Clause 123
Marine and Coastal Access Bill [Lords]
6:30 pm
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.