Mr John Randall (Uxbridge, Conservative)

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

This matter has already been touched upon. The purpose of the new clause is to require the Secretary of State in England and the National Assembly in Wales to develop codes of guidance relating to the implementation of the Act.

During my consultations with interested parties after Second Reading, one problem that arose frequently was that people were unclear about the implications of the Bill, especially in relation to the selection of MSSIs. It was always the intention to develop site selection guidelines, but they did not appear in the Bill. Section 33 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 requires the Minister, in consultation with others, to develop codes of guidance. Such codes should provide guidance to those exercising functions under the SSSI provisions of the Act and to those who might be affected by those provisions.

The codes are subject to parliamentary approval. The new clause would apply section 33 of the 1981 Act to the provisions of this Bill. It would require the Secretary of State in England and the National Assembly in Wales to publish statutory codes of guidance to advise and guide both competent marine authorities and those affected by the Bill. Although it is not explicitly stated, such codes could include agreed guidelines and thresholds for the selection of MSSIs.

Mr Michael Meacher (Minister of State (the Environment), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Oldham West & Royton, Labour)

As the hon. Gentleman has just stated, the new clause requires the Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales to prepare codes, and applies section 33 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Although we would look favourably on a need to produce guidance on the operation of the Bill, we consider that repeating the provisions of section 33 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act is unnecessary, and a simple provision requiring the Secretary of State to issue guidance would suffice.

Guidance issued under section 33 cannot be easily revised, because it has to go through the unusual process of approval and debate by both Houses of Parliament. The modern practice—under a modernising Government, I hope—is to undertake full public consultation before laying such codes for annulment. If we propose an amendment relating to guidance, we are likely to opt for a simpler procedure. Where guidance on a Bill such as this is issued by Ministers, I can assure the Committee, not least after all the discussion that we have had this morning, that a draft would be issued only following full public consultation, including consultation with the conservation agencies and other Government Departments. On that basis, I hope that the amendment can be withdrawn.

Mr Simon Thomas (Ceredigion, Plaid Cymru)

I thank the Minister and am grateful for what he has said, because I was becoming rather concerned that the code of guidance for the National Assembly for Wales would have to be set by the two Houses of this Parliament. The course that he has set out seems to be very appropriate. Will he say something about the present codes for the habitat directive sites, Natura sites and others? Does he intend to codify the codes?

Mr Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)

Order. That is not strictly relevant to the new clause. However, if the Minister wishes to respond, I shall allow him to do so.

Mr Michael Meacher (Minister of State (the Environment), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Oldham West & Royton, Labour)

The best thing is to say that I shall look into that, because it is a technical question. Our intention is not to go in for general codification, but I shall consider the general point made by the hon. Member for Ceredigion and write to him.

I, too, crave your indulgence, Mr. Gale, to respond to a question that was raised on an earlier clause by the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), because this might be the last time that I speak in this Committee. He asked a fair question about the degree of overlap. It is difficult to judge without full assessment of the potential number of MSSIs. We expect a limited overlap with European marine sites, because those are usually designated to protect species and habitats different from those likely to be covered by MSSIs. However, the potential for overlap with coastal SSSIs is greater and requires more consideration.

We are concerned about the question of overlap and want to limit the complexity involved. We shall give full consideration to avoiding the problems that can arise from overlap, but we think that they will be limited. I am grateful for your indulgence, Mr. Gale.

Mr John Randall (Uxbridge, Conservative)

I am not surprised to be given such an answer, and I am happy to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)

I thank members of the Committee for the courtesy and good humour with which they have conducted today's deliberations. On their behalf, I thank all the Officers of the House for their assistance, without which our work would be difficult, if not impossible.

Bill, as amended, to be reported.

Committee rose at nine minutes past Twelve o'clock.