Nick Ainger (Carmarthen West & South Pembrokeshire, Labour)

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 (St Ives, Liberal Democrat)

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

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 (Carmarthen West & South Pembrokeshire, Labour)

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

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 (St Ives, Liberal Democrat)

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

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 (St Ives, Liberal Democrat)

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.