David Jones (Shadow Minister, Wales; Clwyd West, Conservative)

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 (Carmarthen West & South Pembrokeshire, Labour)

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 (East Devon, Conservative)

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 (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Marine and Natural Environment), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Ogmore, Labour)

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 (Shadow Minister, Wales; Clwyd West, Conservative)

Indeed.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Marine and Natural Environment), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Ogmore, Labour)

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 (East Devon, Conservative)

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

Huw Irranca-Davies (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Marine and Natural Environment), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Ogmore, Labour)

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.