tam Dalyell (Labour, Linlithgow)

Can my right hon. Friend give any really heavyweight interests that were critical of the Bill, and the reasons why?

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

I will come to that. Commercial and industrial interests are undoubtedly concerned about an extension of the designation process. The issue is whether it is possible to find compatibility between those and other interests. As I have explained—I have given the figures—there are already substantial levels of designation, totalling about 1.5 million hectares. It is not surprising that those interests are concerned about the possible impact of future designations. That is a crucial point in relation to the Bill and its future.

We are pursuing internationally agreed strategies under annexe V of the Oslo and Paris convention, which include reducing or eliminating inputs of hazardous and radioactive substances in the north-east Atlantic. Annexe V contains a strategy on the protection and conservation of ecosystems and biological diversity of the marine environment. Another is ACSCOBANS, if I can introduce another ghastly acronym. It stands for the agreement on the conservation of small cetaceans of the Baltic and North seas; ACSCOBANS is a great deal better than having to repeat all that each time.

Barry Gardiner (Labour, Brent North)

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

I will with some trepidation.

Barry Gardiner (Labour, Brent North)

I rise only to say that Askaban has a far more widely known meaning for all children in the United Kingdom because it is in the Harry Potter books. It is the prison for magical creatures. Since the Minister was referring to such magical creatures, perhaps it is appropriate.

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

One of the great pleasures is that I learn something every time I attend these debates. I am glad to know that. I missed it in my earlier life.

ACSCOBANS came into force under the previous Government in March 1994. Its aim is to promote the close co-operation between parties with a view to achieving and maintaining a favourable conservation status for small cetaceans in the Baltic and North sea.

Tony Banks (Labour, West Ham)

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

I am getting a little concerned, but I give way.

Tony Banks (Labour, West Ham)

My right hon. Friend is talking about cetaceans. May I mention crustaceans? We should consider not just the welfare of marine wildlife, as it were, in the marine environment, but how they are subsequently exploited. May I draw his attention to early-day motion 278 on Barney the lobster? The Department is, I hope, working with Bristol university on the development of a crustastun. Will he give his ministerial attention to the welfare of lobsters and how they are cooked?

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

Sometimes one learns more than one bargained for. I cannot immediately remember the wording of that early-day motion but I know of my hon. Friend's real and deep concern on these matters. I shall look at it and promise to get in touch with him next week. Perhaps we can have some further discussion.

Andrew Dismore (Labour, Hendon)

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

I think my generosity is getting the better of me.

Andrew Dismore (Labour, Hendon)

On the issue of cooking lobsters, I understand that Mr. Rick Stein has a theory that, if we keep a lobster in the deep freeze for some time beforehand, it chills it to such a degree that it does not realise it is being cooked.

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

I think that the Bill is about the preservation of marine species, not the subtleties of slaughtering particularly tasty species.

The UK hosted the third ACSCOBANS meeting in July 2000. I mention that because several hon. Members raised the important question of bycatch. A resolution, which was strongly supported by the UK, setting clear limits on levels of incidental take of small cetaceans was agreed. Bycatch of whales or dolphin species above 1.7 per cent.—I do not know how the figure was arrived at but it is relatively low, I suppose—is regarded as unacceptable. To meet that target, an intergovernmental working group is developing a UK bycatch response strategy.

Biodiversity action plans have been very effective on land and we are now trying to apply them at sea. As part of the UK's biodiversity action plan, there are specific plans for the conservation of 19 species, including six plans for group species—for baleen whales, tooth whales, small dolphins, commercial fish, deep-water fish and marine turtles. A co-ordinated steering group led by my Department is taking forward cetacean action plans working with representatives from non-governmental organisations, other Government Departments, the devolved Administrations, fishermen and other stakeholders.

Let me turn briefly to the World Wildlife Fund oceans recovery campaign. Hon. Members will be aware of that campaign, so I shall take this opportunity to refer to some of its main objectives.

First, it is seeking an improved network of marine protected areas to protect marine wildlife and habitats, and this Bill falls squarely within that aim. It supports the idea of an improved network of marine protection areas, which we are working to achieve through the application of the habitats and birds directives. It also supports the introduction of marine environmental high-risk areas, working under the auspices of the Ospar convention and through the development of ideas under the review of marine nature conservation. We support that objective and several of our initiatives are designed to achieve it.

Secondly, it supports the introduction of fishing-free zones, which is an extremely important proposal. We support the principle of fishing-free zones where they are justified, but we have yet to see the scientific evidence to support their introduction in UK waters. There would also be difficulties with implementation, because under the EU common fisheries policy establishing protected areas in international fisheries requires agreement in the Fisheries Council. Socio-economic effects would also have to be considered, particularly as it is not Government policy to make compensation available as a result of closures put in place to protect stocks.

Having said all that, I return to the hon. Member for Uxbridge and his Bill. I recognise the considerable work that has gone into it and the real commitment that the hon. Gentleman has shown in bringing it to the House today. The principle of taking action to identify and protect the most important marine sites is unquestionably a valuable one. The hon. Member for Mid–Norfolk (Mr. Simpson), who was very generous in his remarks, said that there was a gap in coverage of sensitive areas that will not be covered by designation under the habitats and birds directives. We acknowledge that, but if and when we legislate in this complex area, which is regulated by overlapping regimes and controls, we must make sure that the systems that we introduce do not further complicate an already complex, piecemeal mosaic. The hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk recognised, quite fairly, that we need to rationalise the present rather variegated framework. The question for the Government is whether the Bill is the most appropriate instrument for that purpose. I hope that I carry all hon. Members with me when I say that we must not apply a simplistic solution to a complicated problem.

Legislating in the marine environment is certainly never easy. Several hon. Members have acknowledged that there are still serious unresolved concerns about the Bill. Some of my hon. Friends have drawn attention to this very openly in relation to offshore oil and gas exploration, wind farms, ports development and certain sporting interests.

I also noted that the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) was seeking a derogation in the Bill for the interests of inshore commercial fisheries. That was one example. Additionally, the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) mentioned the need for further research, which I entirely support, to be sure about conservation impacts. Therefore, there are problems. The Government believe that those legitimate interests have to be fully considered before the Bill, perhaps in modified form, can finally proceed.

Bob Spink (Conservative, Castle Point)

Will the Minister give way?

Michael Meacher (Labour, Oldham West and Royton)

I shall not give way now.

I want to be as helpful as I can in the light of the virtual consensus on the Bill, but, for the reasons that I have just set out, we cannot support the Bill in its current form. Nevertheless, if it is the will of the House to give the Bill a Second Reading we are content to have further discussions in Committee with the Bill's promoter and sponsors. I hope that it will be understood that I cannot make any commitment at this stage on the Bill's ultimate fate, but we recognise the value of its objectives, the sincerity of its promoter, the manner in which he introduced it today and the support that it has received from hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber. We certainly share those concerns and interests and, as I said, we are content to have further deliberations in Committee on the application of its main provisions.

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

I thank the Minister very sincerely for his comments, and I do not think that any of us could have wished for more than that commitment. Our intention was to have a constructive debate, and that is precisely what we have had today. I hope that we shall have just such a debate in Committee. I also thank hon. Members, both those who are inside and outside the Chamber, for their support on the issue, which is not as simple as it may sometimes seem. I am also grateful for the power of "the infantry", who have been very useful in this debate.

Without taking anything for granted, I hope that the Bill will now be read a Second Time.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).