Mr Simon Thomas (Ceredigion, Plaid Cymru)

I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 1, line 18, leave out `one month' and insert `three months'.

Mr Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 10, in page 2, line 10, leave out `six' and insert `three'.

Mr Simon Thomas (Ceredigion, Plaid Cymru)

I seek to make a small improvement to the Bill, and I hope that the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall), the Bill's promoter, will accept it. The Bill's wording follows the procedure for dealing with sites of special scientific interest—that is land sites in England and Wales—under which interested parties have one month to make representations and the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales has up to six months to make a designation. I want to change that to three months for the consultation and for the decision-making process.

I seek to make those changes in response to concerns raised on Second Reading—for example, the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman) suggested that the consultation period was too short. The suggested change is also based on my experience. Two or three years ago, before my election to the House, I was involved in consultation on the candidate marine site of special interest at Penllyn ar Sarnau in north Wales; I was working with the Countryside Council for Wales in putting together the public consultation exercise for that site. My experience is that a month is not sufficient, and I therefore seek three months' consultation.

Mr Lawrie Quinn (Scarborough & Whitby, Labour)

I am pleased to serve again under your chairmanship, Mr. Gale—although I hope that this Committee stage does not last as long as the Committee stage of the Transport Bill last year. That was so memorable that medals should have been handed out.

The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) mentioned his experience of marine environments. The part of the country that I represent has many fishing interests, and I wonder whether the amendment will afford them enough time, bearing in mind the concerns of the fishing industry. Fishermen work strange hours and have difficulty in getting to meetings. Even three months might not be sufficient time to allow those stakeholders to play an important part in the consultation.

Mr Simon Thomas (Ceredigion, Plaid Cymru)

I was involved in consultation with a group of fishermen in Pwllheli off the north Wales coast, and that process took some three to four months. The process should not drag on too long, but the legislative framework should allow more than a month. I believe that three months is a reasonable period for interested parties to make their views known; and three months is long enough also for the designation decision to be made by the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales. As the hon. Gentleman suggested, it is important that fishermen and other interests looking to use the marine environment should know whether or not a designation has been made; and flowing from that whether a management plan has been put in place.

It is important that there should be consultation, and three months is a reasonable period. It is also important that stakeholders are involved throughout in putting together the management plan. It is reasonable to allow three months in the context of designation, and the amendment represents a significant improvement on the Bill. It is important to involve stakeholders all the way down the line. The Bill makes no provision for that, but it will be taken into account in the work of the Countryside Council for Wales, English Nature and the Secretary of State. I hope that the Secretary of State will bear the hon. Gentleman's comments in mind if the Bill gets a fair wind and becomes law.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Chipping Barnet, Conservative)

I thank the hon. Member for Ceredigion for praying in aid the point that I made on Second Reading. As I said at the time, it is a matter for consideration in Committee.

The Bill's provisions mirror those in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which the Minister will probably cite as a precedent for the one-month and six-month periods. I agree with the hon. Member for Ceredigion, however, that public consultation should be longer than one month. Those involved with planning issues usually have a few months to consider whether to appeal. There is, therefore, a precedent. The Secretary of State and the Welsh Assembly—to take the hon. Gentleman's principality—should need no more than three months to reach a decision. I fully support the hon. Gentleman.

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

I am pleased that we have reached the Committee stage of the Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall). I congratulated him when he secured a Second Reading. I hope that our discussion will be constructive and that we shall complete it this morning.

The Government are committed to improving nature conservation in the marine environment. It is vital to protect marine ecosystems, given that an estimated 50 per cent. of United Kingdom biodiversity is in the sea. We are sympathetic to the aims and objectives of the Bill. As I said on Second Reading, we want to tackle the concerns that we have about all the clauses, particularly the early ones.

Legislating for the marine environment is complex. We are concerned that legislation to protect it should take proper account of other legitimate interests and uses of the sea. Several of the amendments are designed to do exactly that. I want the detailed wording of the Bill to be scrutinised to ensure that it achieves the desired objectives, and we shall table amendments to that effect on Report. I look forward to working with the Committee to achieve those objectives and to secure the overall aim of promoting marine sites of national importance.

Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 deal with the notification procedures for marine sites of special interest. Such sites should benefit from our experience of notification procedures for terrestrial sites of special scientific interest, as the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet correctly suggested. Where appropriate, those procedures should be consistent with each other.

Amendment No. 9 would bring the period in which interested parties could comment on the notification in line with that for SSSIs on land, which is fine. Amendment No. 10 would, however, have the opposite effect and would reduce the time available to the Secretary of State to confirm a notification. It is imperative that the Secretary of State in England and the National Assembly for Wales have adequate time to take into account the representations of all those who comment on the designation. The proposed reduction for such consideration to three months would make proper consideration impossible. I am sure that the hon. Member for Ceredigion is seeking the quickest way to ensure that site notifications are confirmed. That is desirable, and I share his aim. However, proper account must be taken of the views of all those affected by designation, and the Secretary of State might not be able to carry out that consideration in three months.

Mr Simon Thomas (Ceredigion, Plaid Cymru)

The Minister just said that proper consideration needed to be taken of all views that were received. Does he accept that proper consideration needs to be given to the interested parties who are awaiting determination of, for example, an application for a wind farm or for oil exploration? All such applications involve a great deal of economic and environmental interests, and in the Minister's scenario they might have to wait for six months. That could be too long for them. How can he give assurances that the decision-making process will not become overlong or overlaborious either in his office or in the National Assembly, which I accept that he cannot control?

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

I recognise—it is the burden of much that I am going to say this morning—that other interests are concerned about the provisions of the Bill and the designation of marine sites of special interest, and of course it is in their interests as well as in those of the conservation agencies to ensure that matters are resolved as quickly as possible. Conservation agencies have nine months to confirm notification of sites of special scientific interest on land. Whether it is six or nine, that is considerably more than three months. Hon. Members might think that three months is adequate to ensure that matters are properly considered; I believe that it is too short.

I take account of what the hon. Member for Ceredigion has said. We shall look at it. I do not wish to extend the period unnecessarily, but I want to ensure that all interests have proper time to make representations and that no one can say afterwards that they were prevented from making their views known because the time was cut short.

I undertake to table an amendment that will allow for a reasonable consultation period and will achieve consistency between the lengths of the consultation periods for marine and terrestrial site notification. I am not committing myself to nine months, but I think that it is reasonable to be consistent. With that assurance, I hope that the hon. Member for Ceredigion will be willing to withdraw the amendment.

Mr John Randall (Uxbridge, Conservative)

It is a delight to serve on a Committee under your chairmanship, Mr. Gale. I should like to thank the members of the Committee for volunteering to sit on it. It is not always the case that genuine volunteers are found in this place, and I am very grateful. I am also extremely grateful to the Minister and his Department for the critical but concrete encouragement and help that I have received from them. I was delighted on Second Reading to see such a positive attitude to the Bill and to its coming into Committee.

I always listen carefully to my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet because he has a great deal of experience in a wide variety of matters, and I understand the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Ceredigion. I accept the good faith of the Minister. I want decisions to be made in the appropriate time; they should not be overlong. Yesterday we had an example of a decision—that about Heathrow terminal 5—that many thought had taken a little on the long side. I hope that it will be possible to re-examine the matter when the Bill is discussed on Report, so I urge the hon. Member for Ceredigion to withdraw the amendment, bearing in mind the assurances that the Minister has given.

Mr Simon Thomas (Ceredigion, Plaid Cymru)

In the light of what the Minister has said, it is important that we see what happens on Report, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr John Randall (Uxbridge, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 24, leave out

`an area of marine biodiversity interest'

and insert

`a marine site of special interest'.

The amendment is straightforward and technical, and would correct a drafting error. Areas of ``marine biodiversity interest'' were referred to in the consultation on the draft Bill, but the term was changed in response to comments made during that consultation period. The Bill should refer to marine sites ``of special interest'', so the amendment merely changes the wording.

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

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his perceptiveness. I thank him for the amendment, which would correct an anomaly in the Bill about the description of sites. I will table amendments at a later stage to ensure that the clause is suitably drafted. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

Mr John Randall (Uxbridge, Conservative)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr John Randall (Uxbridge, Conservative)

I do not propose to speak on every clause, but clause 1 is the meat of the Bill.

The Bill would allow for the notification of marine sites of special interest, which would be nationally important wildlife sites in the marine environment around England and Wales. The Bill would give English Nature or the Countryside Council for Wales a duty to provide notification if they thought that a site should qualify, and if it lay outside any area already protected by a European designation.

English Nature and the CCW must have a duty rather than simply a power, as a duty would make it more likely that action would be taken. If the duty were downgraded to a power, and if several of a body's activities were in competition for its time and resources, those that were required to be done would be at the top of the list and those that were optional would lose out. A duty would also be better than a power because it would allow the body on which the duty was imposed to campaign more effectively for the financial resources needed to meet it.

The duty to notify the relevant authorities would arise only when English Nature or the CCW thought a site important. It would apply only to areas that lay outside current European marine sites, which are marine special protection areas and marine special areas of conservation. As the Minister said, the aspect of marine conservation under discussion is rather complex and has many designations.

English Nature and the CCW would be given discretionary powers to provide notification about sites that fell within such European marine sites, but there would be no duty for them to do so. That would mean that the double badging of sites—their designation as being of both national and European importance—which is often required on land would not be a requirement for the marine environment. Although the Bill would not require double badging, it is still important for it to allow notification about MSSIs within European marine sites. That would mean that adequate protection could be given to nationally important wildlife interests that lay within an internationally important site that was not designated for that interest.

English Nature or the CCW could decide that an area should be designated as an MSSI and notify their view to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs or the National Assembly for Wales. However, the final word on designation would rest with the Secretary of State or the National Assembly. That would give them a power that they do not have in relation to notification of sites of special scientific interest on land, but we feel that it is important in the marine environment.

Dr Nick Palmer (Broxtowe, Labour)

As other hon. Members have done, Mr. Gale, I welcome you to the Chair.

I want to probe further the distinction between paragraphs (a) and (b) of clause 1(1). As the hon. Member for Uxbridge has already made clear, paragraph (b), which relates to sites where there is no existing protection, would involve a duty to notify the relevant bodies, while paragraph (a) would involve merely an option, so that English Nature and other bodies would be able to establish additional protection if they so wished.

I am a little puzzled by the distinction. Either it is felt that, as the hon. Gentleman has said, English Nature might not get round to designating an appropriate site as quickly as one would wish, and that therefore a duty is appropriate; or we trust English Nature to get on with it. If the duty is considered necessary, I can imagine circumstances in which it would also apply with respect to double badging.

The reason for the extra designation under paragraph (a) is, I assume, that if the broader protection were lifted, the site could suddenly become unprotected. If we feel that we need to reinforce English Nature's abilities by means of a duty, should we not also do so with respect to sites that are already protected by a more general designation? Conversely, if we feel that it can be trusted to act as quickly as is necessary, would not the word ``may'', rather than ``shall'' be sufficient in paragraph (b)?

Mr Andrew George (St Ives, Liberal Democrat)

It is my pleasure to welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Gale, and to congratulate the hon. Member for Uxbridge on presenting this important Bill. I have secured an Adjournment debate in Westminster Hall later this morning and if I must leave prior to consideration of the minor amendment that I have tabled, I apologise.

Will the Minister bear in mind, in preparing amendments in response to those tabled by Committee members, that increasingly fishermen and marine environmentalists have a shared agenda? That was not the case 10 years ago, but it is increasingly so now. I think that the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Lawrie Quinn) recognised that in his remarks. Although the clause does not specify proactive methods of consultation that would engage the fishing industry, such as the hon. Member for Ceredigion mentioned, the Minister's amendments should recognise the need to bring the fishing industry along in the process, rather than allowing it to find out about developments too late. That would be a welcome and constructive approach.

My experience of sea fisheries committees' work on important byelaws is that fishing industry representatives are often bypassed in the process of preparing those measures. That results in unnecessary potential conflict. We should learn the lesson so that in future the fishing industry will be properly consulted about relevant measures.

Mr Simon Thomas (Ceredigion, Plaid Cymru)

I want to add to the hon. Gentleman's remarks, using the example of the experience that I mentioned in response to the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby. Our work with the Countryside Council for Wales was, I think, a first. It was based on the sort of consultation methods that he was talking about, including adapting the planning for real initiative and meeting at a time when fishermen were available. We did away with the usual paperwork and worked in an interactive way with a range of stakeholders. We brought fishermen into the same room as environmentalists to find those common concerns that he mentioned. I am sure that the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) would want to commend that approach to the Minister and to the National Assembly.

Mr Andrew George (St Ives, Liberal Democrat)

I welcome that intervention. I hope that the Minister recognises that, beyond the proposed technical redrafting in terms of periods for consultation and notification, there are important considerations that could be included, such as the method by which the consultation process is to be carried out. In drafting the new amendments, will the Minister bear in mind the fact that sea fisheries committees have significant responsibilities, but their work is not sufficiently recognised in the Bill? Will he also consider the appropriateness of referring to relevant statutory bodies, as well as to the fishing industry in general, as appropriate consultees to be engaged in a proactive way?

Mr Lawrie Quinn (Scarborough & Whitby, Labour)

I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Gale, and congratulate the hon. Member for Uxbridge on securing time for this important Bill. It is a pleasure to follow my fisheries colleague, the hon. Member for St. Ives.

I want to emphasise a few points that concern the fishing community in Scarborough and Whitby, and talk about those towns as trading ports. Scarborough and Whitby are well known as fisheries ports, but they also conduct some trade. If we do not get the legislation right, it could have a negative impact on potential development of that trade, particularly in the case of Whitby.

First, let me deal with the fishing industry's concerns. I understand that the hon. Member for Uxbridge recently met representatives of the Association of Sea Fisheries Committees. My constituent, Mr. Russell Bradley, the solicitor and chief executive of that committee, said that although there had been progress, he felt that the hon. Member for Uxbridge and his advisers did not appreciate the sensitivities of fisheries communities. Our industry has suffered badly from change and the points made by the hon. Member for St. Ives are pertinent to that. There has been a period of great change and pressure.

For fishermen, there are constraints of time and representation in any dialogue or discussion on important issues of conservation, but the fishermen of Whitby and Scarborough are very much behind such issues. They want to be regarded as stakeholders and full participants in the debate. Their livelihoods and futures are at stake, and the future of key communities in coastal ports around the country could be affected, especially in the case of the shellfish industry.

In preparing for Report stage, will the Minister emphasise the need for the provisions to be properly resourced? Some account must be taken of the financial constraints in which fishermen find themselves, and it is costly to respond to consultations effectively and properly. Will the Minister and his officials proceed correctly and give regard to the cost implications for an industry that is financially hard pressed? That will involve good-quality research and work with some of the key marine institutions around the coast, of which the University of Hull is a prime example. Much effective work is done on its campus in Scarborough.

When I first stood as a parliamentary candidate, I organised a meeting between marine scientists and fishermen in Scarborough. It was the first time that the two warring factions had sat down in a room together and had a dialogue. To begin with, the dialogue was a bit frosty, because the fishermen were of the opinion that they worked on the sea and that the marine biologists were too shore-based. However, that initial dialogue has paid dividends for the situation locally in Scarborough, and the gains have been replicated around the coastline. National fishermen's organisations now work closely with organisations such as the World Wildlife Fund to draw up joint strategies. If he has not done so already, I urge the Minister to pay attention to the work on conservation done by the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations and the World Wildlife Fund, because it involves the livelihood and future of our coastal communities.

When the Government promoted the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill—which became the so-called CROW Act—they recognised that the countryside had special needs and problems. The review group established with that in mind involved representatives of the major stakeholders, such as Government agencies and non-governmental organisations, including the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. As a member of the RSPB, I would like to express my delight at the work that it has done in the Bempton cliffs area of the North Yorkshire coast, which is a superb example of what that organisation does. The fishing and ports industries were also involved.

The dialogue in the Committee of that Bill was based on regular contact, breaking down some of the suspicions and concerns of the key stakeholders about the mythical tendency of conservationists to think more about birds than about people. That was the place from which we started a decade ago. The development of a partnership approach, and the importance of stakeholding, was hard won and I am pleased that the Minister and the Government have done so much to develop policy for the coastal zone.

The interim report is helpful. It establishes the fact that the management of the coastal zone is complex, that jurisdiction is far from clear and that present arrangements do not work—hence today's debate. The report proposes that care be taken before proceeding too fast because, to quote an old saying, we do not want to throw the baby out with the bath water. We do not want to damage relationships that have been built up, but a ``do nothing'' option is not sustainable—certainly not in my community.

Although, broadly, the ports and fishing industries support the report's conclusions, we must proceed with great sensitivity, as the Minister seems determined to do as the Bill nears Report. The Bill undoubtedly benefits marine conservation but, as I have said, the legislation must develop through a thorough review of all present regimes, rather than adding just one more designation to a fragmented and piecemeal approach. I understand that the Minister is already focusing on the real concerns that the ports and the fisheries industries are bringing to my attention, but for the record I ask him continue to do so. We want a proposal to emerge from the process that is a significant component of the marine nursery stewardship report, and I understand that the Prime Minister has already committed the Government to achieving that aim by the target date of March 2002.

With those brief words, I shall sit down and listen carefully to what the Minister has to say.

Mr Paddy Tipping (Sherwood, Labour)

My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby and the hon. Member for St. Ives have made some important points and I am pleased to follow them, although I do so with some hesitation. They both represent constituencies with big fishery interests, whereas the only fishing that takes place in Nottinghamshire is in lakes and streams. My hon. Friend talked about bringing together warring factions, and the hon. Gentleman spoke of the commonality of fishing and conservation interests that is now emerging. He was right to say that they are two sides of the same coin, and we must pursue that argument in clause 1. Clause 1 is the Bill's core in respect of those interests, but also in terms of energy interests, as has been said today and on Second Reading.

In keeping with my hon. Friends' comments on fishing, I want to argue that energy, conservation and extraction interests are not in conflict but compatible with the Bill. I listened carefully to the Minister, who said that he will reflect on the matter and introduce changes later in our proceedings, but we should remember that this is a live and real issue. For example, PowerGen, the second biggest wind power generator, is producing green energy in alliance with the World Wildlife Fund. Energy interests must persuade customers that they are acting in a responsible and, so far as possible, sustainable way, and such partnerships reflect that need. I appreciate that gas and oil interests and the wind power lobby have concerns about the Bill, but if carefully worked it could help them as well, as it defines the area of coastline where problems could occur. It prohibits nothing, but it flags up possible concerns.

I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Gale, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Uxbridge. I thank the Minister, who has taken a close interest in the Bill, for all the work that he has undertaken so far. There remain concerns and conflicts, but with careful thought and discussion of the kind that has already taken place, the various interests can be brought together so that we can achieve both extraction and conservation. If we can do that, we will have a Bill that focuses on sustainability, and of which we can be proud.

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

We have listened to a range of comments that strike me as reasonable, fair and balanced. They reflect the goodwill on both sides of the Committee, acknowledging that there are different interests but recognising that the polarisation that used to exist has been replaced by greater understanding.

As the hon. Member for Uxbridge said, clause 1 is the core of the Bill and lays the groundwork for the rest of it. I have several reservations, and he may not be surprised to learn that they relate particularly to the stipulation of a duty rather than a power for conservation agencies to notify sites. I should prefer to see a duty replaced by a power. I realise that the hon. Gentleman is keen to include the word ``duty'' because it is more compelling, and in a sense he is right. However, as he acknowledged, a power would ensure that sites that require to be notified will be top of the list and the rest will be more optional.

Let me turn the argument on its head and say that it is absolutely right to give priority to the identification and designation of European marine sites and to allow time for the necessary criteria and scientific information to be gathered in respect of other sites. The hon. Gentleman used the word ``optional'', which reflects the use of the word ``may'' in the clause. I certainly do not regard this as an optional matter, but it is a matter of prioritisation. I am keen that all marine sites that should properly be designated are designated, but it is reasonable to ensure that the most important ones are designated first.

Given that knowledge about marine species and habitats is still relatively undeveloped, and given that the Bill should be designed to protect conservation hotspots and to add value, not to duplicate existing designations, it would be wise to introduce a requirement for conservation agencies to agree the criteria for site selection with the Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales. That is in line with what happens in respect of terrestrial SSSIs, and it would enable us to work with the agencies to reach a better understanding of the features that merit designation, the likely size of sites and the likely future programme for designation.

I shall deal with the points that were raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Scarborough and Whitby and for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) and the hon. Member for St. Ives. Nowadays, there is a greater understanding that the sea is multi-functional. It serves many different purposes, which can be conflicting, but if we are sensible enough to have a dialogue and to listen to each other, those different interests can be made a great deal more compatible—even if ultimately not fully compatible. I am anxious to pursue that agenda for shared understanding through a dialogue in which differences of view are openly and transparently put on the table and contrary arguments are fully heeded. That is a good way to proceed where there is potential conflict—it is of course the basis of our debates in the House of Commons, although that may not be a good precedent.

Mr Jon Owen Jones (Cardiff Central, Labour/Co-operative)

Does the Minister agree that after 25 years in which scientists have calculated maximum sustainable yields for fish stocks and in which the fishing lobby, supported by politicians, have negotiated on those yields, our fish stocks have been enormously reduced to the current crisis point and it has finally dawned on the various interests that when one has calculated a maximum sustainable yield, one must stick to it?

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

I do not want to get drawn into the problems of the common fisheries policy or discussions between scientists and the fishing industry. I agree that there is a fundamental incompatibility between what the two are seeking to do. Unfortunately, there is no final arbiter, such as the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales, who sits down with the parties, listens, takes account of views and reaches a decision. Under the common fisheries policy, quite apart from rogue vessels, or rogue states who take advantage by overfishing—which, as we know, has catastrophic consequences—no final basis for arbitration and adjudication exists.

I think that the situation is different here. Dialogue is worth pursuing because it has already made a measure of progress. I accept that the ports, fishing industry, offshore oil and gas industry and possibly some of the sporting interest groups will never be in total agreement. However, we should go as far as we can to try to find compatibility. As Minister for the Environment, I have a special interest and am concerned to see that the marine environment is properly conserved. It is extremely unwise for a commercial, or any other, interest to pursue exploitation of the marine environment that could cause irreparable damage; the same argument applies to fishing stocks.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby that it is important not to regard the Bill as simply tacking another piece of jigsaw into a complicated mosaic and that we should try to pursue marine conservation in the round. It is a complex matter. One reason why the Government want more time to think about it is to ensure that what we propose will be integrated into regulation in a sensible and fruitful fashion, and will not cause future problems.

The hon. Member for Ceredigion asked for time for consultation. The Bill may not be debated on Report for some time, but I am anxious that the Government produce proposals early and allow plenty of opportunity to consult the relevant interests. It is important that the Government do not seek to use their position to enforce a view other than one that is the best compromise or coalescence of different interests. That is my objective.

As I explained earlier, overlapping sites are also problematic and, as with many other issues here, require further consideration. Our useful debate has highlighted that. We need to consider those problems before I can suggest sensible and practical alternatives. The Government will certainly reflect on what has been said in this Committee and I will give the clause further thought and table amendments at the next stage to address concerns and to ensure that the Bill is securely drafted.

Mr John Randall (Uxbridge, Conservative)

I should like to address a couple of matters raised by hon. Members. I am grateful to the hon. Member for St. Ives, and others, for pointing out how things have changed; that there is now constructive dialogue between different interests. I hope that that has been reflected in what a single Member of Parliament can achieve by consulting with the various interest groups. I am a little disappointed that a constituent of the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby thought that we had not fully taken on board sensitivities, because I am well aware of the travails in the fishing industries.

Mr Lawrie Quinn (Scarborough & Whitby, Labour)

I was not at the meeting so I cannot give a verbatim record of it, but the key point put to me was, as the Minister pointed out, the failure to recognise the difficulty with the emerging science and the cost of effective research. The fishing industry is on its knees and the failure to recognise the immense potential cost to an industry on its knees was the main concern. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could elaborate on how the Bill would deal with that concern.

Mr John Randall (Uxbridge, Conservative)

I shall return to the point about fisheries.

The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) referred to a duty and a power, and I have my rebuttal ready. However, the Minister said that we would return to that, so a detailed debate now might not be helpful. The difference between paragraphs (1)(a) and (b) reflects a concern expressed at the consultation and in particular the National Assembly for Wales. I have some interesting figures that show how wonderful and rich the Welsh coastline is, and I congratulate Welsh Members on looking after it so well. It may be slightly off the beam, but I would like to add my voice to the suggestion that perhaps the new Danish Government should take a more constructive view of the issue of sand eels and not overfish them.

The hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby raised genuine worries on behalf of the fishing industry in general and not just within his constituency. I come from a business background and I certainly do not want the Bill to make life more difficult than necessary in a business or commercial environment. I recognise the sensitivities of the industry and since Second Reading I have tried to meet many of the interest groups. My door is almost always open and, although it may be more appropriate for them to go to other doors at this stage, I am happy to speak to those groups. As the Committee moves forward, they should perhaps speak to other people as we consider redrafting the clause.

I have an inland constituency in which the fishing interest is limited to a canal and one or two gravel pits. However, fishing is of great national importance, and the industry has had a rough time.

It is not my job to tell the Government how to spend their money—it would be unwise to do so—but during my discussions it became apparent that the sea fisheries committees have been doing an excellent job. However, they are under-resourced and if new powers or duties come their way under the Bill, I would not want them to be more under-resourced. I want to flag that up.

The Minister is taking a helpful attitude. My interest and the interest at which the Bill is directed is the environment, but I recognise that that must not exclude other legitimate interests. That would have a negative effect and would not be in the best interests of environmentalists. Having started to work together, we do not want barriers to rise.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Mr Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)

I have recognised that clause 1 contains the substance of the Bill and further recognise that hon. Members did not have the opportunity to raise some of the issues that might have been raised during a debate on a programme resolution. For that reason, I have permitted a fairly wide-ranging debate on clause 1. That leniency stops now.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.