Marine and Coastal Access Bill [Lords]

Public Bill Committee, 30 June 2009.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Before we begin, given the weather, hon. Members may remove their jackets, or other such items of attire so as still to allow a sense of decorum. I cannot speak for my fellow Chairmen, but that ruling prevails while I am in the Chair. I have a few housekeeping announcements. All Members should ensure that mobile phones, pagers and BlackBerrys are turned off or switched to silent during Committee sittings. I remind the Committee that there is a money resolution in connection with the Bill, copies of which are available in the Room. Adequate notice should be given of amendments if they are to be eligible for selection: for a Tuesday sitting, amendments must be tabled by the rise of the House the previous Thursday; and for a Thursday sitting, they must be tabled by the previous Monday. As a general rule, I and my fellow Chairmen will not call manuscript or starred amendments.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

I beg to move,

That—

(1) the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 10.30 am on Tuesday 30 June) meet—

(a) at 4.00 pm on Tuesday 30 June

(b) at 9.00 am and 1.00 pm on Thursday 2 July;

(c) at 10.30 am and 4.00 pm on Tuesday 7 July;

(d) at 9.00 am and 1.00 pm on Thursday 9 July;

(e) at 10.30 am and 4.00 pm on Tuesday 14 July;

(f) at 9.00 am and 1.00 pm on Thursday 16 July;

(2) the proceedings shall be taken in the following order: Clauses 44 to 47; Schedule 5; Clauses 48 to 51; Schedule 6; Clauses 52 to 64; new Clauses relating to Part 3; new Schedules relating to Part 3; Clauses 65 to 97; Schedule 7; Clauses 98 to 112; Schedules 8 and 9; Clauses 113 to 115; new Clauses relating to Part 4; new Schedules relating to Part 4; Clauses 116 to 144; Schedule 10; Clauses 145 and 146; Schedules 11 and 12; Clauses 147 and 148; Schedule 13; new Clauses relating to Part 5; new Schedules relating to Part 5; Clause 1; Schedules 1 and 2; Clauses 2 to 39; Schedule 3; Clause 40; new Clauses relating to Part 1; new Schedules relating to Part 1; Clauses 41 to 43; Schedule 4; new Clauses relating to Part 2; new Schedules relating to Part 2; Clauses 149 to 179; Schedule 14; Clauses 180 to 188; new Clauses relating to Part 6; new Schedules relating to Part 6; Clauses 189 to 196; Schedule 15; Clauses 197 to 227; Schedule 16; Clauses 228; new Clauses relating to Part 7; new Schedules relating to Part 7; Clauses 229 to 243; Schedule 17; Clauses 244 to 271; Schedule 18; Clauses 272 to 289; new Clauses relating to Part 8; new Schedules relating to Part 8; Clauses 290 to 296; Schedule 19; Clauses 297 and 298; Schedule 20; Clauses 299 to 304; new Clauses relating to Part 9; new Schedules relating to Part 9; Clauses 305 to 309; Schedule 21; Clauses 310 to 315; Schedule 22; Clauses 316 to 319; remaining new Clauses; remaining new Schedules; remaining proceedings on the Bill;

(3) the proceedings on the Bill shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Thursday 16 July.

May I say, Mr. Gale, what I delight it is to serve under your stewardship on such an important Committee? The Bill has been long awaited by many, not only in this House, but in the other place, where it has progressed and been improved through several months of intense scrutiny. The Programming Sub-Committee’s debate on agreeing the way forward for scrutiny of the Bill reflected the collaborative approach that was adopted in the other place and that, I hope, will prevail in the Committee as we proceed with the Bill. We have tried strenuously to avoid the necessity of putting in knives and guillotines in order to have a free-flowing debate, and I think that we now have, in a much improved Bill, ample opportunity to get right to the core of what it is about.

I particularly welcome the agreed approach to getting to the meat of the Bill and to the planning, licensing and conservation aspects before proceeding to other matters. We also plan to reserve sufficient time towards the later part of our discussions in Committee to look in depth at coastal access. I hope and anticipate that the spirit of constructive engagement will continue throughout our deliberations.

I would like simply to reiterate what the Bill is about: our relationship with the seas and the coastal environment. That is critical to us as a nation, but it also sets the scene on how we as a nation intend to lead in what we do for our marine and coastal environments. I would like to repeat my thanks not only to Members in this House and in the other place who have contributed to an excellent debate so far, but to the 15,000 or so members of other organisations who responded to the consultation on the Bill, for which they have been waited for some years. We could say that it has effectively taken six years of pre-legislative scrutiny to bring us to the Committee today.

I look forward to a constructive engagement through the course of our deliberations and hope that we can give the Bill a good debate at all stages. We on this side of the Committee are certainly willing to give it extra time and to go late into the evenings, with your approval, Mr Gale, to ensure that we have adequate time for discussion.

Richard Benyon (Conservative, Newbury)

I would like to echo the Minister’s welcome to you, Mr. Gale, and look forward to your help and guidance throughout this process. As he said, there have been lengthy discussions on the Bill in another place, but I hope that the programme motion will allow us to tease out a few key areas of debate to improve the Bill. For many people who have contacted us, the key aspect is the establishment of marine conservation zones and the nature conservation elements in the Bill. We obviously welcome some changes made in another place, such as the inclusion of the words “ecologically coherent”, if not in the Bill itself, then in the statement laid before the House. Such changes are most welcome, but there are areas where we need time to clarify just how those conservation zones will be achieved and in what time scale. There are many other aspects of the Bill that we will cover in the meat of our debates, as the Minster said.

We have concerns about the provisions on coastal access, although not about the principle of achieving greater access to coastal Britain, on which there is much agreement. We will be seeking time to secure a better balance in certain areas. We will seek clarification on privacy, liability and biosecurity. We have introduced and will continue to introduce a range of amendments: some probing, some seeking to underline and secure concessions in another place, and others to make more fundamental changes to the Bill. As I said on Second Reading, we seek, in all cases, to adopt an attitude of co-operation and consensus, as was the case in another place. There will be times when we will not agree but, let us be frank, if the marine part of the Bill were to go on to the statute book today it would be a giant leap forward in marine conservation and would create a framework to address an area of our environment that has waited too long for the protection it deserves.

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

May I, too, welcome you, Mr. Gale, to our proceedings as one of our Chairmen until we rise on 16 July, as I assume we will use all the time available to us? Although I entirely agree with the Minister and the hon. Member for Newbury on the need for further probing and fine tuning, basically we are pretty happy with the Bill and its general direction. If it were implemented tomorrow, we would be pleased and proud with what we already have.

However, a number of issues need to be teased out further. I am sure that the Minister accepts that industries with interest in the marine resource and conservation bodies want reassurance on a number of issues that need clarification. I hope we will retain the co-operative and consensual approach which has been a feature of the debates on the Bill so far.

The Minister and I have a great deal in common. We are both Celts and we share a medical condition in which we take an interest. The Minister also owes me a favour because I helped him out when he was found without any trousers one day—more of which we will debate as the Committee proceeds. Beyond that, Mr. Gale, I hope not to take advantage of the favour the Minister owes me.

I hope we will persuade the Minister on a number of issues during debate on the Bill. I also hope the Minister will not approach the measure with the intention—as is often the case with Government Bills—of defending to the hilt the Government’s red lines, irrespective of the strength of the arguments. I hope rather that he will approach it with an open mind, listen to the strength of the arguments, be prepared to compromise and accept that fine tuning might result in further amendments to the Bill.

Martin Salter (Labour, Reading West)

I was going to say how much I was looking forward to serving on the Committee but the prospect of continued medical bonding between the hon. Member for St. Ives and the Minister is too horrible to contemplate. I hope that is the last we hear of it, Mr. Gale. I am sure you will clamp down on that kind of nonsense.

I reiterate that this is an excellent piece of legislation, and I welcome the commitment to the broad principles given by both Opposition parties. Many other Members and I worked closely with the Minister and his predecessor Ministers to see the legislation reach the stage it does today. I put on the record a slight concern, for the Minister’s ears in particular. A number of us—particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Southampton, Test and for Plymouth, Sutton, the hon. Member for Broxbourne and myself—worked long and hard on the Joint Committee. The Bill has been the subject of extensive scrutiny, and the work of the Joint Committee must not be mothballed, it has to be a point of reference. There might be times when, on an all-party basis, we will come up against Whitehall red lines, but going back to some of the deliberation that took place in the Joint Committee might give the Minister strength to push back some of the red lines that need to be a little less starkly drawn, particularly on nature conservation and sea fisheries issues that we will discuss. However, the programme motion is broadly sensible, and I think that we can meet the timetable we have set ourselves, precisely because of the extensive scrutiny that both Houses have already had the opportunity to engage in.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Before we proceed, there is another housekeeping issue, mainly for the benefit of the Officers of the House. I am conscious that there is considerable public interest in the Bill, and, as always, we have managed to find the largest Committee Room with the smallest Public Gallery. I am also aware that there might be some people representing lobbying organisations who will wish to be here for most, if not all, of the Bill proceedings. If those people would quietly identify themselves to the Officer on duty—I am not allowed to see the Gallery from here—I personally have no objection to their sitting in the Press Gallery, which, as you will note, is unoccupied.

Clause 44

Richard Benyon (Conservative, Newbury)

I beg to move amendment 9, in clause 44, page 27, line 2, leave out ‘contributing to’ and insert ‘furthering’.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 29, in clause 44, page 27, line 16, at end insert—

‘(4A) In this Part “sustainable development” means the maintenance or enhancement of the purposes underlying the designation of the MCZ, in accordance with section 117.’.

Amendment 1, in clause 2, page 2, line 5, leave out ‘making a contribution to the achievement of’ and insert

‘taking reasonable steps, consistent with the proper exercise of its functions to further’.

Richard Benyon (Conservative, Newbury)

For the benefit of the Gallery, we all need to keep our voices up. Any of us who attend the 1922 committee in this room know that it is impossible to hear from the back, and I shall therefore try to ensure that people in the Gallery can hear me.

Clause 44 outlines precisely what a marine policy statement is and our amendment seeks to ensure that it includes a duty to further sustainable development, rather than merely contribute to it. “Contributing to” infers a finite involvement in sustainable development, while “furthering” signifies a continuous effort towards its achievement, which is what is needed for the effective management of, and planning for, our seas. As the marine policy statement is to be the overarching policy that will inform marine planning in all UK waters, it is crucial that we endow it with a sufficiently robust objective.

The purpose of amendments 1 and 2 is similar to that of amendment 9. They relate to part 1 of the Bill, but have been grouped with amendment 9 because they refer to exactly the same wording, but in the context of the creation of the Marine Management Organisation. They will ensure that the MMO has a sufficiently robust objective to be responsible for “furthering” rather than

“making a contribution to the achievement”

of sustainable development.

“Making a contribution” is relatively benign wording, and “furthering” would make it a more important statement in the context of sustainable development. The MMO is being marketed as the one-stop shop for marine management, and as such should take a leading rather than a contributory role in sustainable development.

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

Amendment 29 has been tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire, and its purpose is to probe what we mean by sustainable development. While I appreciate and very much support the intentions behind amendment 9, it presupposes, as does the Bill, that we know what we are asking the Bill to achieve in terms of sustainable development.

On the DEFRA website, sustainable development is defined very much in global terms:

“The goal of sustainable development is to enable all people throughout the world to satisfy their basic needs and enjoy a better quality of life, without compromising the quality of life of future generations.”

I agree that we need some basic conceptual terminology that can take us forward in a debate without having constantly to redefine what we mean. The term “sustainable development” is broadly understood, albeit that it is rather fluffy at the edges. The concept is that it does not compromise the ecology of the resource that we are trying to protect while at the same time allowing some development within the environment. However, nowhere in the Bill is there any definition of how we achieve the balance between development and conserving that ecology resource.

The Minister’s argument for not including a definition of sustainable development is that it would lock the Bill into one definition, which could not be updated in the light of future developments. I understand that, but it must be possible somewhere at least to establish a benchmark below which sustainable development will not allow the ecological resource to fall. I hope that the Minister will be prepared to acknowledge that sustainable development must mean that we are trying to achieve at least the maintenance, if not the enhancement, of the marine conservation zone.

We have to begin by acknowledging that the purpose of designating a marine conservation zone is to protect something that it is there and, because past activities within it may have degraded the marine biodiversity of the area, to enhance it. We certainly do not want to allow that marine ecology to fall below its current level. It is not asking too much to expect the Minister to acknowledge that that is what we are trying to achieve. If he is not prepared to accept a definition in the Bill itself, I hope that he will at least reassure me that there will be strengthened wording in the guidance that will accompany the Bill.

Martin Salter (Labour, Reading West)

None of us wants to see almost the first decision of this Committee to be caught up in controversy or unnecessary division, but the Minister will have to give some ground on this issue. I remind the Minister and the Committee what the Joint Committee said about this issue. The Whips may also want to bear in mind that the names of three Labour Members are attached to the recommendation. Page 22 of the Joint Committee report reads:

“The Environment Agency argued that the MMO should have a duty to further conservation of marine flora and fauna and to secure compliance with the Water Framework Directive requirements and objectives in transitional and coastal waters.”

Britain has signed up to the water framework directive, so we are going to have to go down this road anyway. The Government really should not be willing to push back on the issue. On page 22 of the Joint Committee, recommendation 39, which a number of us put our names to, states:

“We have no doubt, from the weight of the evidence received, that the statement of purpose of the MMO is ambiguous both in terms of the draft Bill and in the policy framework which the Government envisages.”

I do not believe that anybody here wants the statement of purpose to remain ambiguous. It may be, as the hon. Member for St. Ives has said, that that can be resolved in guidance. It may be that that can be resolved if the Government accept the amendment which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Newbury, and to which my name is attached.

Finally, recommendation 40 states:

“Beyond this high-level objective, we also consider that clear duties should be set out on the face of the Bill to ensure that the new organisation works to meet the aspirations which Parliament has set for it. We recommend that these include a duty to further sustainable development and we suggest that this be based on the eco-system approach to managing the marine environment.”

The arguments are overwhelming, and I will be very interested to hear the Minister’s response.

Charles Walker (Conservative, Broxbourne)

The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and the Bill needs to have real teeth. The Bill needs to be the champion of the marine environment. In the future, when we see projects that may make perfect economic sense, we want to be able to say, “No. They make economic sense, but the cost to the marine environment is too high.” That is what I, and the hon. Member for Reading, West, are seeking to achieve as part of the Committee. The sea— the marine environment—needs a real champion. It is time for the House and its Members to step up to the plate and ensure that that is exactly what happens.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

I am very glad to begin with the part 3, which concerns the new system of marine planning. That is a key manifesto commitment, and the marine planning proposals form the heart of the Bill. This strategic approach to how we manage what goes on in our seas is absolutely fundamental to our deliberations. Let me recap, because the issue goes to the heart to the debate that we have just had and the very worthwhile contributions that we have just heard.

What we have done in the Commons and the other place is clarify the arrangements for scrutiny of the draft marine policy statement by the approved legislatures, including Parliament. We have placed a requirement in the Bill for the draft marine policy statement to undergo an appraisal of sustainability. We are also able to commit to carrying out a strategic environmental assessment, as the hon. Member for Broxbourne has mentioned, of the draft marine policy statement as part of that appraisal of sustainability. We have placed new reporting duties on marine plan authorities. As we will discuss, in the other place we decided to accept the duty placed on marine plan authorities to seek to ensure that marine plans are prepared for all marine regions, where the marine policy statement governs planning.

Charles Walker (Conservative, Broxbourne)

One concern relates to the Severn estuary barrage. I am afraid and concerned that, very early on, the MMO will be overridden to allow the barrage, in its worst construct, to go ahead.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

Within the Bill there are provisions to ensure that that sort of cross-border working operates effectively. We also need to ensure an effective relationship between the marine planning system and the terrestrial planning system, and between national infrastructure projects and what we need to do to conserve the very best of our seas. We will return to point, which is valid, as the Committee proceeds.

I return to the amendments, which are worth while and which explore the crux of the issue. Amendment 9 relates to whether we use the words “contributing to” or “furthering”, which was subject to a great deal of debate in the other place. The amendment, tabled by the hon. Members for Broxbourne, Clwyd West, East Devon, Newbury and Upminster, proposes replacing

“contributing to the achievement of sustainable development”

with “furthering”. Committee members will be aware of the extensive discussions in the other place on very similar amendments, which related to the MMO’s general objective in clause 2. I accept that this context is slightly different—we are talking about wording that defines the permitted content of a document rather than an objective intended to inform an organisation’s actions. However, to some extent, that is part of the problem with the amendment.

To explain, policies set out in a document cannot themselves further sustainable development, unless applications are made and decisions are taken in accordance with those policies that result in real changes in activity in the marine area. In the same way, the MMO alone will not be able to achieve sustainable development, because there are so many other actors and regulators in the marine area that also need to contribute. We need to do this together, and that is part of the essence of the Bill.

The purpose of the marine policy statement, which we are talking about here, is to ensure that the actions of all those public bodies and regulators are aimed at the same objective. We share that same objective here, which is each organisation making its individual contribution to achieving sustainable development in the marine area. Clause 44(1)(a) makes it clear that each and every policy in the MPS, if implemented, contributes to sustainable development

Charles Walker (Conservative, Broxbourne)

Will the Minister, at some stage in Committee, define “sustainable development”? We have sustainable communities and all sorts of “sustainables” but it is almost becoming a glib phrase. What is it?

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

Indeed. That goes to the heart of the problem with putting a definition of sustainable development in the Bill. Years ago I was lecturing on the subject and we looked at various definitions. Everybody knows the triangle of sustainable development—economic, environmental and social—but there are varying definitions of what it means. Do we have weak or strong sustainability? Jacob’s definition varies from others. The problem is defining it now, when sustainable development is a changing concept. We understand the broad parameters, and I can give the hon. Gentleman and Committee members our definition.

What do we mean by sustainable development? The UK Administrations have adopted five shared principles that set out the basic framework for sustainability: first, living within our environmental limits; secondly, achieving a just society, which means a just society for all those concerned with marine conservation and for those whose livelihoods depend on the sea; thirdly, a sustainable economy; fourthly, good governance of the marine environment, which is what the Bill is about; and, finally, there is sound science. Those five principles underpin what the UK Administrations have collectively signed up to. Hon. Members may not have seen the document yet, but we have also expressed those principles in our high-level objectives for the marine area, which we set out recently and will underpin the marine policy statement.

Linda Gilroy (Labour, Plymouth, Sutton)

I have been looking at “Our seas—a shared resource. High level marine objectives”, which seems to set out what the Minister is saying. What status do the objectives have? I am struggling to understand what harm there would be in accepting the amendment.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

Indeed. I am happy to proceed on that point because it is a vital argument that needs fleshing out. I shall turn to the legal status of the objectives in a moment. As my hon. Friend knows, we have tried to bring forward a lot of guidance as we have debated the Bill.

The debate over “furthering” or “contributing to” the achievement of sustainable development is, in some ways, a misunderstanding of what sustainable development means. It is not a state of being in one time; we cannot say, “Today we have achieved sustainable development, so we’ve done with it,” or, “Our seas are in a state of sustainable development, let’s sit back.” Instead, sustainable development must be seen and defined as an ongoing process of ensuring that all our actions, including decisions on development and conservation in the marine area, are sustainable in the long term.

The wording of the Bill makes it clear that each policy and each action by all public authorities must pull in the same direction, making its own individual contribution, right across the board to ensure that the marine area is used in a sustainable way.

Concerns were expressed in the other place that the obligation for a marine policy statement to

“contribute to the achievement of sustainable development”

could be met simply by including policies on the establishment of marine conservation zones. I want to make it clear that that is neither our interpretation nor our intention. Members of the Committee should have received a copy of the high-level marine objectives, to which I have referred. As I pointed out, those objectives have now been agreed by all the various UK Administrations and Ministers, and they will underpin the MPS as we take it forward.

Hugo Swire (Conservative, East Devon)

I am sure that the Minister agrees that the harnessing of wave power and tidal power is in its infancy in this country but it is likely to grow. Those forms of power would be regarded as sustainable development and sustainable energy. However, does he not see that, further down the line, there will be increasing tension between the commercial needs of the developers of wave power and wind power and the marine conservation zones?

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

No. What I see in the Bill is the opportunity to streamline decision making. The agreed marine policies for the high-level objectives and marine policy statements, followed by the marine planning from the four Administrations around the UK, will give clarity and certainty. In addition, the MMO and the way in which we are reforming licensing will provide a much more streamlined process, so that people will know where marine conservation zones are and where there are areas in which we need to protect important flora, fauna and so on. The Bill should enable better, more streamlined decision making and that is why it has been broadly welcomed by those who are interested in development, as well as by those who are interested in conservation.

Charles Walker (Conservative, Broxbourne)

I promise that this is the last time that I will interrupt the Minister, because I know that he wants to make progress; I am sure that all parties want to make progress. He said that decisions will be based on sound science. On that basis, I cannot see how the Severn estuary barrage can progress beyond the point where we are now. The Severn estuary is one of the most precious environmental sites in Europe and indeed the world, and he has just acknowledged that that status will be a major factor in the decision-making process. Can he therefore tell the Committee here and now that the Severn estuary barrage, as currently envisaged by the DTI or whatever it is called now, will not go ahead?

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Order. Nice try, but no.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

All I can say is that the hon. Gentleman will know that, under European habitats directives, our concerns are to ensure that if any of the five and a half ideas on the proposals that exist were to proceed, they would do so in the light of the very special environmental status that the Severn estuary has.

I wanted to address the issue that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton about the legal status of the high-level objectives. The statement of the UK Government with the devolved Administrations within those high-level objectives is a statement of policy, and the MPS will be based on the framework laid out within that. It does not have the legal status, as she will know, of being part of primary legislation, but that is material to the debate that we are having. It is pertinent that we have chosen to bring that statement forward during the course of our proceedings, to clarify our intentions.

I want to turn to the amendment 9. Beyond the philosophical arguments about sustainable development and the wording of “furthering” and “contributing to”, there is a concern about the legal precedent that would be set by the proposed amendment. The drafting of clause 44 will almost certainly be familiar to members of the Committee from more than 70 other Bills and Acts, including, most recently, the Planning Act 2008 and the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill, which will shortly return to this House on Report. The drafting is a consistent use of a legal formulation relating to sustainable development that has developed over many years to form a legal precedent. I therefore have deep concerns that a different formulation in relation to the marine policy statement would imply to the courts that this Committee and Parliament intend the MPS to have a different purpose from the terrestrial planning documents, with which the statement needs to integrate and synthesise. There is therefore a genuine concern relating to legal precedent.

Martin Salter (Labour, Reading West)

I am listening to the Minister’s argument with care. Will he quote the part of the Government’s response to the Joint Committee in which deep concerns were expressed, as I suspect that they were not expressed? If there are deep concerns, they relate to the advice given to us by the Environment Agency, which we charge with helping us develop policy, and to the concerns of the Committee itself.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

I will try to respond to my hon. Friend’s question if I am able to drag the Government’s response from some inspired corner. Certainly, our strong advice is that, if the Bill took a different approach from the clear and well-understood legal precedent that has been established over a number of years, that would lead to a potential legal interpretation that the intention behind the provision differs from our interpretation of “contributing to” sustainable development in 70 other measures.

Following the concerns raised in the other place, we amended the Bill to place an express requirement on the policy authorities to carry out an appraisal of the sustainability of the policies proposed to be included in the MPS. That is significant, because the new requirement means that policies in relation to marine plans may only be included if the sustainability appraisal indicates that it is appropriate to do so. I can also confirm that, having carefully considered the points raised by their lordships during their debates, and in the light of the advice of our lawyers, the UK Government and devolved Administrations are now able to commit to undertaking a strategic environmental assessment of the draft MPS within the terms of the European Union directive on the strategic environmental assessment of plans and programmes. That is significant, because it bolsters and strengthens our approach to sustainable development. It also puts it in the context of the Bill and does not jeopardise it by overstepping the mark and setting up what would be a diversion from what has been established by legal terminology. I hope that I have clarified our commitment to ensuring that the MPS contains policies that, taken together across the board and individually, make a genuine and positive contribution to sustainable development in marine areas.

Charles Walker (Conservative, Broxbourne)

A final point. The Minister is again rightly focusing on sustainable development. What will happen in those areas in which development has already been proven not to be sustainable? I am thinking in particular about fisheries. What will he do to redress the balance in such areas? Has he provided for that in his opening statement?

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

Not in respect of the amendments under discussion, but we will come to that issue, not least when we discuss aspects of conservation. Running through the Bill is the intention to protect our most special habitats and all the different types of flora and fauna on the sea bed. Socio-economic factors may also be taken into account. The hon. Member for East Devon has spoken about issues such as wind and tidal energy, and we must also consider marine stream energy, dredging, the laying of cables, oil energy and so on. The protection of the very best of our marine environment runs through the Bill; we will turn to that again later, but the Bill allows for socio-economic factors to be taken into account.

The issues covered by amendment 29 relate to the discussion that we have just had. The amendment was tabled by the hon. Members for St. Ives and for Brecon and Radnorshire, and seeks to place a definition of sustainable development in the Bill. It provides, for the purposes of part 3, that sustainable development means the conservation of marine flora or fauna, marine habitats or types of marine habitats, or features of geological or geo-morphological interest. Since the marine policy statement to be prepared under part 3 sets the context for all marine plans and all decisions by public authority, whether those decisions are taken under the Bill or under the exercise of any other powers—that is what the Bill does—the amendment would effectively mean that the objectives of any marine plan or any decision that could affect the marine environment should be conservation and conservation alone. The policy of conservation alone would apply to the whole UK marine area, not just those areas identified as requiring designation as a marine conservation zone. Naturally, in the light of the discussions we are having—and this goes to the meat of the Bill—what I cannot do is support an amendment that would undermine the entire purpose of the marine planning system and, perhaps, even the entire Bill, which is meant to help us ensure that the marine area is managed in a way that is sustainable over the long term. That cannot simply mean conserving or enhancing natural features, important as that is. The marine resources around the UK are also vital for our economy, and it is not necessary or appropriate to cease our exploitation of them. That would not benefit anyone.

If all decisions, as proposed in the amendment, had to be taken in accordance with documents concerned only with maintaining or enhancing the conservation of existing natural resources, how could we in future, for example, license any fishing activity, or dredging, or the development of renewable energy installations that might cause limited damage to existing natural resources? As an illustration, even the installation of a farm of wind turbines, to help us reduce our carbon footprint and combat climate change, involves activity that does not conserve or enhance the natural geology and geo-morphology. Clause 58(1) requires public authorities to take decisions in accordance with the MPS and with marine plans

“unless relevant considerations indicate otherwise”.

We have carefully structured these provisions on the MPS and marine plans so that it should rarely be appropriate for public authorities to rely on this exception. Licensing and other authorities must in appropriate cases be able to take account of the economic and social needs of the UK, and they would need to rely on relevant considerations and exceptions, as well as the MPS and the marine plans, but that would be increasingly undermined if the amendment were accepted. That issue was considered extensively in the other place and I stand by the arguments made there by my noble Friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. There are many different definitions of sustainable development, and there have been quite a few attempts to define what it is. I do not believe that the absence of a definition in the Bill is a problem. Having a definition in the Bill that might differ from how the term is used, for example, in international law might lead to inconsistency and challenge.

If development is to be sustainable, it must be sustainable not only for the environment but within the triangle I described earlier, which provides the basic parameters of sustainability and sustainable development. It has be sustainable for those humans who live and work in it, not least hon. Members’ constituents who rely on that environment. That is why the policy set out in the marine policy statement should contribute to environmental sustainability, including the need to designate an ecologically coherent network of marine conservation zones and other designated sites, and protect our rare, threatened and representative species and habitats. It must also contribute to the sustainability of the UK’s economy and society. As my noble Friend said in Committee in the other place, the UK’s present understanding of the meaning of sustainable development is set out in the UK sustainable development strategy. There are five shared principles which provide the framework for sustainability: living within environmental limits; and achieving a just society, a sustainable economy, good governance—in this respect, in a marine environment—and sound science. Those are good principles to underpin sustainable development.

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

The Minister will understand that the purpose of the amendment relates to marine conservation zones, not marine planning as a whole. This is the most appropriate part of the Bill in which to mention sustainable development, so a definition is clearly required. My problem with the Minister’s response thus far is that he now appears to be replacing one piece of conceptual language—“sustainable development—with five competing pieces of conceptual language, which make the whole thing even less pin-downable, for want of a better expression. Whether we are “contributing to” or “furthering” something, the fact that that something is a set of five competing conceptual issues makes the whole process a great deal more frustrating—the Minister must understand that. It would be enormously helpful if he would at least attempt to pin this matter down a little more.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

I understand what the hon. Gentleman says, but this goes to the very heart of what we mean by sustainable development and how we articulate that in the Bill. Going forward on the principles that underpin sustainable development is a good approach. It would be a retrograde step to pin down one concept of sustainable development at the moment. Over the past 20 years, the definition of sustainable development has changed. Alternative definitions have been tried, then put back in the cupboard as new ones have come forward. However, the underpinning principles, difficult as they are, are the right ones. Those principles were originally defined in terms of the social, environmental and economic triangle and are enshrined in the agreement between the four Administrations. Here we have a different language, but it is about balancing the protection of our habitats and the protection of the constituents off the Welsh coast and the north-east of England who might want to bring forward energy projects. That is what sustainable development is all about; it is not purely conservation.

Roger Williams (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

Surely what the Minister says about the five principles that underpin sustainable development is similar to saying that the whole of a building is the foundations. The foundations are important, but we have to see what the building looks like and how we can use it. That is the point that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives. The underlying principles are one thing, but what sustainability is is another, and that is where we are trying to get to.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

I sort of see where the hon. Gentleman is coming from, but the foundations are critical here. As has been mentioned in the opening comments, this is very much a framework Bill that puts in place the right mechanism to take forward the sustainable development of our marine environment. That is the core part of the Bill. We are not trying to paint the house, but to allow the marine plans to be brought forward, and the inshore fisheries and conservation authorities and the MMO to introduce byelaws. We have sound foundations and the Bill and the guidance that supplements it articulate exactly what we mean by sustainable development. I suspect that we might be dancing around a concept here—whether it is better to say “contributing to” or “furthering”—when actually we are aiming at the same end.

In terms of this second amendment, going down that line would lead to the opportunity of challenge, because it goes against what we have in 70 Acts. The agreed form of words, and what we mean by sustainable development, is well enshrined in law. I genuinely understand the purpose of the amendment. We are trying to get to the same end, but I am arguing that the measure will give us that end, particularly when it is underpinned by those principles.

On amendment 1, as I said on Second Reading, we already have a strong objective for the Marine Management Organisation. In the other place, Lord Hunt went into great detail about why we feel that amendments such as this, which require the MMO to further rather than to make a contribution to sustainable development, are not appropriate. I do not want to repeat what Lord Hunt said, but I will make a few key points to reinforce the reasons. First, we already have a strong objective for the MMO, which received much attention in the other place and was strengthened as a result of that scrutiny. We have brought in a new power that allows the MMO, in pursuit of its general objective, to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development and take any actions it considers necessary or expedient for furthering its social, economic or environmental purposes.

Secondly, the Secretary of State will give guidance to the MMO on how it is to ensure that it makes its contribution to the achievement of sustainable development. That guidance is currently being drafted, and it will be agreed by the cross-Government sponsorship group for the MMO. That guidance will then be subject to scrutiny by Parliament, ensuring that the MMO acts on behalf of all those with an interest in the seas.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Order. I really cannot have Members wandering about the Room chatting to each other—there are lovely green benches outside provided for that.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

Thank you, Mr. Gale. The guidance will be drawn up in the context of the high-level marine objectives and the draft marine policy statement, which will set out the four Administrations’ agreed policies for contributing to the achievement of sustainable development in the UK marine area. I therefore believe that it is through statutory guidance that the MMO’s role in relation to sustainable development will be laid out in detail.

Finally, I do not think that the amendment will make a practical difference to how the sea is managed. The words “making a contribution to” are appropriate, given that the MMO, working within a framework of a UK-wide marine policy statement, will not be able to achieve sustainable development on its own, as I said earlier. Although the MMO has a critical role, the actual achievement of sustainable development in the marine area will be the focus of a partnership effort by all the agencies and authorities concerned with how the seas are managed. That includes other delivery bodies, regulators, devolved Administrations and the vast range of users of the sea and its resources.

The Government are confident that the package of amendments made on Report in the other place significantly strengthened the Bill, and we were pleased to hear those amendments being generally welcomed by all parties at that stage. Indeed, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) said on Second Reading that he and his colleagues were pleased that the duty to require the guidance relating to sustainability criteria to be consulted on and laid before the House had been added to the Bill and that those criteria would be strengthened as a result. I think that those were appropriate words to say.

I understand why the amendments have been raised again, not least because Lord Taylor of Holbeach and Earl Cathcart in the other place put their names to the Government amendments on the MMO’s general objective. On those amendments, which strengthened what we have done, Lord Taylor said:

“It is clear from the addition of my name and that of my noble friend Lord Cathcart to them that they have our support... The other amendments in the group are also extremely welcome and go a long way towards addressing our concerns about the drafting of Clause 2. The Government have also decided that legislative consistency means that they cannot accept “furthering or promoting sustainable development” in the MMO's duties, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said, the new power to further the three pillars of sustainable development will be critical to ensure that the MMO can make a real difference to our marine environment.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 5 May 2009; Vol. 710, c. 458.]

Martin Salter (Labour, Reading West)

I am still waiting for the Minister to inform the Committee why the Environment Agency got it wrong when it said that the MMO should have a duty to further the conservation of marine fauna, for example, as I quoted earlier, and why the Joint Committee got it wrong. I specifically asked him to inform us what the Government’s response to the Joint Committee was, because he said in his response that that could seriously undermine the Bill. If it is as serious as he suggests, that will be reflected in the Government’s response.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point again. In the Government’s response to the Joint Committee, we ruled out defining sustainable development on the face of the Bill for the reasons I have laid out, but we did say that we would consider how to clarify the MMO objectives, which is what we did in the other place. I want to reiterate what we have done and how it has been welcomed. We responded to the Joint Committee not by defining it in the Bill, for all the reasons I have given, but by strengthening and clarifying what we would do in terms of the marine management objectives.

Martin Salter (Labour, Reading West)

Will the Minister read out the Government response, rather than interpret it? I feel that it is the first time he may have seen it.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

No, it is not. Paragraph 3.1.9 states:

“We are currently considering whether and, if so, what changes could be made to meet Joint Committee and public consultation requests to clarify the MMO’s purpose and it’s general objective.”

We listened and brought forward changes on the back of that.

Martin Salter (Labour, Reading West)

May I put it to the Minister that that hardly justifies the statement that the amendment, which has cross-party support and which would replace “contributing to” with “furthering”, seriously undermines the structure of the Bill? The Government response goes nowhere near that point. Does he not agree? The answer is yes.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

We responded to the Joint Committee by bringing forward clarification on what the MMO should do to contribute to the achievement of sustainability. There is also what we signed off on the high-level policy objectives and what will come through in the marine policy statement. My hon. Friend is right that the legal precedent aspect was not picked up at the time, but I am picking it up very quickly now. We are faced with a long legal precedent as sustainable development has been a concept for quite some time. It is enshrined within another 70 pieces of legislation and its interpretation in the law courts is very clear. Therefore, if we chose to adopt a different form of wording here it would be interpreted that we mean something different.

Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)

My hon. Friend makes a strong point about the comparative read-across of wording in the Bill with other pieces of legislation that have or may have a bearing on it. Schedule 5, however, is only relevant to the Bill and does not read across to other Acts. An amendment to that schedule, particularly to paragraph 7, could reflect the substance of this amendment. If he tabled such an amendment on Report he might secure a great degree of cross-party support.

Martin Salter (Labour, Reading West)

On that point—

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that he cannot intervene on an intervention.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

I think that is a very good suggestion. I am minded to look at whether we can do that. Paragraph 7 in schedule 5 refers to the sustainability appraisal, which is what I have been talking about. There is a way to clarify this without setting out a different legal approach in the Bill.

Martin Salterrose—

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

Before I give way, my hon. Friend also mentioned the Environment Agency. Could I make a clarification here as things move on apace? My understanding is that the Environment Agency has accepted the strengthening of the MMO objective and it is no longer seeking any change to that objective. In fact, I was pleased to meet the Environment Agency in the last week or so and I discussed that issue with them. The Environment Agency recognises how far we have come.

However, I am more than willing to take that point about schedule 5 away and consider it, because it might be a way forward. I think that we are aiming to do the same thing here; it is just that the way of doing it must not challenge what has been established by some quite significant legal precedents.

Martin Salter (Labour, Reading West)

I commend the approach outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test. As a signatory to the amendment, I would be very happy if the Minister were to take that approach, assuming that we can build consensus across the Committee—judging by the body language of my colleagues, we might be able to do so.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

I have been through this matter in some detail, and I understand where the Committee is coming from. We need to get the approach right. However, we do not want to jeopardise the whole nature of the Bill, which is about protecting and conserving the very best of our marine environment while at the same time ensuring that our approach to sustainability does not unnecessarily jeopardise those who make a living from the sea.

It has been a very good debate. We will certainly take that point away and see what we can do. Meanwhile, I urge the hon. Member for Newbury to withdraw the amendment, for the reasons that I have set out.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Before I call Mr. Benyon to wind up the debate, do you, Mr. George, have anything further that you wish to add?

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

I am not sure whether I should come in before or after the hon. Member for Newbury.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Once I call a Member to wind up the debate, that is it.

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

Thank you for your guidance and advice, Mr. Gale. I am grateful to you for that.

Having listened to what the Minister has said, I regret to say that I am more troubled than I was when I raised the issue. During the debate, particularly with regard to the definition of “sustainable development”, the metaphor of building a house and having sound foundations was used by my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire. I must say that the five pillars or bricks on which sustainable development and the policy of respecting and “furthering” or “contributing to” sustainable development are based are not really solid pieces of rock, so I am not reassured that we are building a sound and stable house. A lot of the issues are, in fact, shifting sands—they are rather woolly and fuzzy around the edges.

The emphasis on economic sustainability, for example, as opposed to promoting justice or not living beyond limits is important. Those concepts are all concepts that could tilt the house one way or another, so that it becomes worse than the leaning tower of Pisa, depending on the shifting emphasis that is part of either the popular or political discourse at any particular time. Therefore, I must say that we are not building a sound house. The fact is that the five pillars or building blocks, as it were, on which sustainable development is to be furthered or contributed to are rather uncertain.

I agree with the Minister that the only rock among the five pillars—it is a very important rock, indeed—is that of sound science. Sound science is pretty immovable. Even these days, when there is apparently a growing enthusiasm for creationism, there is still the rock of sound science. Clearly it must be emphasised in the way in which this policy and the concept of sustainable development must be either furthered or contributed to.

Cynics will say that in a future scenario the Government could easily emphasise one concept more than another, and we could end up with, not a balanced objective outcome, but a politically driven outcome on sustainable development and on what that means for whether a development is permitted, licensed or protected.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

I am a little worried that we might be getting caught up in a subsequent debate on conservation and marine conservation zones. The essence of what we are debating is sustainable development and how we achieve it. That will go across the MMO, marine planning and so on—it underpins the Bill. There will be a different debate, when we come to marine conservation zones, about how conservation is shot through those and about how socio-economic factors may be taken into account. I am worried that here, in this debate, we may be misunderstanding the issue slightly and trying to enshrine in the Bill conservation rather than sustainable development, which would imbalance the Bill significantly. Marine conservation zones are a different debate.

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

I accept the Minister’s point, but the problem is that this is one of our main opportunities in Committee to debate the issue, to understand what is in the Minister’s mind and to discover what standards on sustainable development future Governments, the MMO and other agencies will be held to. I accept that we will have opportunities to come back to specific aspects of the Bill, such as the furtherance of objectives and programmes and the nature of licensing activities within marine conservation zones. Having said that, clause 44 refers to “sustainable development”. Whether we are talking about “furthering” or “contributing to” it, unless we are clear about what “it” is, I will remain troubled that we may be seeking to “further” a woolly conceptual issue. Frankly, whether we “further” or “contribute to” it is inconsequential in the scheme of things. The hon. Member for Newbury may wish to pick up on that point in his closing remarks.

In conclusion, I appreciate that we will have an opportunity to examine specific aspects of what “sustainable development” means and at getting the balance right—I accept that there is a balance. However, I remain more, rather than less, troubled as a result of the debate. I hope that the Minister will reflect on the matter. I also hope that we can discuss the issue as we proceed, and perhaps come back to the guidance and table further amendments on Report.

Richard Benyon (Conservative, Newbury)

Beginning with amendment 29, tabled by the hon. Member for St. Ives, in the piles of documents on the Bill in my office, I have seen a definition of sustainable development somewhere—it could have been in the White Paper or the Green Paper. It involved flow charts and was as clear as some of this debate has been on the direction that this is going.

I agree with the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for St. Ives, but I am concerned about how his amendment would impact on the Bill. Therefore, I am persuaded by the Minister’s arguments. The definition appears to ignore socio-economic principles. It would reduce the flexibility of marine conservation zones, and it ignores the role of marine planning in, for example, climate change mitigation and proposed wind farms. While conservation is the primary objective of MCZs, we should not completely ignore socio-economic elements.

I have been persuaded by many of the non-governmental organisations’ arguments. Indeed, as an old landlubber, I have been educated and even entranced by the information with which they have provided me about the diversity and beauty of our seas, and so much more. However, on the issue under discussion, the Bill is correctly balanced, and it would not be right at this stage to support the amendment, even though it is an honest attempt at trying to define sustainable development in accordance with section 117, which is important.

We have made progress on amendment 9, as well. Will the Minister assure us that he will follow the recommendation made by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test to use paragraph 7 of schedule 5 in order to meet the amendment’s objectives?

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

On the comments made by the hon. Member for Newbury and the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test, the issue is important in terms of not only legal precedent, as I have mentioned, but the devolved Administrations and others being content with our treatment of the Bill. On schedule 5, I will write to the members of the Committee to explain and clarify how we intend the Bill to drive sustainable development forward, and how that is linked to other related areas. That may be of significant help to members of the Committee in order to explain clearly how the Bill is underpinned by sustainable development.

Richard Benyon (Conservative, Newbury)

If the Minister confirms that that will involve the insertion of words into paragraph 7 of schedule 5, I shall not press the amendment further at this stage, but I seek clarification. For example, he has talked about semantics in the sense that the document’s policies cannot “further”, but they can “contribute to” sustainable development. The Minister needs to provide more comfort on that. Also, will he clarify that he will come back to us on the legal advice that he has received? It may be that 70 Acts use the wording that he has proposed, but that does not necessarily prevent synergy with other types of legislation. Will he clarify whether schedule 5 will be amended?

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

Bearing in mind the work that has already taken place on the Bill, as well as the way in which the issue under discussion would impact not only on us, but also on devolved Administrations, which is one of the key facets, I make it clear that we will not amend schedule 5, because that would not be right or proper. However, I am happy to explore the issue further with devolved Administrations and others to see whether there is any scope on the matter, and I will return with the results at a subsequent stage. I do not think that the Committee wants us, even when we take today’s debate into consideration, to make a decision that would lead to Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland claiming that we had unbalanced what they considered to be a good and clear way forward on sustainable development. So I am happy to make that commitment, as opposed to saying that we will bring forward the amendment to schedule 5 now.

Richard Benyon (Conservative, Newbury)

If the Minister will forgive me, going down the devolved route is a bit of a canard on this issue. I really feel that he has not quite given us the assurance we would require to get something in the Bill. We will be pressing our amendment to the vote.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

The Committee will note that throughout the selection list there are a number of clauses that do not have amendments. I propose to call those clauses by number and rattle through them. If any Member wishes to speak to any of those clauses, please indicate and I will then stop. Otherwise, I shall move them en bloc.

Clause 45

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

I do not intend to detain the Committee long. My reading of subsections (1) and (3) is that there is a potential conflict between them. They also effectively allow the Secretary of State to overrule his compatriots in the devolved Administrations if he or she fails to come to an agreement with them when, initially at least, preparing marine policy statements. There are some important issues here, particularly regarding migratory fauna and other species, where a devolved Administration will clearly have an interest in what the Secretary of State is capable of doing in the waters within their own jurisdiction. For that reason, I seek the Minister’s reassurance that there is an acknowledgement that the Secretary of State has, in effect, an overruling power in that regard. That is irrespective of how carefully the clause is worded, and of the fact that subsection (2) states that the Secretary of State must at least show that they have consulted “the other policy authorities” during the process of any amendment to the MPS.

The scenario I am painting is that the Secretary of State will come to an agreement with “the other policy authorities” to bring forward a plan on which there is agreement. Shortly thereafter, however, having failed to persuade those other policy authorities of his or her views on the matter, the Secretary of State will simply bring forward an alternative policy statement and ignore the consultation process.

I am grateful to you, Mr. Gale, for allowing me to raise this issue and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance he seeks. The opening words of the clause, in subsection (1), make clear our intention that an MPS should be prepared by

“all the policy authorities, acting jointly”.

That is what we are trying to get at in the clause, and it is quite a win for the Bill. It is the approach that we and the devolved Administrations are committed to, and it will provide the best foundation for a comprehensive, joined-up and effective planning system.

However, as the hon. Gentleman rightly points out, we must acknowledge the realities of devolution, and the Bill does that. The devolved Administrations may from time to time espouse different policies from those of the UK Government regarding some of the matters being devolved to them, and it would be within their right and power to do so. Despite all the genuine good will—there is real good will on this issue, and the best of intentions—it is not possible to require in law that we must all agree. Otherwise, we risk not having any MPS at all.

For that reason, as the hon. Gentleman has pointed out, the clause enables the Secretary of State to proceed without the involvement of the three devolved Administrations and to act alone if necessary. The Secretary of State must always be involved in preparing and adopting any MPS. That reflects the importance of having an MPS in place to set out the strategic policy framework, even if it is not the joint statement we would always wish to have.

I must say that that is not our preferred position. Therefore, the clause requires that the Secretary of State formally invite “the other policy authorities” to participate before reluctantly taking any decision to proceed alone.

Roger Williams (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

If a devolved nation decided to go down a different policy route, how would that decision interact with the Marine Management Organisation, for instance? Would the MMO take cognisance of the devolved Assembly’s policy, or would it have to react to the policy that the Secretary of State had signed off?

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

No, the MMO will always have cognisance of what is happening in border areas with other authorities. As the hon. Gentleman will know and as was debated in the other place, in Wales many of the MMO’s functions have been taken directly into the Welsh Assembly Government, as was their wish. However, the MMO will need to integrate fully. If there is a fundamental breakdown beyond the powers that already exist in the Bill, there is, under the Government of Wales Act 2006, recourse to the powers of the Joint Ministerial Committee, and so on.

The clause makes it clear that only one MPS can exist at any time; that is the good way forward on this issue. Therefore, when we introduce a new MPS it will replace the previous one, thus avoiding the possibility of multiple, potentially conflicting statements.

The hon. Member for St. Ives is absolutely right to say that we want to move forward together—that is the big win within the Bill—but there is the possibility for the Secretary of State to take action himself.

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

I am grateful to the Minister for his response. What this debate highlights is the potential Achilles heel in clause 45 in cases where the policy authorities fail to achieve any kind of agreement. A migratory species that depends on the marine environment within the designation of one of the policy authorities could migrate into the waters of another. We can see what might happen if there is a failure to reach agreement where a potential conflict of interests exists. The clause could allow the Secretary of State to take the upper hand and dictate the terms to the devolved Administrations.

That is a matter of concern, whether the emphasis is on allowing or enabling certain economic activities that may have a detrimental impact on the waters and marine habitats of a devolved Administration, or on operating in a different manner and therefore perhaps damaging the economic prospects of a devolved Administration. I do not propose any amendments or a way forward, but the Minister might like to reflect on this issue. The fine minds and creative brains behind the Bill and those who have been engaged in the associated discussions may come up with some further thinking on this issue; nevertheless, it is an Achilles heel. Thank you, Mr. Gale for allowing me to raise it, as it remains unresolved.

Schedule 5

Ann McKechin (Labour, Glasgow North)

I beg to move amendment 23, in schedule 5, page 239, line 12, at end insert

‘(including the carrying out of the sustainability appraisal under paragraph 7)’.

Richard Benyon (Conservative, Newbury)

I support the change. It is to the advantage of the Bill.

Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)

I seek clarification about the status of the amendment in respect of devolved Administrations. Have devolved Administrations already discussed the amendment and how it affects the Bill? If not, and if my hon. Friend were minded to have such discussions and, as a result of them, decided that other amendments to the schedule might be tabled, would she think that a wise course of action?

Ann McKechin (Labour, Glasgow North)

I assure my hon. Friend that we have discussed this issue with the devolved Administrations and reached agreement about it. His other comments are not relevant to the schedule. I do not propose to enter into such a general and hypothetical debate.

Clause 51

Ann McKechin (Labour, Glasgow North)

I beg to move amendment 24, in clause 51, page 29, line 34, leave out subsection (2) and insert—

‘(2) Where an MPS governs marine planning for a marine planning region, the marine plan authority for the region must seek to ensure that every part of the region is within an area for which a marine plan is in effect.’.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 31, in clause 51, page 29, line 36, at end insert—

‘(2A) Sub-regions of a marine plan area may be defined at any time.’.

Amendment 32, in clause 51, page 30, line 4, at end insert—

‘(d) has regard to all other plans and strategies that relate to the adjacent land area.’.

Ann McKechin (Labour, Glasgow North)

The Government amendment is a minor technical amendment that will ensure that the requirement placed on the marine plan authorities by the other place to seek to plan for all areas works as intended. Lobby groups are concerned that we maintain that provision in the Bill. I am pleased to report that having listened to the views that they and other interested parties expressed in the other place, we and the devolved Administrations have concluded that we fully support the principle behind the amendment. I have tabled this minor amendment to slightly redraft and clarify the original provision without changing its intended effect, and I hope that the Committee supports it.

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

My two amendments are probing, primarily to pursue a theme that applies throughout the Bill. That theme is the extent to which Government quangos, whether they are the MMO or other Government agencies, can determine the activities within any local authority or sub-regional area without sufficient or adequate consultation with the terrestrial local authority in the coastal area concerned. The purpose of the two amendments—particularly amendment 32—is to ensure that the Government have cognisance of the existence of local authorities and that those authorities have local strategic plans that apply to the coastal areas. Each local authority on the coast establishes policies that have, or seek to have, an impact on the local economy, whether in the furtherance of tourism and the holiday trade, in the furtherance of the maintenance of local industries, such as fishing, diving or marine exploration, or in the furtherance of other activities that relate to either a local industry or tourism. What happens beyond the control of the local authority has an impact on the local authority itself.

The purpose of the amendments is simply to raise issues that I hope the Minister is prepared to reflect on. I do not intend to press the amendments, but I am interested in the Minister’s response, particularly regarding the broader theme of seeking to ensure that democratically elected local authorities in particular, which have a clear interest in the future of the marine resource on their coastline, have a say in decision taking under the clause.

Richard Benyon (Conservative, Newbury)

Amendment 24 is a welcome redrafting of an Opposition amendment tabled in the other place, creating a requirement to seek to ensure plan coverage throughout the United Kingdom waters, where a marine plan statement is in effect. I am pleased to support the amendment.

I also support the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for St. Ives, because they have been backed by a number of organisations that have spoken to me as well, particularly the British Marine Federation. That body argues that there is a need for an integrated relationship between marine and land use planning in order to reduce the loss of land sites that are important for access or boating facilities—for example, recreational harbours or slipways and associated parking and boat storage. This is, therefore, a good probing amendment.

Ann McKechin (Labour, Glasgow North)

I thank the hon. Members for St. Ives and for Newbury. I understand that amendments 31 and 32 replicate an amendment tabled by Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer and Lord Greaves in Committee in the other place, but as my noble Friend Lord Davies of Oldham explained at the time, there is no need for specific provision in the Bill enabling the creation of sub-regional marine plans or marine plan areas. We entirely agree that planning authorities must be able to plan in the most appropriate way for any given area. Clause 51 already enables the marine plan authority to divide its marine planning region into marine plan areas however it sees fit. Those plans, however, are not set in stone, so the authority may prepare new plans at any time, either to divide the region differently or even to prepare additional plans for smaller areas within existing marine plan areas.

Amendment 32 would place within the definition of a marine plan the requirement that it must have regard to all other plans and strategies on the coast. Hon. Members will be aware that paragraph 9(2)(h) of schedule 6 already contains a requirement that marine plan authorities, when preparing a marine pan, must have regard to

“any plan...prepared by a public or local authority in connection with the management or use of the sea or the coast, or of marine or coastal resources.”

That will include local development plans, shoreline management plans, river basin management plans and, when prepared by a local authority, estuary management plans. I believe that that provision is clearer than the one set out in the amendment, which does not limit the other plans or strategies to which the marine plan must have regard to those with some relevance to the marine environment.

Hugo Swire (Conservative, East Devon)

I declare an interest as a member of the governing council of the Royal National Lifeboat Institution. I wonder whether the RNLI has been consulted in any of that.

Ann McKechin (Labour, Glasgow North)

That obviously relates to plans that are to come in the future, but we certainly envisage that there should be the widest possible consultation in any planning structure, and in the Bill we have made it clear that we do not seek to limit the consultations that are to be held and want to ensure that, when we devise marine plans and marine plan strategies, there is the widest possible public consultation. Clearly, the RNLI will be a relevant body in many cases.

Amendment 32 would place an unnecessary additional burden on the resources available to marine plan authorities. Furthermore, paragraph (3) of schedule 6 goes beyond the requirement set out in paragraph (9)(2)(h) to have regard to other terrestrial plans and strategies by requiring the marine plan authorities to

“take all reasonable steps to secure that the plan is compatible with”

plans developed as part of the terrestrial planning system. Clearly, that goes beyond a requirement merely to have regard to such plans. Provisions in clause 62 will enable a marine plan to be challenged before the courts if a marine plan authority failed to comply with that compatibility requirement or to have regard to the other plans mentioned in paragraph (9)(2)(h) of schedule 6.

I will take this opportunity to reassure members of the Committee that the integration of marine and terrestrial planning at the coast has been of fundamental importance to the development of our proposals from the very beginning. The land and sea, as the hon. Member for St. Ives has pointed out, are inextricably linked. Many actions on the land have an impact on the sea and vice versa. For that reason, it is important that the planning and management of both areas is as integrated as possible, with both systems working effectively together to enable seamless and holistic management of the area. To that end, we have worked extensively with the Local Government Association’s coastal issues special interest group, the Royal Town Planning Institute and numerous key stakeholders to understand how best to enable the integration of marine planning with what happens on land and to identify the most appropriate mechanism to involve local authorities in that process.

Local authorities already lead in the planning and management of the terrestrial components of the coast and in the development of the previously mentioned local development plans and shoreline management plans, and invariably they are instrumental in the partnership development of estuary management plans. Local authorities contain a wealth of specialised and knowledgeable skills and expertise, which the MMO will need fully to incorporate, utilise and build on throughout its marine planning process and beyond into the majority of its functions. Importantly, local authorities also represent the interests of their communities and implement the will of the locally and democratically elected representatives. Therefore, I assure hon. Members that full local authority involvement in the marine planning process will be key to the successful implementation of marine planning from the early stages of development through to implementation, monitoring and review. The provisions within the Bill will support and encourage the integration of planning systems at the coast and will go further than is proposed in amendment 32.

Amendment 31 is not necessary, too, as the result that it seeks is already achievable under the current drafting and could therefore cast doubt on how existing provisions should be interpreted. In light of those reassurances, I hope that hon. Members will withdraw their amendments, as they indicated that they would.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Order. There is no need to withdraw them, as they have not been moved.

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

Thank you for reminding me that I have not moved my amendment, Mr. Gale. My intention was to probe this issue, which we might come back to on Report. I do not know what I need to do next, under the rules, so I seek your guidance, Mr. Gale. Must I move the amendments to entitle myself to seek to do something on Report?

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

It is worth clarifying the position for the benefit of all members of the Committee, one or two of whom have indicated to me that their knowledge of procedure is a little rusty. That probably goes for the Chair as well. We move only the lead amendment, and it is open to any other Member to seek to move any other amendment that is grouped with the lead amendment, but the Chair requires notice and will then decide whether to take that. Any amendment that is moved in Committee is unlikely to be selected for debate on Report, so the fundamental principle is that if you wish to come back to something, you should not push it in Committee and should then take a further look at it on Report. I hope that that clarifies the position.

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

I am very grateful to you for that explanation, Mr. Gale. Perhaps by accident, I have managed to pursue the right strategy on this occasion. Of course, I do not wish to move the amendments because, having listened to the Minister’s response, I might like to come back to the issue on Report.

A theme that runs through the Bill is that we are quango-ising decision taking with regard to the intertidal zone and the marine resource. I am troubled by the issue of democratic accountability for decisions that are taken in areas reasonably adjacent to the coastline in relation to what the Minister has referred to as the seamless provision in the Bill regarding what one might argue is the intertidal zone itself. I remain unconvinced that the Government have quite got the balance right.

The Minister said that amendment 32 would place an unreasonable burden on resources—I think that that was the terminology that she used—but democracy places a burden on resources. That is the nature of democracy, as we know from the cost to the taxpayer of maintaining the House of Commons and ensuring that we have a democratically accountable body to take decisions. Equally, the terrestrial authorities—the local authorities—have a clear interest in future development on the coastline and in maintaining the integrity of local development plans and the frameworks in which they operate, and the Bill should take cognisance of that.

Finally, by failing to acknowledge further the role and importance of locally democratically elected local authorities, the Bill appears to contradict a number of the Government’s other stated intentions and aims to ensure that there is local democracy as set out in the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill, which is currently going through Parliament.

Ann McKechin (Labour, Glasgow North)

I assure the hon. Gentleman and other members of the Committee that we fully intend to involve the local community and local authorities, as well as business people and other people with an interest in the marine environment, in the preparation of each marine plan. The proposal will require a full public consultation on the draft plan that is created. There will be no lack of engagement. We are very clear that we want a rigorous consultation process and for the MMO to have full regard to it when preparing its final plan. As I said earlier, that is why we believe that local authorities are very important. We believe that local authorities are a key partner not only in the consultation process, but in the actual implementation of the plan that follows it.

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

I am grateful to the Minister for her intervention. However, that, of course, does not preclude the conclusion of that consultation and consideration ignoring and overruling the interests of the local authority. On behalf of those local authorities with an interest in the coast and in the intertidal zone in particular, that is the concern that I want to articulate to the Minister. While the processes described in the Bill would allow the marine authorities to go through the motions, the local authorities could be ignored in that process. Having said that, I have had the opportunity to air the issue. The lack of democratic accountability, in some respects, is a theme that runs through the Bill. We may well come back to the issue, if not later in Committee then on Report.

Clause 71

Richard Benyon (Conservative, Newbury)

I beg to move amendment 10, in clause 71, page 48, line 30, at end insert—

‘(1A) This decision shall be made within 16 weeks of the application.’.

Assessments must be considered and a decision reached within three months. There is a requirement that onshore planning applications are considered within 16 weeks.

Subsection (1) outlines the conditions for granting licences. Our amendment requires that assessments must be considered and a decision reached within 16 weeks. As the Bill stands, there is no time limit on the consideration of marine licence applications. Without committing marine licensing authorities to a certain time scale—I am happy to say at this stage that I am relatively flexible on what that time scale should be—we are leaving the system open to massive backlogs and delays. Considering the potential lists of activities that will require a licence, it is important that we do not open up small businesses, in particular, to a potential loss of earnings through the lack of a licensing time scale.

The amendment also considers the renewable energy industry. Time is of the essence for marine developers. They may be funded by venture capital, and delays cost money. Unless we insist on some sort of defined time scale, it is conceivable that important developments that will play a great part in dealing with our renewable energy commitments will be affected.

Roger Williams (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman’s amendment to put a time limit on dealing with licence applications. The explanatory statement mentions onshore planning applications, but does the same requirement apply to onshore licence applications? There is a slight difference between planning applications and licence applications.

Richard Benyon (Conservative, Newbury)

I am seeking to develop a degree of consistency. I am not entirely certain what the requirements are on the whole range of onshore licensing, but we certainly have a well developed and accepted system of time limits in relation to planning. I do not see why we should not impose that on marine licence applications. Other countries do that as well.

Hugo Swire (Conservative, East Devon)

My hon. Friend is making a point with which I have some sympathy. There also seems to be nothing in the clause about an appeals process. Given that, as my hon. Friend has said, many of the applications will be funded by the private sector and that time costs money, should the Bill not also contain something about an appeals process if, for whatever reason, the initial application is refused?

Richard Benyon (Conservative, Newbury)

My hon. Friend makes a good point, and this may be an opportunity to tease out of the Minister whether we can expand the amendment to include that sort of requirement. Other countries seem to manage in terms of marine management licensing. I was interested to read that South Africa has a legal framework that requires environmental impact assessments to be considered and a decision reached within three months. I therefore hope that the Minister will look favourably on imposing some sort of time limit.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Before we go down that road, may I draw hon. Members’ attention to clause 73, which may cover part of the issue that has just been raised? I do not want to have the debate twice; if you have it now, that is fine by me.

Roger Williams (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

I have a certain amount of interest in the issue, and I have sympathy for the amendment. My interest arises out of onshore licensing by Government authorities and the way in which that must be done to a standard in order to ensure that the environment is safeguarded. Imposing a specific time limit should in some way reflect the complexity of the application, because my experience is that the conditions that are put on a licence must be both practicable and enforceable. On a large pipeline that went through Wales, for example, there should have been a statement at each stage of the crossing of various streams in relation to how adverse effects on those streams could be mitigated, but such statements were not included as conditions in the licence.

While I have some sympathy with the suggestion of the hon. Member for Newbury, certain minor applications should be dealt with on a shorter time scale than larger ones, which needs to be reflected in the scale and complexity of the application. That would help in our future deliberations, because we will later discuss clauses on enforcement. Does the licensing authority have the necessary capacity to ensure that it can enforce the conditions? It is one thing to put a condition on a licence, but it is another to enforce it when a rather large organisation that is pushing ahead with a development has more of an eye on completing that development than on complying with the conditions.

The hon. Gentleman has raised a good issue, and I look forward to the Minister’s response, but the issue involves an option of proportionality that depends upon the size and complexity of the applications.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

Let me say first that we agree with the sentiment behind the amendment. In fact, one criticism of the current licensing system is that applicants are uncertain about when their applications for a licence will be determined, and we are certainly looking to improve that in the Bill. To pick up the points made by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire, however, an arbitrary time limit in the Bill is not the way to proceed, and I will explain why in a moment. None the less, I think that we can do something about the issue.

As has been said, the activities and developments that the marine licensing regime has to encompass are incredibly varied in scale and nature. They include everything from jetties built at the bottom of people’s gardens to pilot offshore energy schemes, aggregate dredging, harbour developments, laying submarine cables and pipelines, and the creation of artificial reefs, which is something that we are hearing more about.

The varied nature of such projects is matched only by their size and complexity and sometimes by the controversy over what they involve, which can go from the insertion of a few piles to the construction of a huge marina. Projects also take place in a wide variety of environments, which can be miles out to sea, in intertidal areas, in marine conservation zones or in sites that are protected under European legislation.

For each application, the licensing authority will have regard to the need to protect the environment and human health and to prevent interference with other uses of the sea. It will also factor in marine plans, socio-economic issues and anything else that it considers relevant. All those factors will be unique to every application and will need to be given the due consideration that they deserve and which is required under law.

David Jones (Conservative, Clwyd West)

I take the Minister’s point, but do not similar considerations apply to onshore planning applications? Is it not the case that a sensible developer will understand that the statutory time limit for such planning applications frequently cannot be adhered to and will allow the determining authority more time? The difficulty here is that no time is stipulated, so it is not possible to have such a negotiation.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

That is why I think that there is a way forward, although it does not necessarily involve including a time in the Bill. One drawback of putting something in the Bill is that the tendency might be to find the longest time limit to take account of the most complex projects in the most complex environments. We need an intelligent and flexible way forward that gives industry more certainty about the consideration of applications and that allows the proper analysis of the various factors in projects.

Several other issues arise at a practical level. Many applications received by the Marine and Fisheries Agency do not contain sufficient detail, supporting information or a full consideration of the facts. Having an arbitrary time in the Bill is therefore a difficulty.

In some instances, the licensing authority has to go back to the applicant to request further information. What do we do in those situations? Do we stop the clock? In other instances, the authority has to commission further evidence from scientific advisers such as the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science. In the odd case, the evidence may be collectible only at certain times of the year, because of the seasonal nature of the environment.

What will happen if the time frame is missed? Should the licensing authority be obliged to grant the licence? If that is done, say, before evidence is gathered, we risk possible infraction of a number of European directives, which will require appropriate analysis. Those are tricky issues.

Such details should be decided in conjunction with the bodies that I have mentioned and put in the secondary legislation that governs the applications process. To that end, I am pleased to say that we will publish a consultation paper on 1 July that includes a suggestion for target time frames, and all Committee members will receive a copy of that paper. The licensing authority will come to an informed view about the nature of the application right at the front of the process and give the developer target time scales for the various stages of the process, recognising that different applications have different complexities.

The suggestion in the consultation is that we state at the outset what the time scale should be. We think that that is a way of building flexibility into the process in an intelligent and tailored way to give applicants the increased certainty that they are looking for, without being unrealistic about some of the complex demands in our marine environment.

David Jones (Conservative, Clwyd West)

Will the Minister say what sanctions against failure to determine are in an applicant’s hands in such a case?

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

In response to the intervention from the hon. Member for East Devon, there is an appeals procedure in clause 73, which the Secretary of State is required to use, so that facility is there already.

Consultation is the correct way to get this right. There can be a full debate over the summer and we welcome contributions from all stakeholders. We will discuss the details in depth with industry, scientific advisers and other consultees, all of whom have important inputs and contributions to make.

Roger Williams (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

Under clause 73, which is titled “Appeals against licensing decisions”, the appeal power is against the decision, not against non-determination. The Minister might like to consider that.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Order. I shall allow debate on clause 73, in so far as it is relevant to this clause, because the two are clearly intermingled. However, if the Minister is happy with this, that will be on the understanding that when we get to clause 73, we will not debate it again.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

In that case, Mr. Gale, it might be worth my while to reflect on clause 73, which obliges all licensing authorities to establish appeals mechanisms against their licensing decisions. The appealable decisions are listed in clause 71(1), namely refusing to grant the licence or to grant it subject to conditions.

The reasons why the appeals mechanism is open only to applicants, not third parties, are twofold. First, clause 68 requires the licensing authority to publish notice of a marine application or to require the applicant to publish notice of it in a manner calculated to bring it to the attention of any persons likely to be interested. The licensing authority is obliged under clause 69(3) to

“have regard to...representations which it receives from any person having an interest in the outcome of the application.”

Clause 70 allows the licensing authority to

“cause an inquiry to be held”,

for example when there are particularly controversial or complex cases. Therefore, there is sufficient opportunity during the application process for third parties to get their views factored into any decision.

Secondly, it is important that marine developments are not held up unnecessarily by a large number of appeals lodged by third parties who simply disagree with the licensing authority’s decision. Appeals can be costly in terms of time and resources, not only for the applicant, but also for the regulator. If we want this improved, expedited licensing system, we cannot afford for it be clogged up by handling appeal after appeal.

Clause 73(3) lists the types of provisions that will be made by order that will establish an appeals mechanism and the procedure that must be followed in conducting an appeal. We do not want to prescribe the procedural detail in the Bill as we consider the appeals mechanism to be integral to the marine licensing decision-making process, which is itself to be prescribed by regulation. We want to consider stakeholders and the public in that process, including what they think to be appropriate procedures, time scales and grounds for appeal.

The appellant body may be different in each devolved territory to that used for MMO licensing decisions. Enabling such detailed provisions to be made in subsequent regulations allows each Administration to tailor the process to complement and reflect its decision-making procedures. I can give assurances that the UK Government will enable appeals against MMO decisions to be heard by an independent body. The order will be subject to the affirmative procedure.

On non-determination, as the licensing function is to be delegated to the MMO, the Secretary of State has the power under clause 100 to direct it, and there is also scope for judicial review. Therefore, there are opportunities to challenge the body for not delivering in the time scale.

The consultation will commence tomorrow. It is a good opportunity for industry, Committee members, stakeholders and the wider public to engage properly in the debate. The intention behind the debate is right. We want to give certainty and clarity through proper dialogue with stakeholders, including industry. The secondary legislation will reflect the outcome of those discussions and I will welcome Committee members’ views on the subject. With this reassurance, I urge the hon. Member for Newbury to withdraw the amendment.

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

With regard to clauses 71 and 73, I seek reassurances about when a licensing activity clearly impinges on the coast itself and the local authority. I am concerned that some activities—whether offshore wind development when cables are coming onshore, or activities at sea where service vessels need to be brought onshore—clearly require planning permission from a local authority as well. There must be some joint operation and consultation between the coastal authority and the MMO when licensing the activity. It concerns me that there appears to be no provision for that, and nor has the co-ordination of the licensing and the appeals process been envisaged.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

I refer the hon. Gentleman to clause 68, which deals with notice of applications and those bodies and persons that need to be consulted in the process. There is no way in which local authorities or others—those in not only the marine environment, but the adjoining terrestrial environment—could not be engaged, particularly, as the hon. Gentleman quite rightly says, when applications are relevant to them, such as pipeline or grid connectors.

With that reassurance, I say to the hon. Member for Newbury that we are sympathetic to what he says. We are bringing forward the consultation tomorrow to allow stakeholders to get engaged and to give some certainty about time frames. I hope he will feel assured enough to withdraw the amendment.

Richard Benyon (Conservative, Newbury)

I am grateful for the Minister’s clarification. As he rightly points out, there is a wide variety of applications in the marine environment but, as hon. Members have said, there is also a wide variety of applications on land—everything from a loft extension to a nuclear power station. We have methods that allow a time limit in such circumstances.

I am grateful to you, Mr. Gale, for reminding me about clause 73. It was in my subconscious mind and you brought it to my conscious mind. I notice that there is no reference in that clause to a time limit on appeals. That is a very important point. Given that the Minister has announced a consultation, it would be wrong to press the amendment at this stage, but I hope to return to the matter on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 75

Richard Benyon (Conservative, Newbury)

I beg to move amendment 11, in clause 75, page 51, line 11, at end insert ‘or

(c) that the activity is maintenance dredging.’.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 12, in clause 75, page 51, line 24, at end add

‘“maintenance dredging” means the removal of accumulated sediments from harbour channels and berths undertaken on behalf of or by harbour authorities, marinas, yacht clubs and port facilities to ensure a safe depth of water for navigational purposes and the removal of sediment to restore adequate flow of water to mitigate risk of flooding or protect a sensitive habitat.’.

Richard Benyon (Conservative, Newbury)

Clause 75(2) lists the conditions under which a marine licence is not needed for dredging or spoil disposal:

“that the activity is undertaken by or on behalf of a harbour authority, and...that the activity is authorised by, and carried out in accordance with, any legislation falling within subsection (3).”

We wish to insert a new condition:

“that the activity is maintenance dredging.”

The amendment would ensure that low-risk maintenance dredging was exempted from the licensing system. The explanatory notes to the draft Marine Bill stated that low-risk dredging activities, such as maintenance dredging, would become exempt under the new Bill. However, there is no specific commitment to that in this Bill, as amended in the other place. The Government have committed to consult on exempting maintenance dredging beyond the context of activities carried out by, or on behalf of, harbour authorities, thus ignoring the vital maintenance dredging carried out by marina and port operators. Harbour authorities are not always best placed to carry out maintenance dredging and offering them a specific licensing exemption appears to give them an unfair advantage in a competitive market. For example, many harbour authorities have recreational moorings as a source of income. The harbour authority would be exempt from obtaining a maintenance dredging licence, but a marina in that harbour would be required to gain the appropriate licence, which would force it to raise mooring fees to cover the cost.

Exempting all forms of maintenance dredging would reduce costly bureaucracy at a local level and ensure a level playing field for coastal communities. Maintenance dredging does not involve the removal of river or sea beds, but the removal of accumulated sediment blocking navigation channels, and any environmental impact is therefore minimal. Amendment 12 would add a definition of maintenance dredging to the list of definitions in subsection (4)(a).

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

I wish to make a few remarks about clause 75 and the amendments. Although I have some sympathy with the purpose and sentiments behind the amendments, my experience of working with coastal local authorities when dredging to maintain a safe and navigable channel is required is that one cannot undertake that work without considering the consequences for the wider hydrological system of tidal flows and other water courses that serve the estuary or the harbour that is being dredged for the safety of vessels using it. In such circumstances, as I have had the opportunity to look into them, it is appropriate to consult Trinity House, which has a range of important expertise, on navigable safety. Matters pertaining to Natural England also come into play, particularly if the estuary or harbour in question is a designated site of special scientific interest, or has another designation because the environment must be protected or considered.

At the level of the local authorities that, in many instances, provide the required dredging licences, there is the question of what happens to the dredged material. It is important to consider where, for example, sand or sediment that is excavated on to a dredging barge is deposited. It might be placed temporarily on land and then deposited elsewhere within the hydrological system to replace sand that will be lost from another area in the vicinity of the area being dredged. The consequences of dredging one area has a knock-on effect, particularly in a sandy environment such as on the dunes—the towans, as we know them—and sometimes in areas a number of miles away.

Hugo Swire (Conservative, East Devon)

The hon. Gentleman is perhaps referring to his home town and the Hayle estuary, which has to be dredged regularly, thereby affecting the towns around it. Is he saying that hoops would have to be gone through every time the Hayle estuary was dredged? If the marina development there ever goes ahead, it will no doubt need to be dredged more than it is at the moment.

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

Hayle harbour authority is responsible for maintaining a safe, navigable channel for harbour users, but that is not the only instance in which dredging takes place for such a purpose. A time-limited licence applies. A licence is not needed every time a boat goes out to dredge the channel, but it applies for a period during which dredging activity may take place. That dredging clearly has an impact on the wider marine environment, not just on the area being dredged.

It is important that the Minister be aware that allowing a laissez-faire approach in some harbours and estuaries would mean that, where the harbour authority responsible for maintaining the safe, navigable channel goes ahead with its dredging activities without consideration of the consequences in the area around it, that would result in denuding sand and sediment from other areas, because it would be dredging those things from its own channel. That would also have knock-on consequences for the marine wildlife. In some circumstances—for example, when dredging a harbour or estuary that may have historical and archaeological remains in it—heritage bodies may need to be consulted as well.

Although I understand the purposes of the amendment, we need to press forward on this issue with some caution.

Ann McKechin (Labour, Glasgow North)

I thank the hon. Members for Newbury and for St. Ives for raising points that are live and important for a number of operators. There has been some uncertainty on the part of industry about whether the new licensing system will place disproportionate burdens on operators that regularly carry out vital dredging activities, which is why it is seeking an exemption for maintenance dredging.

The noble Lords in the other place rightly sought assurances from the Government that any exemptions from the licensing regime would be made with regard to the need to protect the environment and human health, and prevent interference with legitimate uses of the sea and other relevant factors. I may not be able to offer a general exemption for maintenance dredging today, but we are actively exploring the extent to which we can exempt low-risk dredging activities from the need for a marine licence.

We want to ensure that operators doing the necessary work of keeping navigational channels clear of silt and other debris can continue to do so without unnecessary regulatory burden, but still with adequate regard to the impact of their activities. Under the Bill, all forms of maintenance dredging will become licensable for the first time. However, the Bill is about applying regulatory controls proportionately to the risk and impact of the marine activity on the environment and human health, and on other uses of the sea.

In many cases, maintenance dredging has gone on in the same place for years without discernible impact, and we do not want unnecessarily to burden industry in those instances. It is right that maintenance dredging carried out by or on behalf of a harbour authority, and in accordance with a local Act or harbour order, should not have to be licensed under the Bill. As competent authorities, harbour authorities have a statutory duty to undertake activities in accordance with the relevant environmental obligations, and they are able to carry out such activities without the need for consent under the current regime.

However, we want to ensure that all other operators who are not subject to those statutory duties carry out maintenance dredging and other activities safely and with sufficient regard to the environment and other risks. We want to ensure that a licensing authority has the information it needs to make sound and sustainable decisions on the licence applications it receives, including determining whether activities being undertaken in its area—whether they are licensed or exempt—are likely to have a cumulative impact.

Therefore, we are looking to use the exemptions order-making power in clause 74 to find a middle ground—an appropriate mechanism that will keep the regulatory burden to a minimum, while maintaining proper and appropriate standards of environmental protection, which was the concern raised by the hon. Member for St. Ives. Those standards include controls to ensure that activities will not compromise the achievement of other environmental objectives, such as those under the water framework directive. The exemptions order will come into force at the same time as the new licensing regime.

However, the licensing regime is not just about excluding or including activities. The Bill provides flexibility so that, if we choose to exempt an activity, we can place conditions on the carrying out of that activity that must be satisfied before it can be considered exempt. For example, we may want to look at whether we can exempt maintenance dredging carried out using lower-impact techniques such as hydrodynamic dredging, which involves the use of water jets to move sediment along the sea bed.

We will be looking to make use of the Bill’s flexibility and we will explore whether mechanisms such as registration or authorisation are appropriate to use where we choose to exempt low-risk activities, so that a licensing authority can retain sufficient overview of the activities being carried out in its area.

As the hon. Member for Newbury rightly pointed out, we are just about to launch a public consultation on our approach to those exemptions, including proposals for potentially low-risk activities such as maintenance dredging, which may be appropriate for exemption from the need for a marine licence. We are also looking to find the best ways of regulating those low-risk activities, whether through a form of licence or through a general or conditional exemption. Any decisions will be made in light of the responses to that consultation, further discussion and sound evidence.

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

In the definition of what may or may not be considered “dredging”, the Minister referred to the use of water jets as a means of simply moving sediment on. As far as the definition of dredging is concerned for the purposes of the Bill itself, am I therefore right in understanding that sluicing might also be considered dredging, or have I misunderstood that?

Ann McKechin (Labour, Glasgow North)

Yes, it would. I have been advised that, under the maintenance dredging protocol for England, that would be the case.

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

Would sluicing be considered dredging?

Ann McKechin (Labour, Glasgow North)

Sluicing would be, yes.

We also have to pay regard to our European environmental obligations when we are considering licensing, as well as the other relevant international conventions to which the UK is a signatory. I welcome the participation of people and organisations in the consultation when it is launched; it will be a great opportunity to have an input into the Government’s policy.

I now turn to amendment 12. As hon. Members are perhaps aware, maintenance dredging is not a legally defined term. Some have sought to define it for the purposes of implementing various measures or controls, and I am aware that there are two such definitions. One is in the maintenance dredging protocol for England, which is an informal industry code of practice, and the other is used by the Marine and Fisheries Agency in the course of its existing consenting functions. The agency defines maintenance dredging as:

“Material (generally of an unconsolidated nature) arising:

from an area where the level of the seabed to be achieved by the dredging proposed is not lower (relative to Ordnance Datum), than it has been at any time during the preceding 10 years, or from an area for which there is evidence that dredging has previously been undertaken to that level (or lower) during that period.”

It will not surprise hon. Members that that definition is slightly different from the one used in the maintenance dredging protocol.

If a licensing authority considers it appropriate to exempt maintenance dredging generally or conditionally—I have said that the Government’s intend to use exemption orders made under the power in clause 4 to do that—we will of course be looking to define the activity more precisely. In doing so, we may want to determine more exactly who should and should not be allowed to carry out maintenance dredging operations without a licence. That may or may not be the approach taken.

The current exemption in clause 74 allows dredging and associated deposits to be carried out on behalf of harbour authorities in accordance with the local legislation or harbour order. As competent authorities, harbour authorities have a statutory duty to undertake these activities. The Bill is about regulating proportionately and in accordance with the risks that each activity poses. It would be a backward step if we gave operators who have no statutory duties regarding environmental protection a carte blanche to carry out those dredging activities without any kind of environmental control.

Some dredging disposals bound for sea disposal may contain contaminated sediment, and it is vital that proper environmental assessments be undertaken and adequate measures subsequently taken to prevent harm to the environment and human health, or to prevent interference with other users of the sea—a point raised by the hon. Member for St. Ives. We will need to consult thoroughly and take all scientific evidence into account before making an exemption order. If maintenance dredging is thought to pose a low risk, I hope we can come to some consensus on how to define it. On that basis, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.

Richard Benyon (Conservative, Newbury)

The hon. Member for St. Ives made a good point about the potential impact on the hydrology of the area in question, but what we are talking about here is often small-scale dredging operations, which are vital for local businesses. He made a point about spoil disposal, where it is done and how it relates to other areas. Again, that is important, but I urge the Committee not to legislate on the basis of the most indolent and stupid managers of marinas or similar environments. Otherwise, we will go down a regulatory path that could limit the rights of sea anglers to fish in certain areas. I know how that would excite certain members of the Committee. One or two sea anglers might do some stupid things, but 1.3 million of them do not.

We must be careful how we regulate. We also have to bear in mind the costs for small marinas and other leisure activities. These are not large income-yielding businesses. These are often highly marginal and if we over-regulate, it could impose a burden that could make some of them unviable. With this Bill we should be encouraging leisure and tourism activities. We have to think of the path of least resistance when it comes to regulation such as this. To impose levels of bureaucracy on very small-scale operations would be a mistake.

The Minister’s comments are well made. Here we are again in a slight state of flux as the Government go out to consultation. Clearly, it would be the wrong time to press the amendment. She talked about the need for proportionality: that is a key word. As for the definition of maintenance dredging, I urge her to look at the definition we have provided, rather than the current opaque one, which seems to entail looking at more than 10 years of data on the sediment in the estuarial environment. That seems an extremely complex way of defining maintenance dredging. With those thoughts in mind, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Greg Pope (Labour, Hyndburn)

Before we start, I should say that it is perfectly acceptable for Members to remove their jackets, as I have done myself.

Clause 117

Richard Benyon (Conservative, Newbury)

I beg to move amendment 14, in clause 117, page 78, line 35, at end insert—

‘(c) the scientific basis behind the designation (including local conservation, environmental and global science) and confirmation that it has been accepted as valid by the Marine Management Organisation’s Chief Scientific Adviser and the Science Advisory Panel.’.

Good afternoon, Mr. Pope. It is a great pleasure to be under your watchful eye this afternoon, as it will be in many sittings in the coming two or three weeks.

In considering clause 117 we come to the heart of the Bill and an issue that a large number of organisations have a particular interest in: marine conservation zones. This morning we were talking about the term “best science”, which is particularly relevant to this area. Clause 117 outlines

“Grounds for designation of MCZs”.

Our amendment would insert a paragraph to expand on the scientific element of the designation of MCZs, and ensure that we meet two key objectives. The first objective is, in the designation of MCZs, to secure the inclusion of all types of science in the process of consideration by the four regional MCZ projects, the statutory nature conservation bodies, the Marine Management Organisation and the Secretary of State. The second objective is to ensure the validity of what constitutes “best available science”.

The designation of MCZs will be based, as we know, on the “best available science”. However, currently there is neither a definition of that term nor any safeguard to ensure that such science is widely recognised as being valid and a meaningful contribution.

One of the biggest threats to the marine environment is of course climate change. However, when the Government refer to “best available science” it is unclear whether they are including climate change science or what some people refer to as global science. Given the importance of minimising the impact of climate change, we believe the Bill should be amended to include consideration of global science matters such as climate change and other recognised global or international science, in order better to inform the MCZ designation process.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, the Minister in the other place, has given verbal assurances that “best available science” means science that is, as he put it,

“peer-reviewed in the normal way”.

However, it would be helpful if the Committee received the same assurance from the Minister today.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

I echo the hon. Gentleman’s remarks about you, Mr. Pope; it will be very good to serve under you today and in the coming weeks.

Amendment 14, which has been tabled in the names of the hon. Members for Newbury, for Upminster, for East Devon, for Clwyd, West and for Broxbourne, relates to MCZs and examines the important issue of science and how it is recognised within the clause. As the hon. Member for Newbury rightly said, for many people the clause is the Bill in many ways. The amendment also recommends that the MMO’s chief scientific adviser validate the science involved in each designation decision.

We are absolutely and entirely in agreement with the hon. Member for Newbury on the importance of the science, and I echo the comments of Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. Science is absolutely fundamental in determining where we will designate sites for MCZs. The drafting of clause 117 (1) ensures that scientific criteria form the basis of site proposals. It sets out specific grounds for designating MCZs, including the number and diversity of

“(a) marine flora or fauna;

(b) marine habitats or types of marine habitat;

(c) features of geological or geomorphological interest.”

I would like to make it clear, given that this is an important issue for the Committee, that clause 117 has been so drafted to ensure that science must, by necessity, form the basis of site proposals. In fact, the number and diversity of marine fauna and flora could not be determined without scientific evidence. Failure to make a designation decision on the basis of scientific evidence would mean, first, that the designating authority did not take account of reasonable considerations; secondly, that it would therefore have acted unreasonably; and thirdly, that the decision could then be considered for judicial review.

Although the science is imperative—it is so stated in clause 117—I do not think that the clause needs to include a specific reference to science. It is shot through the clause. Lord Greaves, in the other place, made a pertinent point on a similar Conservative amendment:

“I suspect, although it is normal for opposition parties generally to want more in Bills rather than less, that the Government are trying to be minimalist about what is in it. Nevertheless, I am not sure why the Conservative amendment”,—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 May 2009; Vol. 710, c. 1028.]

to ensure that the grounds for designating MCZs are based on science, is necessary, in the light of the provisions in the Bill.

The amendment is well intentioned; we completely agree on the importance of science in making these conservation-based decisions. However, I do not think that including in the definition of science the words

“including local conservation, environmental and global science”

would add anything to our understanding. It merely suggests that science should include local and global evidence. I believe that the hon. Member for Newbury is seeking a reassurance on our understanding and intentions regarding scientific evidence. I can reassure hon. Members that we fully expect to consider all relevant science, be it global or local, when designating MCZs. I am pleased that this amendment has highlighted the importance of keeping our definition of science flexible enough to allow for future developments in scientific knowledge and techniques. He rightly referred to climate change. We are facing ocean acidification and will face many other challenges over the next four, five or 10 years.

I shall deal now with the second aim of the amendment. Although I understand the desire for transparent assurances that MCZs have been designated in line with valid science, that is not a role for MMO scientific advisers. MCZs will be designated by the Secretary of State on advice and recommendations from Natural England and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee. They are our scientific and conservation advisers. They are the Government’s statutory nature conservation bodies and have the necessary nature conservation expertise. We want part 5 of the Bill to have a conservation focus to ensure that the environment is adequately considered. It is therefore vital that the advice comes from the conservation bodies set up to do that. The Bill will ensure that the science is given the consideration desired, and as intended by the first part of the amendment.

The MMO, its chief scientific adviser or the Science Advisory Panel can, of course, make representations during consultation on proposed MCZs, and I fully expect them to do so. The appropriate authority—the Secretary of State, the Welsh Assembly Government and so on—would take such representations into account. We fully expect a transparent process in which the public too can view the scientific advice on MCZ designations. For example, Natural England will publish its advice to the Secretary of State setting out the results of regional projects as well as its own scientific recommendations. Consultation comments on potential MCZ sites and the Government’s responses will also be made public, as they should be. We want this to be transparent.

The Bill ensures that science will form the basis, as it should, of MCZ designation.

Roger Williams (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

I think that everybody here today supports this element of the Bill, but would like to get it right. Of course, science is key, and the Minister says that without it a decision could be open to judicial review. Has he any estimate of the amount of sea bed that has attached to it sufficient scientific evidence and knowledge to make these designations?

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an exact figure, but I can tell him that our knowledge today has significantly advanced from what it was a year or two ago. There is not only the work that the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science is carrying out; many marine agencies, including academic institutions, are mapping the sea bed and bringing forward science that is surprising and challenging us. That is the way it should be. Regional projects will have the science put in front of them, and they will work through it and take matters forward. The MMO chief scientific adviser undoubtedly has a role in that, as he has a role to input upwards to the Secretary of State. The definitive guidance has to be that of the nature conservation advisers, which are JNCC and Natural England. Putting the focus on science is absolutely right, and it is there in clause 117.

As I have stated, if these decisions were not based on good science, they would be wide open to judicial review. On that basis, while empathising with the thrust of the amendment, I urge the hon. Member for Newbury to withdraw it, because his first criterion is satisfied and as for the second, the chief scientist can have an input but is not the appropriate person to sign this off.

Richard Benyon (Conservative, Newbury)

I am always in favour of the “less is more” argument and if that is the case, I may have been given some assurance by the Minister. I am reassured that all science would be covered under the provision. I would like to see a bit more compulsion on the JNCC and Natural England to adopt that approach in the Bill. If the Minister is assuring me, as I think he is, that that is in the guidance or the schedule, I can live with that. I put down as a marker that a lot depends on the nature of the chief scientist at the MMO and the board over which he will sit. If it is to be the body that we want, they will make sure that their interests and those of the marine environment are represented from a scientific perspective, which is what we want to achieve.

The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire made an interesting intervention on issues such as sea bed mapping. I have looked closely at the processes involved and the methodology of CEFAS. I have discovered through research that it should be possible to fill in the gaps in sea bed mapping, certainly in our inshore waters. Towards the end of 2010 we should be in a position to know what is there.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

The hon. Gentleman is right. Many colleagues attended when we recently brought RMS Endeavour from CEFAS up the Thames through the raised Tower bridge and showed them some of the science that is going on. His colleagues from the other place also came to see what we are doing with the science and what inroads we are making. By the time we bring forward an ecologically coherent network, our knowledge could be sufficient to make good decisions that will satisfy conservation criteria and others who use the sea and want to know where they can safely carry out their activity for the benefit of conservation.

Richard Benyon (Conservative, Newbury)

I am grateful for those remarks. I, too, saw Endeavour when it was here and saw the methodology on my visit to Lowestoft. Given the Minister’s assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Richard Benyon (Conservative, Newbury)

I beg to move amendment 15, in clause 117, page 79, line 9, at end insert—

‘(7A) Where the authority considers the desirability of designating two or more areas to be equal, in reaching their decision as to which area (or areas) to designate it may have regard to any social or economic consequences of designation, subject to the achievement of the objective set out in section 123(2).’.

Greg Pope (Labour, Hyndburn)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 16, in clause 119, page 80, line 41, at end insert—

‘(c) the Marine Management Organisation on social and economic factors regarding the designation of MCZ sites.’.

Richard Benyon (Conservative, Newbury)

We seek to clarify the process of designation, which is one of the most important parts of the Bill. The first part of the process should be to identify which sites could qualify on the basis of pure science. That should be the first criterion. The next stage should be to pare those down—using socio-economic factors, if required, at that point in the process. Those factors need not mitigate against designation as there will be plenty of examples in which science-based conservation factors will live happily with socio-economic requirements, not least elements of tourism such as eco-tourism. Taking socio-economic factors into account at the start of the process would or could restrict the ability to secure an ecologically coherent network of marine conservation zones. The problem with seeking marine sanctuaries under existing legislation, principally the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, has been that very few sites have been designated purely because socio-economic considerations were applied too early in the process.

We are also concerned about how the Bill will sit with the Marine (Scotland) Bill, which states that socio-economic factors will be considered only when choosing between two sites of equal value. Our amendment would make the UK Bill reflect the position in the Scottish Bill. In our debates this morning, the Minister said that there should be coherence between England and Scotland in terms of the MMO, so surely that principle should apply across the designation process. The socio-economic consequences of designation should not compromise the desirability of designating two or more areas of equal status, or the ability to achieve an ecologically coherent network of sites. Socio-economic factors should be considered in the management of a site, and therefore every MCZ will need a management plan.

Amendment 16 is designed to place a duty on the MMO to provide advice on social and economic matters directly to the Secretary of State to ensure that there is balanced consideration of the three pillars of sustainable development during the MCZ designation process. That process commences with four regional MCZ projects, which involve a range of interested parties assessing options for MCZs within their region, having taken a range of evidence to assist their analysis. Their proposals then go to Natural England, which rationalises the lists and forwards proposals to the Secretary of State with its own advice and supplementary information. The Secretary of State will then consider and decide how to designate the proposed MCZs—or not.

Given the statutory conservation duties and ethos of Natural England, it will not have all the required skills and expertise properly to assess the social and economic factors, and neither is it likely to consider such matters to be of equal importance. Given the recent Government amendment in clause 2(2), strengthening the MMO’s role to allow it to

“take any action which it considers necessary or expedient for the purpose of furthering any social, economic or environmental purposes”,

and provided that the MMO has the right balance of skills and expertise, it could play a meaningful role in advising the Secretary of State on the economic and social implications of designating individual MCZs. That would ensure that there was balanced consideration of all key factors when deciding whether proposed areas are suitable for designation as marine conservation zones.

Martin Salter (Labour, Reading West)

As I said this morning, it is worth looking back at the extensive scrutiny undertaken by the Joint Committee, on which at least four hon. Members in this Committee served. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Newbury has not gone down the road urged by some non-governmental organisations. The amendment that was listed but not selected would delete all reference to socio-economic activity, and was based on flawed thinking. There are socio-economic activities and there are socio-economic activities—some activities are entirely cognisant of good environmental practice. Creating MCZs can create jobs and environmental opportunities. Wind power can create jobs, as can fishing opportunities that were hitherto unavailable due to the pillaging of our coastline by the commercial sector. It is therefore good that, collectively, we have backed away from that and stood firm on the principle that socio-economic factors have a role to play.

There is a danger that we could be making the detail a point of principle when it is not. I am slightly uncomfortable with amendment 16, which creates a requirement to advise of socio-economic activities, and the way in which it fits with amendment 15, which tells the authority to take socio-economic activities into account only where MCZs are of equal value. I was initially attracted to the idea, but there is a danger that we could constrain decisions that we might wish the MMO and the Secretary of State to enact.

The Joint Committee said in paragraph 115:

“We recommend that the scoping of potential locations for Marine Conservation Zones should be based on the best scientific evidence, taking into account their representative nature, uniqueness, threat and sensitivity.”

That is fine—and there is no disagreement with that—but we went on to say:

“We also emphasise the need to pay regard to existing international obligations...the socio-economic costs and benefits of MCZs, and the ability of zones to accommodate other forms of use without harming their integrity, once the potential sites have been identified.”

A firm position was not taken; there was a recognition that socio-economic factors had to be weighed in the balance. I think that the Minister can avoid the confrontation that was evident this morning in the robustness of his response. We want to be assured that good science is the primary consideration when designating MCZs, and that other factors follow. There may be socio-economic factors that make good environmental sense, are of primary importance, and apply to two MCZs of equal value, but do we really want to inhibit what we can do in circumstances that are not very remote? The Minister needs to address that problem.

I pay tribute to the Government for moving their position from the one that they took in the original Bill. Hon. Members will remember that it said that socio-economic factors “shall” be taken into account. We are now in a different place. We are where the Joint Committee wanted us to be, as we are saying that they “may” be taken into account. It is not the function of this scrutiny—and my goodness the Bill has been scrutinized—to restrict the opportunity to do the right thing further down the road. My message to Opposition Members—if the Minister is able to answer the legitimate concerns and points that have been raised—is that we may be able to keep the consensus that, I hope, will run through the rest of the debate.

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

As other hon. Member’s have said, it is pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Pope. May I explain to the hon. Member for Reading, West the purpose of the amendment that I tabled but which was not selected? On Second Reading, in column 719, I argued that socio-economics should be taken into account, but should not contradict the fundamentals of sound science, because that is the basis of recognising the need to protect something particularly fragile and unique. However, at the point where one is implementing a plan to protect a said site, socio-economics need to be considered. The voices and considerations of the users of the marine resource should at least be heard at that stage, to see whether there are ways in which their activity operates that are not damaging; we want to find out whether they can amend the way in which they go about their occupation so that there is less damage. The designation should fundamentally be based on sound science and as many objective measurements as possible, and we should not be diverted from that aim.

Hugo Swire (Conservative, East Devon)

Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that there is enough protection in the Bill for a place such as Lyme bay, in my own constituency? It is often used as a safe haven, most recently by the Napoli, and there is some economic benefit in that. However, the adverse environmental impact from a spillage of oil—such events used to occur when there were ship-to-ship oil transfers—on what is a UNESCO world heritage site must be balanced against such activity. Is he satisfied that the checks and balances are there, and that places such as a UNESCO world heritage site can be factored in, rather than just the marine-based environment?

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

I do not have the hon. Gentleman’s intimate knowledge of the particular circumstances of Lyme bay, on which I am sure he is articulate. Am I satisfied that the balance has been struck? The answer is that I am not certain, but I should have thought that that was the purpose of the clause.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

Perhaps I may assist by clarifying the position. While much of the focus is understandably on marine conservation zones, as part of the ecologically coherent network that we are talking about, we will ensure that we will include Lyme bay, the Natura 2000 sites and other locations that may come along. MCZs do not stand entirely alone as an entity—they will take into account sites of special scientific interest, estuarine environments and so on. Indeed, that is a coherent way to manage the different interests in the marine environment, and to recognise that where we have special habitats, we protect them very carefully indeed.

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

Certainly, the question of European designations and coastline UNESCO sites is relevant. One of the points that I had made in this morning’s sitting was about terrestrial planning and the relationship between that and the designations and protections that are available on the coastline. They are within the provenance of democratically elected local authorities either to protect, or to ensure that they take measures to respect the integrity of the kind of sites that the hon. Gentleman is talking about. It is important that local authorities and the locality are able to engage in the process itself. That is the aspect that, with regard to the arguments that I was advancing this morning, needs to be further developed.

The primary point advanced by amendment 15 is something that I raised on Second Reading. There are two types of marine conservation zones. First, there are MCZs that have a unique feature that is not replicable anywhere else; they are fragile marine sites that justify their designation as MCZs in their own right. Some such areas will coincide with or complement the sites mentioned by the Minister a moment ago in terms of their Ramsar, or other European or international, designation and protection. Such sites should be given special protection and we should go to great lengths to achieve that.

The second group of sites are part of a network, and their purpose, as I understand it, is that they are representative of a particular type of marine habitat and biodiversity. Amendment 15 relates to such sites. If we are to consider socio-economic factors at the designation stage, it would be appropriate for them to be brought to bear on such sites. I also believe that socio-economic considerations need to be brought to bear at the implementation stage, which comes after the designation stage, and relates to the application of the individual protection programme, as well as the measures proposed by the MMO and other bodies to advance the protection of marine conservation zones. The designation stage is simply one factor in the process; it is the measures taken within each marine conservation zones that will be relevant to the affected industries and coastal communities.

The hon. Member for Reading, West queried whether amendment 16 was necessary. If amendment 15, which I support, is successful, I do not think that amendment 16 would be necessary and it would be curious for us to continue to debate it. The issue under discussion is important and is very much the nub of the issue if we want to achieve a confluence between ensuring that we maintain economically sustainable coastal communities on the one hand, and ensuring that we, as an island nation state, tackle environmental challenges on the other. Getting the balance right between all of those interests is important, and it very much focuses on this clause. I hope that the Minister will take into account a measured amendment that would clearly improve and clarify the nature of how socio-economic considerations will be addressed.

Charles Walker (Conservative, Broxbourne)

I will make a very short contribution. The Bill is in danger of being subsumed by jargon. I do not really know what “socio-economic” means, to be perfectly honest. Is it possible to have marine conservation and create jobs? Of course it is. It is possible to have increased recreational fishing opportunities, increased diving opportunities and increased tourism in conservation areas, so of course conservation is compatible with creating sustainable employment. I become concerned, however, when “socio-economic” strays into the area of big infrastructure projects.

Over the next three weeks, I am going to bore the Committee tirelessly with my concerns about the Severn estuary. The Minister said that things will be based on good science. There is virtually no more important ecological site in Europe or the world than the Severn estuary, but I am concerned that socio-economic considerations will be used as a Trojan horse to overturn all the good science relating to the Severn estuary and to ensure that a dam is built across it, with all the damage that that will cause the natural marine environment.

If I could ask one thing of the Minister it is that he break down what the word “socio-economic” means. Does it mean that marine conservation takes a back seat when that is in the national interest? Alternatively, does it mean that we will have a brave Bill and that future Governments will be brave, do the right thing by the marine environment and sometimes say no to major infrastructure projects of national importance?

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Pope. I want to comment on a couple of the points that have been made and I look forward to hearing what the Minister says in response.

First, the hon. Member for St. Ives was absolutely right to talk about the need to establish a balance. All colleagues have been contacted by non-governmental organisations that are concerned that the inclusion of socio-economic issues will be used to overturn the conservation elements. That is the issue, and that is why those organisations are concerned.

As someone whose constituency has some of the most precious habitats and special areas of conservation, as well as major energy developments and huge volumes of shipping, I understand those concerns. However, the fact remains that despite the accidents and incidents, and despite the intense industrial activity on that part of the coast and the seas immediately offshore, we still have these precious areas, and they are still protected. There is therefore no question but that a balance can be struck.

The Minister needs to give those who have raised such concerns with us an assurance that conservation is the No. 1 issue, but there will be circumstances—we have to be clear about this—where important socio-economic issues will have to be addressed.

For example, there is a range of issues in Cardigan bay, which has a major school of common dolphins. There is a clash with the scallop dredging there, which is substantially damaging the sea bed. Through the food chain, that will undoubtedly have an effect on dolphins. That may well be addressed. One way of addressing it—I am not suggesting that this is the solution—involves offshore wind farms. There may be pressures to introduce offshore wind farms, and a wind farm might address some of the issues in the area.

To return to the point made by the hon. Member for East Devon, my constituency saw the Sea Empress oil spill in 1996, when 72,000 tonnes of crude oil were deposited on the coast of my constituency without my permission. Again, we must be clear and honest with people that establishing marine conservative zones will not prevent a Sea Empress or a Napoli, because pollution travels. The Sea Empress was entering the Milford Haven waterway when it ran aground, but the spill covered an area of hundreds of square miles.. I am sure, knowing that area, that there is likely to be an MCZ designation. However, that area is an awfully long way from where the incident occurred, so we must make it clear that MCZ designation will not prevent the impact of a Sea Empress, or even of a Napoli.

Hugo Swire (Conservative, East Devon)

I well remember the incident to which the hon. Gentleman alludes. In my constituency, we were fortunate not to suffer too much pollution from the Napoli incident. There was some pollution, but it was not too bad. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that an MCZ designation would not prevent pollution in such circumstances. What would prevent it, and would be a preventive measure anyway, is the creation of safe havens around the UK coast where ships in distress could go, for which Brussels has been calling for some time. I would argue that Lyme bay should not be one of those safe havens. That measure would help.

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

I accept that the trouble might be that as a safe haven is presumably a relatively sheltered area, there might be the unfortunate coincidence that it has protected species and one ends up trying to make a sensible and balanced decision. I would be grateful to hear how the Minister sees the balance being struck, because that is the issue. People out there believe that purely because there is a reference in the Bill to socio-economic issues, they will automatically override the conservation issue. The Minister has to assure us on that point.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

It is a great privilege to follow those contributions, because this issue really goes to the heart of the Bill. There has been a lot of concern about it and a lot of questions need answering, which I will try to do now. It is also a privilege to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen, West and South Pembrokeshire, whose constituency in many ways will have to be a model of how the process works. With the intensity of oil and gas, and liquefied natural gas coming in, together with the potential for renewables, the still viable fisheries as far afield as Cardigan bay, and the sea fisheries, sea angling and intense recreation in parts of my hon. Friend’s constituency—we see these things around our coast—what better example is there of the way forward?

The premise of the Bill is that first, we have the great win of a complete marine planning system, and secondly, we have these jewels within it that we call marine conservation zones. As has rightly been pointed out, and as I hope I said earlier and will therefore reiterate now, these zones are based on science. Science underpins MCZs. Those jewels are multifaceted, multicoloured and of different shapes. My hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West has quoted from the House of Lords Joint Committee report on the draft Bill, so let me quote the Government’s response, which sums the issue up well:

“We agree that the designation of MCZs should be based on the best scientific evidence, and this should take account of factors such as representivity, uniqueness, vulnerability and sensitivity, but we need to avoid having a strict set of criteria which requires Ministers to designate MCZs purely on the basis of scientific considerations. In addition this should be an opportunity for stakeholders”—

all the stakeholders that hon. Members have referred to—

“to suggest areas that are of particular importance to them.

We expect the regional projects”—

the four that we have talked about, one of the most advanced of which, the Finding Sanctuary project, is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and is doing fantastic work—

“to take account of the socio-economic value of different areas and”,

this is the important thing,

“potential synergies between environmental protection and economic activities, to ensure that the MPA network achieves its ecological goals in a way that minimises socio-economic costs”,

which I think we would all want,

“and maximises the benefits. For representative habitats and species we expect there to be scope to make choices between equally suitable potential sites.”

What underpins this is the science, the special nature of the sites.

Linda Gilroy (Labour, Plymouth, Sutton)

Does my hon. Friend nevertheless understand the point made by many of the organisations he has just mentioned? They worry that as set out, the Bill will have the same result as the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981: only three small sites have been designated in 25 years. That is the point made by the hon. Member for Newbury. Can my hon. Friend tell those of us who share those worries to some degree how many marine conservation zones he would expect to see come about in the next five years?

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

I can tell my good and hon. Friend that we intend to bring forward not just individual MCZs but our proposals for a proper, ecologically coherent network by 2012. We said that on the record in the other place. We have said it in guidance and we will continue to say it. We want the momentum behind this to continue, so that we do not simply have individual sites but sites where species can spawn and reproduce. With climate change they can move from site to site and so on. I could go further.

Several hon. Membersrose—

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

I will give way in a moment but I want to finish on one further sentence from the Government’s response:

“For areas containing particularly rare, threatened or otherwise important species or habitats, we would expect ecological considerations to carry greater weight.”

So depending on the sensitivity and fragility, where it is not possible to have replicated sites and there are only one or two sites, we would expect the ecology to carry greater weight. However, in response to the points made about the balance, where choices can be made the socio-economics should be taken into account.

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

A moment ago the Minister mentioned Finding Sanctuary, whose representatives I have met on a couple of occasions. It is a project partly or wholly funded by DEFRA to work with local environmental organisations and to talk to other stakeholders about introducing proposals for the future designation of marine conservation zones or a zone around the coast of the south-west in Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly. In doing so, it is engaging with the socio-economic considerations at the stage of identifying the site. I am becoming slightly confused as to whether the proposals themselves, as being introduced under an initiative that the Government clearly support, have integrated the consideration of socio-economic considerations at the very earliest stage. When the project brings forward its own proposals, will further socio-economic considerations be brought to bear at that stage?

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

Finding Sanctuary is the most progressed of all these projects. The critical thing with Finding Sanctuary has been how well it has done in engaging a wide variety of stakeholders with different interests and getting them together. It does not discuss how it brings forward this ecologically coherent zone in its area until it has the science in front of it. That science will be put to it by a scientific panel, and then it will have to engage with us in some detailed and difficult choices.

I want to return to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton about the Wildlife and Countryside Act. I understand her concern about our not delivering in that regard. Apart from our commitment to introducing this ecologically coherent network by 2012, the key difference between the Wildlife and Countryside Act and this Bill is that the latter imposes a statutory duty to designate zones, and a duty on the Secretary of State to get on with it and contribute to this network. Anybody who tries to resile from that will see that the Bill says that we will do it, and have a duty to do it. I challenge anybody who follows me to say that we will not do so. There are other issues, but I will turn to those in a moment.

Linda Gilroy (Labour, Plymouth, Sutton)

I think it fair to say that that is a significant reassurance. Can the Minister, without giving a figure, give some sense that there will be more than three small sites? We have already mentioned Lyme bay, Carmarthen, the areas in Cardigan bay, Lundy island and the sites off my own constituency for starters. Can he say something a little more robust about what he expects to happen in, say, the next five years?

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

Yes, I can, and I am glad to see the support generally in the Committee for making the right decisions in the right areas. I hope that that view is shared more widely in Parliament, because we will undoubtedly bring forward other sites similar to Lyme bay. We cannot get away from that fact. We have sites that are so fragile, special and irreplaceable that they will have to be protected to that degree. There will be sites that will, in effect, be highly restricted. We had a debate in the other place on highly protected areas. The Bill provides the power to deal with a range of issues, including that level of protection, but let us not let that detract from the Government’s other obligations that tie in to the marine conservation zone network. Not least of those are our obligations under the habitats directives to bring forward special protection areas and special areas of conservation. I hope to be the Minister who introduces such proposals, which will form part of this approach, very soon. There will be overlaps with marine conservation zones, and there will be difficult decisions to take. However, where we have special sites, they will have to have a special level of protection as well.

Martin Salter (Labour, Reading West)

Those of us who might see the inclusion of phraseology such as “socio-economic factors” as a Trojan horse and an excuse not to designate marine conservation zones can take great comfort and reassurance from the Minister’s words. May I press him further? My name is attached to the amendment we are discussing. I am minded to vote with the Government, but I could be persuaded not to. I was encouraged when he quoted the very good response of the Joint Committee on this point. It said that the designation decision would be based on the best scientific factors. That is excellent, but that will not appear in the Bill and that is really the thrust of the amendment from the hon. Member for Newbury. The Minister may need to take some advice on this, but could the wording that is on the record as the Government’s response and view be built into guidance to reassure us all? If so, I suggest to the Minister that we would then have earned our corn this afternoon.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

Yes indeed. We have brought out a fair degree of guidance already, but if we can go further we would certainly be minded to do so. It is important to provide clarity and certainty for people, so that they know that we mean it when we say we are going to bring forward marine conservation zones. There is going to be a variety of MCZs. There will be ones that replicate what goes on in other zones. They will be able not only to protect on an individual site basis, but to allow for the replenishment and regeneration of species, and to have that network. I am more than happy to take that point away and look at how we can strengthen the guidance we have already introduced; but I think I can also turn to the amendments and give some clarification.

Linda Gilroy (Labour, Plymouth, Sutton)

Before the Minister does that, can he continue with the theme that he outlined—that there is a duty in the Bill that did not exist in the Wildlife and Countryside Act? Does that therefore mean that if there were grounds to suggest that too few sites coming forward and they were too thin, that would be judicially reviewable?

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

May I come back to my hon. Friend on that in a moment while I seek some inspiration? I will not forget the point and will return to it.

Let me turn to the nitty-gritty of the amendments. Amendment 15 would ensure that MCZs are designated on scientific criteria alone, with the socio-economic consequences of site designations being considered only when there is a choice of two or more MCZ locations of equal scientific value. The Government consider that existing conservation legislation has become a constraint on our ambition for marine conservation. It does not give us the scope to do all that we want to do, which is to create an ecologically coherent network of marine protected areas. So the Bill in its current format, including clause 117, provides the tools for achieving an ecologically coherent network. That network will include MCZs designated under the Bill, European and Ramsar sites and sites of special scientific interest. Most importantly—my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton has just referred to this issue—the Bill will place a duty on Ministers to designate MCZs so as to contribute to this ecologically coherent network. That will put in place a network that works best for conservation based on science and, where appropriate, socio-economic needs.

My hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West rightly pointed out that the original draft of the Bill stated that we “shall” take socio-economic factors into account. But MCZs are different—they are the jewels. There “may”—not “shall”—be occasions when we take those factors into account. However, site designations will be based fundamentally on scientific evidence. Science is the fundamental and first consideration when sites are proposed. We expect that on a number of sites the need for conservation will be clear, and such sites will be designated to provide the required protection.

It is also clear to me, however, that the best protection will also be achieved through consensus, and this is where stakeholder engagement comes in. We must be able to take into account, when relevant, the impact of designating MCZs on people’s lives and livelihoods. That will be crucial in assessing the longer-term effects of MCZ designations and our wider renewable energy targets. For example, when a representative site is designated, the Secretary of State will often have more choice regarding potential locations, and a decision could therefore be made that takes into account socio-economics.

Let me turns this on its head. Socio-economics are often considered in opposition to science and conservation—as a consideration undermining conservation —but in some cases, socio-economics will help and encourage designations. For example, Blakeney Point, on the north Norfolk coast, has a large seal population—about 500—that, in its own terms, is important. However, it is also vital to the local tourist industry. The science might suggest that such an area could benefit from designation as an MCZ, and the socio-economics might point in the same direction for the long-term stability of the tourism industry. They could really underpin the designation. Like other hon. Members, I do not want to pre-empt any decisions on regional work carried out around the coastline, but it is important to make the point that we do not want to lose the ability to factor in such positive socio-economic considerations. I repeat that the Government, with the help of the Committee, are determined to make a step change in the protection of the marine environment. That is why we placed the duty on Ministers to designate these MCZs. We believe that the approach in the Bill is the right one, so I ask the hon. Member for Newbury not to press amendment 15.

Amendment 16 highlights the value of the new MMO and the importance of taking account of social and economic factors, where appropriate, in decisions to designate MCZs. I share the sentiments behind the amendment, but the Bill already achieves its desired effect. The power to take account of social and economic factors when considering whether to designate MCZs will enable us to achieve our conservation objectives in ways that minimise the impact on sea users and maximise synergies, where they exist.

My hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West mentioned recreational sea angling and MCZs. I can see MCZs and socio-economic interests working positively together in that respect, because in many cases MCZs will benefit anglers by providing new or improved opportunities to pursue their sport in a way that does not impact on the biodiversity of the flora and fauna; they can co-exist. Part of the essence of what we are considering is areas where those uses are compatible.

Martin Salter (Labour, Reading West)

Recreational sea anglers will be delighted with the assurance that we now have on the record from the Minister that it is not the intention of the Department or the Bill to exclude in almost all cases recreational sea anglers from MCZs. Will the Minister reflect further on the point raised on Second Reading that the presence of recreational sea anglers in MCZs will in itself be of great use in enforcing those MCZs and reporting on other activity that is considerably less welcome?

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

I will indeed reflect on that point, because one of the thrusts of the Bill is about sharing the ownership of protecting our marine environment. It will not be a case of the man or woman in Whitehall drawing an arbitrary list of lines on a map and saying, “This is where the science leads us.” It will be a case of getting local communities of stakeholders together in the same way as the four regional projects and saying, “Here is the science. Work with it. We have to protect this environment properly for the long-term future.” There are players who may well have a part in the long-term management by assisting in that long-term process.

Socio-economics will be taken into account in the management of MCZs after designation, but that is only one of the ways in which we will take that point into account. The designation process must consider the onward management of a site. That is what it is all about.

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

On that point, will the Minister clarify what is likely to happen following designation both within and beyond the six-mile limit? Presuming that the MCZs will be designated within UK territorial waters, let us say, for example, that one of the sites that the MMO is keen to designate is a deep seabed area. I am thinking of the coast off Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, which are part of my constituency. As the Minister knows, the seabed is as accessible to foreign fishing vessels as it is to UK fishing vessels. With regard to taking into account the socio-economic consequences of designation, I presume—this relates to a wider debate on the future of the common fisheries policy—that the Minister acknowledges that it would clearly be inappropriate to tie the hands of UK fishermen, unless the UK Government can achieve an agreement either in Europe or bilaterally with all the fishing nations that have access to that seabed in order to avoid a socio-economic impact on coastal communities. I am talking about a failure to provide any kind of protection, because other vessels were getting in there to damage the seabed.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I think that we are now pushing at an open door in relation to CFP reform, which is long overdue and needs fundamentally to be done. We also have the existing obligations under the European habitats directive and what we are doing under other European regulations as well. We are pushing at an open door, I believe, but he is right and I will return to the issue in a later discussion. We do not want to see MCZs purely in the inshore outer six miles or even in the outer 12. We want to see them in all those areas in territorial waters that are most special and require protection. I will return to that, because it is an important matter.

Not all MCZs will be vulnerable to fishing activities, as the hon. Gentleman will understand, but where the conservation objectives for an MCZ that is located in waters beyond six nautical miles depend on the introduction of fisheries restrictions, the Government will use— I have phrased this in civil servant speak, but it is very good civil servant speak that I can understand when I sit down with people—their best endeavours to seek the agreement of other member states. As I have said, we are pushing an open door. The European Union, the Commissioner and others are watching to see what we do. Banging together fisheries and marine environment has to be part of the long-term way forward both for the CFP and generally.

We will use our best endeavours to seek the agreement of other member states to mergers through the CFP. In six-to-12 nautical mile zones, that will be through negotiation with the Commission and affected member states, so that domestic legislation under the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967 can be extended to foreign vessels, as the hon. Gentleman has discussed. Beyond 12 nautical miles, agreement for a merger under the CFP will ultimately need to be reached through the Council of Fisheries Ministers. There is almost a ranking of difficulty, but all those things are achievable, and we certainly intend to do that, because it would not be right if we simply tried to get the low-hanging fruit. We need to ensure that MCZs are designated, where appropriate, based on scientific evidence.

Coming back to amendment 16, clause 119(4) already requires Ministers to consult any persons whom they think are

“likely to be interested in, or affected by, the making of”

an order to designate MCZs. That would involve consultation on not only the social and economic implications of designation, but all relevant issues. It is inconceivable that the MMO would not fall within that definition given its planning, licensing and enforcement functions under the Bill, so I reassure hon. Members that Ministers are obliged to consult the MMO. That is in addition to the advice that Ministers can expect to receive from a range of people and organisations with interests in the sea. I am sure that, as we have heard today, we can rely on all of them keenly promoting all the benefits—social, economic and environmental—of what they do. Ministers will not be short of advice on any aspect of the consequences of designation. I therefore suggest that the amendment is unnecessary, and I would be grateful if the hon. Member for Newbury were to withdraw it. With those comments, I hope that hon. Members can see that there is a good way forward in the Bill.

Richard Benyon (Conservative, Newbury)

We have had a very useful debate, which has, if nothing else, clarified the Government’s intentions and how they see the system working. The Minister has proved himself to be an optimist, this afternoon, in believing that each tier of difficulty is achievable, and so we must wish him well. He is also optimistic in that he hopes to be the Minister who enacts the designations. I have news for him—so do I—but that is a discussion for another occasion.

The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton rightly teased a very important point out of the Minister about the level of ambition regarding marine conservation zones. On Second Reading, I deliberately made the point that we should not go down the path that some have tried to persuade us to go down of saying that our ambition relates to a certain percentage of the seas, because that would allow a path of least resistance that might result in the designation of relatively benign and uncontroversial areas of the sea in order to achieve a headline figure. Let us face it, many controversial decisions will have to be taken, although much of that controversy will be based on perception rather than reality. Local communities will say, “We are being impoverished; our fishing and tourism industries are being affected by the designation,” but in most cases those perceptions will be groundless.

It is important to stick hard and fast to the principle that designation will be based on science. What I have sought to do in these amendments is to tease out from the Government a process by which we will get to that point. We have established that that process will be conducted, first, on the basis of sound science, and then socio-economic factors can be considered. As the hon. Member for Reading, West has pointed out, very often those two factors will be entirely compatible; in fact, they will mutually enhance each other.

I take the point raised by the hon. Member for Reading, West about sea anglers being an asset by reporting what is going on. There will not be a line on the map or any buoys or markers to show where these zones start and finish. The only people who will know them are those people who know those waters and that locality. We will be relying, to large measure, on such people.

Where we are yet to make progress is on the point that I raised with amendment 15 regarding the lack of compatibility with other regions going through the same process. I have yet to hear from the Minister why there is a difference in wording and in approach between what we are trying to achieve and what the Scottish Parliament is trying to achieve in the Scottish Marine Bill.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

Although I spoke at great length—

Greg Pope (Labour, Hyndburn)

When we suspended the Minister was in mid-intervention.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

Indeed. To clarify, my intervention was to deal with the issue of Scotland and why it has a slightly different way forward. We have worked with Scotland and the other devolved administrations on the UK Bill throughout the process. Scottish Ministers know how the UK Bill works and have decided, after consultation in Scotland, that a different approach is more appropriate for their own Bill. Nevertheless, as Scotland is responsible for the implementation of both its own Bill for inshore waters and the UK Bill in offshore waters, they and we have the opportunity to ensure consistency between inshore and offshore. Nothing in the Bill prevents that and both Bills can support an ecologically coherent network of protected areas.

Let me clarify. The Scottish Bill considers only socio-economics where there are two areas of equal ecological value. That reflects the consultation carried out and it is for the Scottish Government to take that forward. It is important to look within this Bill at the whole suite of provisions to make a valid comparison. While the scope to consider socio-economics is more limited in the Scottish Bill, there is, on the other hand, no duty in that Bill to designate marine protected areas in the first place.

Greg Pope (Labour, Hyndburn)

Order. Before we go any further, some of the interventions have been slightly longer than Standing Orders provide for. Brevity is the soul of wit and also the soul of interventions. I would gently remind the Committee of that.

Richard Benyon (Conservative, Newbury)

I think the Minister just said that under the Scottish Bill there will be no duty to designate but we do have a duty.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

Indeed.

Richard Benyon (Conservative, Newbury)

The Minister is nodding his assurance. I believe the duties concerning MCZs are set out in clause 123. That is helpful. I cannot imagine that there would be a huge difference between the two countries. Though our approach differs in various ways, we ultimately want to achieve the same thing. I am satisfied about that.

I spoke earlier about my concerns about Ministers or authorities being able to follow the path of least resistance. It is important that the Bill is constructed in a way to make that almost impossible, because people have come at it in the right process. The hon. Member for St. Ives spoke at the beginning about the programme of protection. I do believe that process is important. We have set out in this debate a process that we can all work with. A point was made by the hon. Member for Reading, West that if we all dance on the head of a pin, the perfect could become the enemy of the good. That is a real mangle of clichĂ(c)s. I understand the point he was making—

Martin Salter (Labour, Reading West)

Slightly more eloquently.

Richard Benyon (Conservative, Newbury)

—that if we try too hard to tie the legislation down to being too prescriptive we could end up not trying to achieve what we were trying to achieve in the first place. With that, I am prepared to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Richard Benyon (Conservative, Newbury)

I beg to move amendment 13, in clause 117, page 79, line 14, at end add—

‘(9) The Secretary of State must provide indicative guidance on the types of features to be protected and the level of protection that would normally be applied to each feature.’.

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

I rise in support of the amendment. There are good reasons why clear advice is required on both the designation and the purpose of the designation. What we heard earlier, particularly in relation to amendment 15, gave rise to questions not only about the socio-economics, but also about the types of protection required and the different types of economic activity that might take place.

The hon. Member for Carmarthen, West and South Pembrokeshire—a beautiful constituency—made a point about the impact of scallop dredging on flora and fauna on the seabed. If fishing gear is dragged on the seabed, whether it be scallop dredgers, beam trawlers or other methods, particularly these days when the power of such vessels is significantly greater than it was 20 to 30 years ago, the impact on the seabed is substantial. The matter is a topic of hot debate between not only conservationists and fishermen, but also between—this is my main point—different strands of the fishing industry.

Gear conflict can occur in the 12-mile zone, where scallop dredging, for instance, can often be in conflict with low-impact fishing techniques, such as inshore crabbing and other activities. In the experience of fishermen to whom I have spoken, such fishing activities are significantly affected by activities such as scallop dredging. Inshore crabbers often find that the productivity of the ground where they ply their trade is affected after scallop dredgers have passed through several times. Inshore crabbers are very selective: they take only those crabs that have reached a level of maturity that can be landed and throw back the juveniles to continue living—it is not as if these crabs suffer the bends and cannot survive afterwards. They return to their habitat and continue living. So it is a selective method of fishing.

Often those in the inshore crabbing industry—certainly in my part of the world— fish sustainably in the sense that they are co-fishermen. Their boats are only powerful enough to go out in relatively mild conditions—certainly not in treacherous conditions, although some take the risk from time to time—and they will only steam out to about 5 or 6 miles from their cove. It is vital for these crab fishermen, who work together, to maintain a sustainable industry. The purpose is not to take too much, because the next generation of fishermen will want a sustainable stock within catching distance of the cove. However, scallop dredgers clearly have an impact on that.

The conflict between scallop dredging and inshore crabbing has a significance in many other areas of marine conservation and in other conflicts between different fishing activities. The hon. Member for Carmarthen, West and South Pembrokeshire mentioned the need to conserve certain species of cetaceans. There is a potential conflict between declining numbers of, for example, bottlenose dolphins and the activities of fishermen who drop gill nets and fixed gear in inshore waters. That is an issue of hot debate around the UK coastline. Bottlenose dolphins, which are found off the south-west and Cornish coast, are now small in number, despite having been established over many hundreds of years. To lose one or two of those bottlenose dolphins would be significant. If the Secretary of State sought to protect a particular species, he would need to introduce a particular measure to do so. So there is an importance in that sense.

The hon. Member for Newbury was right about the importance of requiring the Secretary of State to establish the different features likely to be protected within the MCZs, and to be clear about what restrictions and conditions will be applied and about the types of sustainable developments that could be built on, or near, these various features. I shall not list any of the other examples. My point is that some features deserve pure conservation. Some activities can be permitted that still allow those features to be protected that the Secretary of State recognises as deserving. That is where the balance between socio-economics and conservation can be drawn, and, at that point, to protect those important features the Secretary of State is required to be clear about the kinds of economic activity that can take place in certain circumstances, which I hope are preserved by the measure.

Ann McKechin (Labour, Glasgow North)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pope. As we debate this afternoon, we can all agree that our seas are a varied and changing habitat and that our understanding of them is changing rapidly. One aspect is the increasing effects of climate change on our seas. For example, the temperature off the west coast of Scotland has increased substantially over the past few years and, as yet, we are unsure of the exact causes. Is it a localised effect or related to the Atlantic drift? Only time and further research will tell.

Our network of marine protected areas will have to include a range of protection levels dependent upon individual conservation objectives for the area and the sensitivity of the features being protected. We cannot give a blanket indication of the levels of protection. It is not as simple as saying that a certain feature will always need a given type of protection regardless of where it arises in our seas. Sites with similar features may have different objectives: we may want to protect an eelgrass bed in one place as it is and to allow one to recover in another place. Thus, the protection required would be different and so it should be on a case-by-case basis. Trying to predict all the restrictions for all the activities for all the habitats and objectives would be disproportionate and not really helpful.

I understand the aim behind the amendment of the hon. Member for Newbury. I appreciate the importance for all those with an interest in the sea, particularly for industries such as the renewables industry, of having the clearest picture possible of the future shape and impact of our network. I am also aware that many renewable companies are small and it is important that we help them to know the costs of what, in many cases, is a high-risk venture. Several elements of the Bill, primarily the whole of part 3 on marine planning, aim at giving precisely such a steer for the first time,.

Part 5 will also add clarity. It sets out the types of features to be protected under clause 117, stating:

“marine flora or fauna;...marine habitats or types of marine habitat;...features of geological or geomorphological interest.”

Those may be rare or threatened or representative species or habitats. Although it is covered in the Bill, it may be helpful for me to expand with some examples. Representative sites such as mudflats, which provide feeding grounds for animals and are vital for nutrient recycling, are an example of the types of habitat or species that we may want to protect. Species may include rarities such as the sunset cup coral and the pink sea fan.

We may also designate breeding grounds as marine conservation zones. For vulnerable species, such as sharks, skates and rays, seasonal restrictions could apply during the breeding season. Designating orders themselves, and any associated byelaws, will add further case-by-case clarity on what conservation objectives have been set and about specific restrictions in place. That will enable people to take a view on whether a possible development could impact on an MCZ and on whether it would be commercially viable.

None of that should come as a surprise. Stakeholders who engage in the regional projects that we are setting up will not only have early warning of how activities are likely to be regulated, but a hand in determining what those regulations are. I do not want to give the Committee the impression that MCZs will always be in opposition to industry—far from it. As we heard today, activities within an MCZ will depend upon the conservation objectives. Many will be able to co-exist in certain areas without any difficulty. There may even be instances, and renewable energy installations seem a possible candidate, where industry and MCZs can be mutually supportive over the long term. I urge the Committee to resist the amendment. The Bill will provide clarity about what people may do and where, both in the short term and in the long term. The amendment would commit us to doing more than we could reasonably achieve.

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

A moment ago, the Minister mentioned, as one of her examples, the pink sea fan, which is extremely slow to grow and can live for up to 100 years. It is found in rocky reef habitats as well as in mud beds. Given that such sea flora are extremely slow to grow, surely it is appropriate that an amendment such as this one be made. If one of the purposes of the Bill is to protect particularly vulnerable marine flora such as the slow-growing pink sea fan, that should be made clear by the Secretary of State. It should also be made clear that every effort must be made to ensure that there is not a single trawl within a zone that would damage a very vulnerable marine flora.

Ann McKechin (Labour, Glasgow North)

There will be a spectrum of different protections in each conservation zone. As the hon. Gentleman said, some flora and fauna will require very high levels of protection in the zone concerned. We want to ensure that those flora and fauna are clearly identified as soon as is reasonably possible. However, we also want flexibility, so that if there is a change in the scientific evidence or research—there is research in our seas at all times—the appropriate authorities can react to that change. There must be a degree of flexibility. That is why we are trying to build that flexibility into the Bill, so that the regulations are proportionate, based on hard scientific evidence and flexible, because we know that our seas are changing and that we have to alter restrictions to fit that change. If we gave a long list in the Bill itself, we would lack the flexibility that we need if we want a comprehensive approach to the protection of our seas. At the same time, including such a long list would work against the partnership approach that we are trying to create in our planning, whereby we involve the stakeholders and get them to come together to work out a series of controls appropriate to each area.

Richard Benyon (Conservative, Newbury)

The Minister’s response has clarified a number of points. The hon. Member for St. Ives made an important point in talking about Carmarthen bay. We are all aware of some of the tragic loss of environment in that particular—

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

Cardigan bay.

Richard Benyon (Conservative, Newbury)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for correcting me. In Cardigan bay, there has been an appalling depletion of the marine environment due to certain activities related to shellfish. We must remember that in the context of this debate.

I hope that what we can draw out through this amendment and others is an understanding that certain MCZs will differ vastly even within themselves. The analogy given to me by Lord Taylor of Holbeach in our discussions on the Bill is a very good one. He asked me to imagine an MCZ the size of Devon—I can feel two eyes boring into the back of my head as I say this—in the sea. There would be an area within that MCZ that is, for example, Dartmoor and another that is Exmoor. In the area that is Dartmoor, there could be a particularly important area of coral reef. The area that is Exmoor could be particularly important as a spawning ground. The remainder of the MCZ could have a completely different designation. All those areas require complex management objectives to be clearly set out in a way that all interested parties can understand and adhere to.

By tabling the amendment, I was seeking to create, through guidance, greater understanding of what the indicative features were. I think that the Minister has given me sufficient assurance about that, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Roger Williams (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

I remember that, on Second Reading, the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Caton) proposed that marine conservation zones should be designated not only according to the words in the Bill relating to marine flora and fauna, types of marine habitats and features of geological or geomorphological interest, but on the basis of seascapes. He looked at that from the angle of chairman of the all-party group on areas of outstanding natural beauty. He represents the Gower, which is an area of outstanding natural beauty in its own right. I believe that the Minister’s uncle at one time represented that area in the House.

It is often the seascape that the public cherish most about the sea. Indeed, the European landscape convention, to which the United Kingdom is a signatory, defines a seascape as

“an area of sea, coastline and land, as perceived by people, whose character results from the actions and interactions of land and sea, by natural and/or human factors.”

The constituency of the hon. Member for Carmarthen, West and South Pembrokeshire is an example of an area where the land is designated as a national park. There is sometimes a heritage coastline or an area of outstanding national beauty, and the sea is an important part of that designation.

Several people have proposed that we add another qualifying reason to those set out for the designation of marine conservation zones: the quality of the seascape itself, especially when it is associated with a coastline that has already been designated. I know that we have not tabled an amendment to that effect, but has the Minister reacted to the debate on Second Reading? Might an amendment on Report produce an encouraging response?

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

I want to intervene briefly as we are having a brief stand part debate. As I pointed out on Second Reading, the last subsection of the clause refers to the remains of

“any vessel, aircraft or marine installation...which are of historic or archaeological interest.”

Are those words there simply to pad the legislation? There is tremendous interest in important historic features for many reasons, and particularly from those who want to protect war graves, which are often on the seabed where vessels have gone down following battles around the UK coast. However, I do not see any mechanism in the Bill whereby those can be identified, communicated to the MMO and given the proper protection, so perhaps the Minister could reassure me on that. I can see how environmental organisations such as Natural England will be able to advise the MMO on designation, but I do not see a clear structure whereby organisations concerned with marine archaeology or the protection of war graves at sea could ensure that their concerns are communicated, too.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

I was originally from the Gower, where my uncle was MP. I now live in Maesteg and my local beach is Aberavon. I happen to think that the Gower coast and the marine environment off the Gower is a superb example of excellence. My boys do surf life-saving at Aberavon; it has some of the best surfing in Wales and the most glorious beach as a backdrop. However, I also think that the two train lines that run from the Port Talbot steelworks form another iconic seascape.

The problem is defining seascape. It is almost like asking “What is art?”. I know what it is, because I know what I like. Seascape is important to us. As has been said, we published a definition of seascape in the high-level objectives, which refers to

“An area of sea, coastline and land whose character results from the actions and interactions of land with sea by natural and/or human factors.”

The problem is where to stop. Let me elucidate.

The question was discussed at length in the other place and raised on Second Reading. I assure the Committee that the Bill allows for the protection of seascapes through marine planning and licensing provisions. However, I do not want to include specific provision for protection of the seascape in part 5, which deals with nature conservation. We are only starting to understand what is meant by seascape. We do not yet have a well-understood and agreed definition, particularly one that would allow us to identify seascapes that deserved special protection. Would it be Port Talbot, with those iconic towers in the background and surfing on the beach or would it be the Gower, with Brandy cove, Fox Hole, Caswell bay and Rhossili? Or would it be both? That is why I do not want to include it in part 5.

Our ideas on the subject will evolve over time, as we come to understand more, so it is vital that we do not enshrine early ideas in legislation. However, there are many projects looking into the nature of seascapes. The Government take the issue seriously. We are not there yet, but I assure the Committee that we want to make progress. For example, English Heritage is considering the characteristics of historical landscape in those parts of the marine environment where aggregate dredging takes place, and Natural England recognises the need to develop a seascape characterisation of the English coastline in its European landscape convention action plan.

I can show how important a subject it is, but one that is not appropriate here, by quoting a pertinent point made by Lord Greenaway. He stated:

“This is much too broad, at this stage. I appreciate that the Government are looking at this in the longer term, but seascapes are something that we did not look at in the pre-legislative scrutiny committee and it is too early to get too involved in this at this moment in time.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 May 2009; Vol. 710, c. 1020.]

Hugo Swire (Conservative, East Devon)

I understand that only one coastline in the United Kingdom has received UNESCO world heritage site status—the Jurassic and Triassic coastline from Dorset to Devon. Why cannot that be taken into account in the Bill? Surely if it is good enough for UNESCO, it is good enough for the Government.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

Indeed. As we bring forward licensing and development proposals; as we consider the interplay between the coast and the marine environment, which is what the Bill is about; as we look at the development of coastal paths, which we will come to later; and as we consider the development of the marine planning system, only then will interested bodies such as national parks and consortiums engaged with special areas of designation, become involved and factor that in. However, we are talking predominantly about marine conservation per se.

I want to speak briefly about heritage, which was the subject of a good discussion in the other place. The Government remain committed to heritage protection legislation. We require specific and comprehensive heritage protection. We require one Bill to deal with terrestrial and marine heritage, but we do not have that at the moment. I do not want to widen the scope of this Bill, as I wish to maintain our focus on the natural environment in part 5. However, we have worked closely with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to ensure that the Bill will complement future heritage protection legislation, should there be an opportunity.

We published the high-level marine objectives on 20 April. That document talks specifically about the marine environment’s “natural and cultural heritage”. The high-level objectives will underpin the development of the marine policy statement, which will then be applied in more detail through marine plans.

The Government also included two amendments on Report in the other place to clarify that historic and archaeological characteristics should be considered in the marine planning process, and that the Secretary of State may take those considerations into account when designating MCZs. Those amendments were warmly welcomed in the other place as affording the right level of protection in the Bill. I think that we all agree that more comprehensive protection of the cultural marine heritage is required, and we look longingly to see a heritage protection Bill being brought forward as soon as parliamentary time allows. Meanwhile, we have reached a very good conclusion on heritage in this Bill, and I am very thankful to Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, Lord Davies of Oldham and other peers for all their hard work on this issue.

Clause 118

David Jones (Conservative, Clwyd West)

I am sure that the Minister can assist the Committee on a practical point about clause 118(1), which provides:

“An order under section 116 must identify the boundaries of the area designated”

as a marine conservation zone. Presumably, the designation, so far as the order is concerned, will be by means of a map or plan attached to the order. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury pointed out earlier, MCZs might be enormous areas of sea, and it would be helpful if the Minister were to indicate how those areas will be designated and defined, if at all, on the water.

This matter is of some importance given that MCZs will, in many cases, be contiguous, and it may be of further importance given that, in some cases, they may be designated by different designating authorities. I have in mind the Dee estuary, where the authority would be Welsh Ministers on one side but not on the other, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne would make a similar, forceful point regarding the Severn estuary. It would be helpful if the Minister explained how that practical issue of designation will be tackled once the Bill has been enacted.

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

Following on from that point, I tabled an amendment to an earlier clause, which we have passed now. My amendment was not selected because I was too late, and I assure you that I am not going back to that debate, Mr. Pope. Following on from the point of the hon. Member for Clwyd, West about estuaries that have different authorities, particularly around the Welsh border, such as the Dee and Severn estuaries, I should like to know whether the different planning authorities will be required to produce a joint plan. I know that the Government have tabled a relevant amendment. It is pointless to have different regulation in estuaries such as the Dee, although we have had that problem in the past, particularly in relation to cockle fisheries. I would be grateful if the Minister commented on that in his response.

Hugo Swire (Conservative, East Devon)

I want to return to something that we discussed earlier, which also relates to this clause—places of refuge. Designating and identifying them, as my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West said, is one thing, particularly if they are areas the size of Devon, but the Committee also needs to know what priorities there are within them. In the United Kingdom system, the Marine Safety Act 2003 provides powers of intervention and direction to the Secretary of State’s representative for maritime salvage and intervention, working with the Maritime and Coastguard Agency’s counter-pollution and response branch. The SOSREP directs vessels to places of refuge when he judges it appropriate. Anywhere around the UK's coast could be a place of refuge, and we consider it unwise pre-emptively to rule anywhere in or out.

The Minister knows that EU member coastal states should be required to take measures to receive ships in distress in ports of refuge. That has been raised through the Erika II package and through the Castor and Prestige incidents, for example. How will that fit in with marine policy statements or marine conservation zones, particularly as most MCZs are likely to be designated before marine planning takes place? Will the need to find a place of refuge always overrule anything in this legislation? In other words, should it have been possible to beach the Napoli at a world heritage site or adjacent to one, or would that simply have defeated the purpose of the Bill? The marine planning system must be used to clearly identify places of refuge around our coast for ships in distress. That could help to avoid stricken ships being taken to environmentally sensitive areas.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

I will try to deal with three different issues, two of which overlap slightly. In another part of the Bill, when we look at marine plans, we will deal in detail with joint or cross-border work in, for example, the Severn, Deeside and Solway firth areas. In the marine planning environment, the Bill provides a number of obligations and incentives to ensure that marine plan authorities co-operate and work together seamlessly. We are actively considering other mechanisms. My hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen, West and South Pembrokeshire will know from his time as a Wales Office Minister that much of the work that was done between Westminster and Wales was underpinned by concordats and memorandums of understanding, and I fully anticipate that those are probably the sort of mechanisms that will underpin the working relationship between the different Administrations.

With marine conservation zones—a slightly different area to marine planning—there is an obligation on the different areas bringing forward cross-border zones to work together. There cannot be an ecologically coherent network of marine conservation zones in which one area impacts negatively on another. Proposals cannot be introduced in one area that lead to the displacement of activity into another, for example, proposals for the south-west that are to the great benefit of that area but to the great detriment of Cardigan bay, or vice versa. The areas have to work together and the MMO has a role in overseeing, as the projects bringing the marine conservation zones forward are introduced, that they synchronise properly. That is important, and it has to work around the UK. One of the big benefits of the Bill is that it is a UK-wide approach. Even if individual areas introduce marine conservation zones, what we do in Cornwall and Devon has to relate to what is going on in Wales. What we are doing on Deeside and in the north-west has to relate to what we are doing in north Wales, and so on, all around the coast.

I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Clwyd, West was referring to the marking of zones on the water.

David Jones (Conservative, Clwyd West)

Indeed.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

That is possible; if necessary they can be marked. To be honest, it will not always be necessary to show movement from one zone to another, but when it is important, it can, and I am sure that it will, be done.

Hugo Swire (Conservative, East Devon)

Will the Minister agree to consult the RNLI should he decide to go down the road of marking out designated areas?

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

Indeed. It would certainly not be me who decided that an area needed physical markers on the sea, but, if that were the case, I would absolutely expect it to happen and I would expect to engage with stakeholders. One of the fascinating aspects of this role is the technology that is now seen onboard vessels and the extensive science base that shows the mapping of the sea bed. It is quite astonishing to see how that can be used to prevent vessels from going into certain areas.

The hon. Member for East Devon talked about places of refuse. When it comes to saving vessels or human lives, there is an issue of priority but wherever possible we would seek to avoid sensitive areas. This is part of the balance that we are talking about. There are some very difficult decisions. The essence of the Bill is to ensure that, where there are compatible uses we can do that, but where there are not we try to work around it and find alternative locations.

Clause 119

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

I seek the Minister’s reassurance on an issue here that is also relevant to clause 121. It comes back to a theme that I have mentioned before regarding consultation, particularly the requirement for consultation with coastal local authorities, which I do not think is emphasised sufficiently in the Bill, and the extent to which the encouraging words in the Bill can be made more robust or be tested.

Subsection (2) reads:

“The appropriate authority must publish notice of its proposal to make the order.”

I can see no reason why the Minister is not prepared to go further and state that it must publish notice and one of those locations where the notice must be published is within those coastal local authorities that are adjacent to the site designated in the order.

Subsection (3) reads:

“The notice under subsection (2) must... be published in such manner as the appropriate authority thinks is most likely to bring the proposal to the attention of any persons who are likely to be affected by the making of the order”.

How does one test the extent to which the appropriate authority has made sure that it has been brought to the attention of any persons? Are they fully aware of the kind of persons and organisations, be they bodies interested in industry, resource recovery, or marine science, such as a dolphin-watching group, that might be appropriate and which perhaps should have been consulted at that stage?

The same question arises on subsection (4), which states:

“The appropriate authority must consult any persons who the appropriate authority thinks are likely to be interested in, or affected by, the making of the order.”

How does one test the extent to which the appropriate authority has fulfilled its job? There is no mechanism here to ensure that it has. If someone who believes that they should have been consulted wishes to complain or appeal against the manner in which the authority has discharged its duty here, there is no mechanism for them to raise any objection.

I do not want to stray into a debate on clause 121, but the principle applies to its subsections too. I simply want to draw that to the Minister’s attention, rather than having a separate debate on that clause. Clause 121(2) states:

“The authority may, before making that decision, give to any person the opportunity of... appearing”—

and so on. There is no reassurance. There is no means of testing or appealing against this. There is no requirement on the authority to go through any robust method of ensuring that its consultation methods are sufficiently comprehensive and robust.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

I want to assure the hon. Member for St. Ives that that is the effect of the clause. There is a duty in clause 119(1) for the appropriate authority

“to comply with subsections (2) to (9)”.

That includes, in subsection (2), to

“publish notice of its proposal to make the order.”

Under subsection (3) it must

“(a) be published in such a manner as the appropriate authority thinks is most likely to bring the proposal to the attention of any persons who are likely to be affected by the making of the order;

(b) contain a statement of the terms of the proposed order.”

That is the effect of the clause. It has flexibility but places that duty on the appropriate authority. Failure to publish and comply with those requirements will be a failure of that duty. I would not want to have an additional tier of monitoring and double-checking. Anybody not properly consulted—who has not been subject to the publication and distribution of the proposals and so on—has the right to take action. A duty to involve all interested persons is clearly stated.

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

The Minister has said that there is an opportunity for an aggrieved interested party, who finds out that the order has been made but who has not been consulted, to take action. I can see nowhere in the Bill where action can be taken by an aggrieved party who finds out at the eleventh hour that something is going forward that might damage their interests or an interest they have in marine matters. It would be reassuring to know what action they can take, as it is not clear here.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

The ultimate default position, if these duties have not been complied with, is under subsection (10) which says:

“If the appropriate authority fails to make the order before the end of the period...anything done by the appropriate authority for the purposes of complying with subsections (2) to (9)...is to be treated as not having been done.”

If the appropriate authority fails to engage properly with all the relevant persons who could be affected, subsection (10) says it has not complied with its duty and that proposal does not stand. There is also the option of judicial review. So there are safeguards. The essence of these MCZs, as we described earlier, is based on early engagement, the science being put in front of people, and a wide variety of proper stakeholders. If there is no proper publication, distribution and consultation, there are failsafes within the clause to say that the process falls.

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

I apologise to hon. Members for becoming rather pedantic. My reading of subsection (10) is that it simply puts a timetable on the process, but the Minister has said that the fall-back position for anyone who feels aggrieved is to pursue the matter through law. All subsection (10) does is put a 12-month deadline for the fulfilment of all the other subsections up to subsection (9).

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

I can confirm what I just said—the hon. Gentleman can look back and read through Hansard. I also draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention to clause 122, which relates to the amendment, revocation and review of orders designating MCZs, where, if the process has not been properly followed, we can look at either revisiting the amendment process, or at rehearsing the proposal again. That is an important fall-back provision, because it puts the onus on those who bring the MCZs forward to engage all stakeholders properly and not leave anybody out. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman.

Clause 120

Richard Benyon (Conservative, Newbury)

I beg to move amendment 17, in clause 120, page 81, line 23, at end add—

‘(6) The appropriate authority must inform any national representative body of sea users of the publication of orders designating MCZs.’.

I do not wish to be flippant, but, just for clarity, during the clause stand part debate a moment ago, the Minister referred to areas of refuse, as opposed to areas of refuge; he might wish to correct the record, because I hope that the Bill will avoid areas of refuse.

The amendment seeks to include a sixth subsection to the clause. By placing a duty on appropriate authorities to inform national representative bodies of MCZ designations, the amendment would allow sea users, via bodies such as the British Marine Federation and the Royal Yachting Association, to comment and give feedback on the proposed zones in a timely fashion.

The RYA is a national body for all forms of recreational and competitive boating. It represents dinghy and yacht racing, motor and sail cruising, rigid inflatable boats and sports boats, as well as powerboat racing, windsurfing, inland cruising and personal watercraft. The RYA manages the British sailing team and Great Britain was the top sailing nation in the 2000, 2004 and 2008 Olympic games. The RYA and the BMF are recognised by all Government offices as the negotiating bodies for the activities that they represent. The RYA has over 100,000 personal members, the majority of whom choose to go afloat for purely recreational, non-competitive pleasure on coastal and inland waters. An estimated further 500,000 boat-owners nationwide are members of over 1,500 RYA-affiliated clubs and class associations. That gives an indication of the importance of organisations such as the RYA and why they must be consulted.

As we heard during the previous clause stand part debate, there is unlikely to be any physical designation of MCZs in the sea itself through the use of buoys and such like. National representative bodies need to mark such areas on charts and communicate the locations of MCZs to their members and to local sea users. I should be grateful if the Minister could clarify whether such bodies will be properly consulted, and whether the amendment, which would require them to be consulted, is needed.

Ann McKechin (Labour, Glasgow North)

I fully agree with the sensible intent behind the amendment. We have to make sure that we take every reasonable step to ensure that people who are likely to be affected by an order are made aware of it. Indeed, the issue is already covered by the Bill. I draw the attention of the hon. Member for Newbury to an earlier part of the clause that states that the appropriate authority must publish notice of the making of an order

“in such manner as the appropriate authority thinks is most likely to bring the order to the attention of any persons who are likely to be affected by the making of it”.

I assure the hon. Gentleman that organisations such as the RYA, which shares his concerns, would certainly be included in that definition.

The clause places a duty on the appropriate authority to do everything it reasonably can to bring an order to the attention of people and organisations likely to be affected. It also requires the appropriate authority to make sure that a copy of the order is available for inspection, and to provide a copy to people who ask for one. The provision is all about transparency and is very important, because protection of MCZs will only be improved when more people are aware of their existence and appreciate what they are for. We have no wish to have people unwittingly contravening orders because we have failed properly to publicise them.

In practice, I anticipate that the appropriate authority will publish the order in an appropriate manner, with notifying organisations likely to be affected by e-mail or letter. Organisations would, I believe, include the RYA, but they are also very likely to include local representative organisations which may, in fact, be more directly affected than some members of the RYA. We do not simply send everything to everyone, which would be a disproportionate burden; we must allow the appropriate authority some discretion to make the judgment based on its experience and expertise of marine matters about who is likely to be affected. In doing so, it has to act reasonably. I believe the clause, as it stands, strikes the right note, and I hope that with the assurances I have given today the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

Richard Benyon (Conservative, Newbury)

I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification. The words that she has put on the record will provide the necessary reassurance to organisations such as the RYA. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 123

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

I have been contacted by the Countryside Council for Wales, which is the statutory advisory body for the Welsh Assembly. It has raised a number of issues that I would like to bring to the Committee’s attention. Unfortunately, in the time given, it was not possible to table an amendment, but I will ask the Minister some questions.

Clause 123 creates the network of conservation sites, but does not state whether any of them will be highly protected sites. The CCW is concerned that some of the sites should be highly protected. It may mean that licensed marine activity should not be allowed in MCZs, and that neither should any fishing of any sort take place. In other words we create, as around Lundy, no-take zones. I would be grateful if the Minister could tell me if, within clause 123, those highly protected zones can be created to give the assurance that the CCW is seeking.

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

I am sure that you, Mr. Pope, will notice—I am sure that the Minister will have noticed—that I put forward amendment 40, which has not been selected. Perhaps it was tabled too late for consideration. The amendment achieves what, I hope, the hon. Member for Carmarthen, West and South Pembrokeshire was asking for—that the network should include highly protected sites.

There may be a debate around the extent to which such sites might be designated and what provisions might apply to them. There are a lot of conservation bodies—not just conservation bodies, but others—who are concerned that what we may end up with is mediocre protection, which does not give the highest and strictest levels of protection to some of the most fragile, sensitive sites of marine biodiversity. Some are concerned that within the proposed MCZs—rather than separate from them—we need sites offering the strictest protection for our most vulnerable wildlife habitats and to allow damaged and degraded areas to recover. Currently, fewer than 0.001 per cent. of the UK’s sea area—all of the territorial area—is fully protected from all damaging activity. Such a network of highly protected sites should include sites where all extractive and constructive uses are prevented. They could be used for long-term monitoring and benchmarking and act as control areas, unaffected by many human activities, where such levels of protection are required to promote the recovery of green eco-systems. So a case could be made for a higher level of protection within some parts of the proposed MCZs.

The Minister will say that the problem with that proposal is that it would create a two-tier conservation system and degrade the effect of the MCZs. But in my view that is sophistry. It is a debating point. My problem with the argument advanced by the Government in defence of their position is that it does not apply to other areas of regulation. For example, different grades of heritage protection apply to the schedule of ancient monuments, but that does not diminish the protection of areas not given the highest level of protection. It also applies in different areas of planning and the environment. The impact of MCZs will be diminished only if the MMO, and the bodies supporting it, do not have the authority of those with an interest in marine conservation and the impact on the marine environment. That relates partly to the resources that the Government invest in the organisation and the respect that it commands among stakeholders with an interest, from any angle, in marine conservation and the recovery of resources from the sea—all those industries with an interest in the marine resource.

I hope that the Minister will reflect on my proposal. No amendment is available on this matter for us to divide on, but given that it is one of the totemic issues for many conservation bodies, we might well return to it on Report. Even though he will have the opportunity to bat it away today, given that no amendment is available on which we can divide, I hope that he will reflect on the matter. He should recognise that such highly protected areas need not be separate from MCZs, but contained within them, which might encourage him to allow them to feature in the Bill.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

In respect of the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen, West and South Pembrokeshire, I understand the concerns of the CCW, and I am very pleased to say that Welsh Ministers have already indicated their intention to introduce areas that are more highly protected than others. It is probably a recognition of where we have got to in this Bill that we have a genuine UK joined-up approach. As he will understand, it is up to them to decide where to introduce those proposals, but they have signalled that they intend to do so—as do we.

Let me address the points that the hon. Member for St. Ives made. As he recognised, there is no amendment to debate, but this is a good opportunity to explain further. All MCZs will be jewels, as I referred to them earlier, but they will be very different; some will have high levels of protection, whether one wants to call them highly protected areas or simply acknowledge that they will be highly protected. The Government have always been committed to ensuring that the Bill provides the right level of protection for zones, according to the objectives of each zone and the science that underpins them, which we discussed earlier. I have absolutely no doubt that there will be high levels of protection for areas that are particularly fragile or irreplaceable.

Let me make it clear that the Bill fully enables Ministers to designate MCZs with high levels of protection. Moreover, that is recognised in the reporting duty in clause 124(2), which requires Ministers to report to Parliament not only on the number of MCZs, but on the number of MCZs where any licensable marine activity such as fishing or taking animals or plants has been prohibited or significantly restricted. So, it is pretty clear that we expect there to be areas where activities will be prohibited or significantly restricted, because we will have to have a reporting function on that.

I do not want to fix in law a definition of what highly protected means, because including such a term in the Bill would require a definition that would not be right in all cases because of the variety involved. What constitutes a high level of protection in one area will not be high enough in another, or, in contrast, may be too high for another. One size of high-level protection simply does not fit all, and we have recognised that by maintaining flexibility in the Bill to provide the appropriate level of protection in each case, based on the science—whatever that level might be. One important issue that was remarked on in the other place is that we do not want to end up with a two-tier system of highly protected MCZs—the Rolls-Royce, as they were described, that everyone strives for—and a lower class of MCZs that are not quite as deserving of protection and attention. They will all be an essential part of our network.

I do not want to risk any of that happening, but I will give the hon. Member for St. Ives one assurance, regardless of the fact that we are not debating an amendment. MCZs will include areas that have not only a high level of protection, but a high level of protection where extractive industries, for example, are prohibited. I hope that he and my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen, West and South Pembrokeshire have been reassured by my comments, not least as the Welsh Ministers have already indicated their intention to introduce such proposals.

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation but will he finally clarify this point? Is he saying that, of the MCZs or special sites that will form the network, some may be designated as highly protected areas—appropriately, given the nature of their environment—under clause 123?

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

I understand what my hon. Friend is asking, but there will not be a two-tier system. There will not be a title that says, “Here is the Rolls-Royce MCZ, called the HPA”—or whatever—“and here is another.” This clause, in tandem with clauses 124 and others, allows us to designate highly protected areas where there are such significant restrictions that we will have a duty to report on them and on how they are progressing. The capacity is there to deliver them, but we will not call them a Rolls-Royce or a Mini.

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation, although I do not accept the two-tier argument that he advanced. He drew attention to clause 124(2)(c), which states that the report that has to be written must include

“the number of MCZs designated”

in which the activities he described

“are prohibited or significantly restricted”.

He says that the report must contain such information, but the answer in the report may be nil. There is no requirement in the Bill to ensure that such places are designated; there is simply a requirement to report on the number of MCZs in which those activities are restricted. The Minister wanted to reassure me, but I am reassured only that the measure takes us in the right direction. There is no requirement to ensure that such places are designated.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. In an earlier debate, we talked about introducing not only individual MCZs, but an ecologically coherent network based on the available science. I challenge not only myself but any subsequent Minister who reports to the House that they have not designated any highly protected areas to stand in the House and not be laughed down. The intention is clear, and it is clear that we have the capacity. We must now use that framework and get on and do it.

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

I am grateful to the Minister. That last comment is more reassuring than simply pointing me to the measure in the Bill. I may well take the opportunity to discuss the issue after the Committee and during the summer recess with other stakeholders. We may need to come back to the issue on Report.

Clause 126

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

This is another issue that has been brought to my attention by the Countryside Council for Wales, which is concerned that public authorities could grant consent for an activity that could damage an MCZ. It suggests that the same principles and rules that apply to land-based planning decisions should apply to marine planning decisions. In other words, if a public authority were minded to grant a consent that could directly affect and damage an MCZ, it should have to inform either the UK Minister or a Welsh Assembly Minister, as it would when dealing with a departure from an existing structure plan or whatever in land-based planning.

Secondly, the CCW suggests that there should be a power for the Government or the Welsh Assembly Government to call in such applications. I would be grateful for the Minister’s comments on those ideas. They have merit, because at the end of the day, we rightly restrict the powers of local planning authorities or national parks that are minded to grant a consent that is in breach of their policies on the ground that it is in the wider public interest. We should apply the same restrictions to any public authority that is minded to grant or permit an activity or development that could damage an MCZ. I would be grateful for the Minister’s comments on that proposal.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

It may be worth giving an example to illustrate how it might work. “Public authorities” are defined in clause 316, and mean a Minister of the Crown, a public body or a public office holder. For nature conservation, the phrase encompasses local authorities, Government bodies, Government Departments, the MMO and local planning authorities. A concrete example is that it could be necessary in some circumstances for a public authority to carry out certain specific activities that will not further the conservation objections for a MCZ. If a local authority needed to repair a lighthouse in an MCZ with a high level of protection, the necessary work may not further the conservation objectives for the site in the short term, so it is important that the Bill provides for such circumstances.

My hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen, West and South Pembrokeshire raises an important point: what happens if the public authorities fall short or hinder the conservation objectives? We have included provisions in clause 125 to ensure that public authorities are under a duty to carry out their functions in a way that best furthers the conservation objectives for an MCZ. If the statutory conservation body considers that a public body has failed to comply with the duty, clause 128 provides that the statutory conservation body can request an explanation for the failure from that public authority. Whether it is a local authority or somebody making repairs to a lighthouse, they can be pulled up and asked to explain why, in carrying out their work, they did not do their best to protect the interests of the MCZ.

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

I am grateful for the explanation, but it gives me cause for concern, because a local planning authority may be asked to account for a decision but the fact remains that that decision is made and has gone ahead, thereby causing damage to an MCZ. I suggest that before such a decision is implemented, the Welsh Assembly Government, the Scottish Executive or a Government Department should be able, first, to insist that they are notified if there is a departure from conservation objectives and, secondly, to call the decision or application in and hold a public inquiry if they remain concerned. That is the situation under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. There do not seem to be such provisions in this Bill. My concern, and the concern of the Countryside Council for Wales, is that without those provisions, we may see unnecessary damage to MCZs. It is all very well for the planning authority to have to account for its actions, but such a provision, which exists in land-based planning, should apply to marine planning as well. I am not going to push for a Division on the clause, but I suggest that the Minister take the idea away, look at it and bring something back on Report.

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.