Marine and Coastal Access Bill [Lords]

Public Bill Committee, 7 July 2009.

Clause 24

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

I am delighted to serve under your stewardship once again, Mr. Gale. For the benefit of members of the Committee, I will explain the purpose of the clause. As we have discussed in previous sittings, and as was discussed at length in the other place, science and evidence more widely will be important to the Marine Management Organisation. In recognition of that importance, clause 2 puts the MMO under a duty to take into account all relevant facts and matters when making decisions, including scientific evidence, evidence relating to the social, environmental and economic elements of sustainable development and any other facts and matters that the MMO considers appropriate. To ensure that the MMO has access to scientific advice, it will be required to appoint a chief scientific adviser and establish a science advisory committee. It is worth putting that on the record once again, and I hope that members of the Committee are happy with that explanation for the purpose behind clause 24 and for the changes that have been made in the other place to strengthen it.

Clause 27

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

I wish briefly to ask the Minister for some clarification, or at least reassurance, on the charges that might be applied, particularly with regard to clauses 25 and 26. Subsection (1) of clause 27 refers to the reasonableness of the charges, but it would be helpful if the Minister were to clarify how those who will be charged by the MMO will be reassured that those charges are reasonable, how they will be set and the basis on which they can be tested and challenged if considered unreasonable by those on whom they are imposed.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

I am happy to respond to the hon. Gentleman’s query and offer some reassurance. As he knows, clause 27 will enable the MMO to make a reasonable charge for any services it provides on a cost recovery basis, so subsection (2) makes specific provision for it to charge fees for any functions it might be requested to exercise on behalf of a Welsh Minister or the Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland. Examples of other types of service for which the MMO might charge include making available the results of research, and providing advice, assistance or training facilities.

Charges will be based on the Government’s principles of cost recovery, as I mentioned, and proportionality, and will be linked to the cost of providing any particular service. Licence fees will vary according to a scale depending on the nature and size of the activity undertaken, so it is right to consider the issue of proportionality, which the hon. Gentleman raised. We see that as the way that the system would work. In that way, smaller enterprises carrying on small-scale activities are likely to be subject to lower fees than the larger-scale operations carried out by bigger businesses. It should be noted that the power to charge for the licences will flow from an order under part 4, rather than from clause 27. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and I reassure him that there will be a scaled approach to the charges, which recognises the different scales of businesses and of activities that could be undertaken. I hope that how the charges will work is now clearer to him, and that he can take back assurances to those who raised the matter with him.

Schedule 4

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

I beg to move amendment 22, in schedule 4, page 236, leave out from beginning of line 35 to end of line 8 on page 237.

Clause 149

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

Part 6 will replace the sea fisheries committees with new bodies in England called inshore fisheries and conservation authorities, which will have a duty to manage sea fisheries sustainably, balancing socio-economic benefits with protection of the marine environment. They will have more money and strengthened powers, but will keep local involvement in decision making. IFCAs will be very different organisations from the sea fisheries committees that they replace. Significantly, IFCAs will have a new duty to protect the marine environment and to promote its recovery from the effects of sea fisheries exploitation. In view of discussion in the other place, we have added a duty in clause 153, which states that IFCAs must take the steps that they consider necessary to contribute to achieving sustainable development.

Charles Walker (Conservative, Broxbourne)

I do not mean to catch the Minister out, but is he suggesting that our inshore waters are currently subject to unsustainable and damaging levels of exploitation?

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

No. That is a generalised and blanket statement that is sometimes heard, but it is inaccurate and wrong. The transition from sea fisheries committees to IFCAs will strengthen the role of those authorities to take account of sustainable exploitation. All hon. Members want to see the sustainable exploitation of our seas. That is what the IFCAs are designed to achieve and that is the purpose of my introductory remarks.

Martin Salter (Labour, Reading West)

The Minister will recall that on Second Reading other hon. Members and I raised the concerns of recreational sea anglers regarding the composition of the current sea fisheries committees, which were heavily biased towards the commercial sector. What assurances can he give the Committee that recreational sea angling, and environmental interests in general, will have stronger representation on the new IFCAs?

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

I confirm that it would be appropriate in many, if not all, instances to have sea fisheries interests represented on IFCAs because of the way in which they are integral to the management of the marine and fisheries environment in their areas. The Bill certainly allows for that, so I am very pleased to give my hon. Friend that assurance.

Martin Salter (Labour, Reading West)

Can I invite the Minister to correct himself? Did he not mean that it would be appropriate to have recreational sea anglers represented on IFCAs?

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

The correction is absolutely right; my apologies for that.

In terms of membership, there will be statutory seats on each IFCA for the Environment Agency, Natural England and the MMO. Around a third of seats will be allocated to single and upper-tier local authority members. The balance will be appointed by the MMO, and members with fisheries and marine environmental expertise will make up the balance. The MMO will be given guidance on appointments to ensure that the membership of IFCAs fully enables them to deliver their new duties. Funding arrangements will be strengthened.

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

The Minister has just touched on the question of membership. He will be well aware that that is an issue of great sensitivity and potential controversy, because even within the fishing industry there is not a single view or single interest. Therefore, the MMO will have to discharge its duties in regard to the selection of those representatives from the industry with a great deal of care to ensure that those conflicting interests are properly reflected. He must acknowledge that that is going to be extremely difficult to achieve in many areas.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

Many aspects of the Bill, including the composition of the IFCA committees, are predicated on the idea of bringing together people whose interests are sometimes compatible and sometimes conflicting. That is always going to be challenging; I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it will be a challenge and that the MMO has to take great care to make sure that things are right. The make-up of the IFCA committees and how they carry out their duties has a lot to do—I will come on to this in a moment—with local accountability and making sure that wide interests are represented, as well as the interests of local authorities.

Martin Salter (Labour, Reading West)

Another issue that has been raised by environmental groups and, again, by recreational sea anglers is the presence on IFCAs of local authority representatives who also have an interest in commercial sea fishing activity. Where local authority reps or other representatives on IFCAs have other interests that may be pertinent, will they be declared? We do not want to end up with an imbalance as a result of people wearing two hats.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

My hon. Friend has made an important point. Those who are appointed to, or find themselves on, an IFCA will have to subscribe to the overarching purposes and duties enshrined in the Bill. Although they will represent the sector and interests that they come from, they will also have to comply with duties such as ensuring sustainable exploitation of fisheries and not jeopardising or compromising, for example, the remits of marine conservation zones in their area. Future supplementary guidance will make it clear that interests that would normally be declared in debate are declared in such circumstances. I confirm that in constructing that guidance now, we are clear that they will have to declare those interests.

Richard Benyon (Conservative, Newbury)

Some sea fisheries committees have been more successful than others, which is an understatement in certain cases. Where an IFCA is deemed to be failing in its duties—that possibly draws in points raised by hon. Members earlier about the constitution of those committees, but, more importantly, it relates to the delivery of functions—what power will the Secretary of State have to intervene?

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

The hon. Gentleman is right that SFCs come in all shapes and sizes and, at least anecdotally, achieve different levels of performance There is a duty on IFCAs to report on their performance to the Secretary of State, which is a great step forward in accountability. I will return in a moment to the point that the hon. Gentleman raised about what action could be taken in response to an underperforming IFCA that is not complying properly with the duties set out here.

I have discussed funding arrangements, which will be strengthened by ensuring that all single and upper-tier local authorities with a coastline contribute to the funding of their local IFCA. Constituent local authorities will receive an additional £5 million a year to support IFCA funding to account for the new financial burden. IFCA boundaries will be set in secondary legislation. Our clear policy intent is to set the IFCAs’ seaward boundaries at six nautical miles, as SFC boundaries are now. That is because between six to 12 nautical miles there are access rights for certain member states, which are set out in the common fisheries policy. These rights reflect historic fishing activity in the six-to-12 nautical miles zones of individual member states. In clause 149(2)(b), however, the wording “the English inshore region”, which is defined in clause 316 as the English territorial sea, means that it is possible to extend IFCAs’ seaward jurisdiction to a maximum of 12 nautical miles. That future-proofing in the Bill provides the flexibility to take into account changes that may occur from reform of the CFP. In Wales, Welsh Ministers will be responsible for inshore sea fisheries management.

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

To be clear on boundaries and the future-proofing of the legislation, is the Minister saying that that will be at the Secretary of State’s discretion, or will it require secondary legislation or further regulation to extend the boundary from six to 12 nautical miles?

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

We have put the power in the Bill. Should we, as part of CFP reform, for example, decide to define more extensively what we mean by the inshore fisheries region in relation to IFCAs, their duties and enforcement, the power exists for the Secretary of State to make that decision in compliance with what we are discussing with European member states at the moment.

Before I turn to the meat of the issue under discussion, I want to clarify that the duty on each IFCA to produce a report on its performance to the Secretary of State, as well as a four-yearly report to Parliament, is a significant step forward. Performance monitoring on that basis is designed to ensure that issues such as that referred to by the hon. Gentleman will be addressed at the earliest possible opportunity. If an IFCA does not do that, we have the option of a judicial review, but the function of reporting to Parliament is now available for the first time, so issues of performance can be challenged and addressed at the earliest possible opportunity.

Roger Williams (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

The interval of four years between reports seems excessive. Will it be within the Secretary of State’s discretion for reports to be made on a more regular basis? The state of the fisheries will vary and become endangered in a period of less than four years, so it seems a long time from that perspective.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

The hon. Gentleman has made a good point. The duty is to report at least every four years. It would certainly be possible to require that reporting to happen sooner, not least if something were felt to be amiss in the performance or if there were a failure to carry out duties.

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

The Minister referred earlier to the funding arrangements for IFCAs, and indicated that there will be a levy from local authorities from which IFCAs will receive an additional £5 million. My experience of sea fisheries committees in Wales was that they were insufficiently funded to do what they were required to do or what they would have liked to have done. Are the current funding arrangements sufficient to ensure that IFCAs are able effectively to undertake the same role as sea fisheries committees? Also, is the £5 million sufficient to take care of IFCAs’ additional responsibilities compared with the sea fisheries committees?

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

Yes. To clarify, the funding is sufficient, but the issue will be kept under review. We have a duty to keep any new burdens on local authorities under review. We think that the amount of funding is right and have made an assessment, along with our chief economic adviser, to ensure that the funding accurately reflects the costs. The provision also includes an element that I believe to be around £1.6 million—I will correct myself if I am wrong—to ensure that the transition is done correctly.

The IFCAs will be augmented—they are not simply the old sea fisheries committees—in terms of membership and expertise, which is reflected in the additional £5 million. However, we cannot discard the fact that £6 million comes from the funding of constituent local authorities. The primary difference is that all coastal local authorities in England—I will come to Wales later—will now be required to contribute. Previously, some—for example, Liverpool—chose to opt out of contributing, but all local authorities will now be required to pay a proportionate share towards the funding.

In Wales, as my hon. Friend knows, the powers relating to the funding that is currently generated for sea fisheries committees will be taken on by the Welsh Assembly Government, as desired by their Ministers. The funding that currently goes to local authorities to be transferred to sea fisheries committees will go to the Welsh Assembly Government.

We will keep the issue under review, particularly in relation to any new burdens that might arise, but we are confident that the sums of money that central Government are providing, the transition money and the money being provided by local authorities will be sufficient.

Richard Benyon (Conservative, Newbury)

In his reply to the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire, the Minister omitted to point out that IFCAs will be required to produce an annual plan and an annual report, as outlined in clause 173. That report must be made available to the Secretary of State who, if he is worth his weight, will make it available to hon. Members in the usual way. I suspect that if an IFCA is doing its job properly, it will consult a wide variety of interested parties, which should satisfy any concerns about its interim progress between the four-yearly reporting requirement.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

The provisions in the Bill undoubtedly strengthen significantly the necessity for a reporting function, so there is the ability to intervene early. Let me return to the decision about the IFCA district boundaries. As the Committee will be aware, we launched a consultation and an impact assessment in January on future options for IFCA district boundaries. That consultation included a number of local authorities that will fall within the proposed districts. The consultation set out two key options: a 10-district model, which would involve relatively minimal change from the current SFC model; and a six-district model, which would involve consolidation and larger districts. The consultation ended on 22 April.

Members of this Committee, as well as stakeholders, are understandably interested to hear my decision on future districts, and I intend to make a formal announcement very soon. At this stage, I can say that I have considered the advice put to me and am minded to go with the 10-district option. However, I would be grateful to hear the views of Committee members before I make a formal announcement.

It will be vital that IFCAs, as the marine fisheries managers in inshore and estuarine waters, play a full role in supporting the implementation of both the water framework directive and the marine strategy framework directive, and they will be bound by the requirements of those directives. Guidance to IFCAs will set out in detail how they will be expected to deliver their new roles. There will be guidance on a range of issues, including how they will be expected to meet their new duties, how they will contribute to the achievement of sustainable development and what role they will play in the implementation of the water framework directive and the marine strategy framework directive. There will be full public consultation on all such guidance, and key stakeholder groups will be involved in the production of guidance at the early stages through their role in IFCA implementation work.

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

I warmly welcome the announcement that the Minister has just made, particularly about the six-district model. My constituency contains two sea fisheries committees—Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly. It is important to keep the integrity of both those sea fisheries separate for good reasons, and they work together very well in any case. Can the Minister reassure me that the 10-district model will maintain not only the integrity and separateness of the Isles of Scilly and Cornwall, but their joint working?

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

I can give the hon. Gentleman that reassurance and welcome his feedback on my announcement. I shall be happy to hear the views of other members of the Committee either now or separately. As I have said, I am minded to maintain the 10-option model, but I will make an announcement on it soon. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we also have to make sure that these work together very effectively.

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

One of the current sea fisheries committee areas is North Western and Wales, which runs from Cardigan in the south right up to north of Fleetwood. How will that be changed? When the Bill comes into force, Welsh Ministers will obviously have responsibility for the Welsh zone. Therefore, the IFCA for the north-west will not cover down to Cardigan, although the current body does. Will the Minister explain what will happen? The current sea fisheries boundary in south Wales touches the north coast of Devon and possibly Somerset. How will the boundaries be agreed?

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

I can reassure my hon. Friend. Discussions with ministerial colleagues and the Welsh Assembly Government, as well as those at an official level, have confirmed that the necessity for the IFCAs to work together effectively is understood, not least in the area that he described off the north Wales coast where there is a partnership bringing together the sea fisheries. That work includes the options of memorandums of understanding to ensure that the sea fisheries and IFCAs work together, and the same applies in the Bristol channel and elsewhere. The need for close collaboration and for the IFCAs to work together in all areas is imperative, and that is in the Bill.

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

One of the most contentious issues in recent years has been the management of the cockle fishery on the Dee estuary. Obviously, a single sea fisheries committee has covered both sides of the boundary, so that in itself was not a problem, but other incredibly complex issues have arisen. I am concerned that a boundary between the Welsh zone and the north-western zone that runs through the middle of the Dee estuary will make proper management and regulation very difficult. Are there plans to reach an agreement, for example that the IFCA covering the north-west may include the whole of the Dee estuary, rather than it being split in half?

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

I am pleased to say that that issue is currently the subject of live and constructive work with the Welsh Assembly Government, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and others. My hon. Friend will know that the Dee is managed by the Environment Agency acting as a sea fisheries committee. The agency also acts under a regulating order. The England and Wales boards split the Dee, so we are actively engaged on working with the WAG, DEFRA and others to ensure that fisheries management in the Dee is carried out in a joined-up way. We have not yet worked through all the details of how the Dee will be managed after the Bill has been passed, but that is being addressed with the Welsh Assembly Government as part of detailed implementation planning. We take on board my hon. Friend’s point and we want to ensure that the new regime works.

Roger Williams (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

It looks as though the solution whereby Welsh Ministers become the IFCA for Wales will sort out the problem of scallop dredging in Cardigan bay. At one time, that area was part of the North Western and North Wales sea fisheries committee and it was felt that the influence of the north-west was detrimental to the status of Cardigan bay. I am sure that the Minister agrees that the solution being put forward now will, in some ways, solve that difficult problem.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

I agree entirely. We have the way forward. I want to repeat to the Committee that the issue around fisheries and border areas between England and Wales, much like those between England and Scotland, requires a number of organisations to work together effectively to manage fisheries. Clearly, Welsh Ministers will have to work closely with all the cross-border and relevant neighbouring agencies including the IFCAs, so such an arrangement will continue under the Welsh Assembly Government’s proposed revised fisheries management regime. In fact, my counterpart in the Welsh Assembly Government, Elin Jones, has already made an announcement that signals the clear intention to create memorandums of understanding with the IFCAs that border Wales, the MMO and any other relevant bodies to ensure that fisheries are managed in a joined-up and sustainable way. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman. We will build on current practice, but what is in the Bill gives the potential to make that better.

Mr. Gale, may I turn to clause 153, which sets out that IFCAs must carry out their duty in a way that is consistent—

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Order. The answer to the Minister’s question is no. Even if I stretch my imagination as leniently as possible, we cannot go past clause 152 because an amendment to clause 153 has been selected, but how the Minister chooses to handle affairs is up to him.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

Assuming that that was our stand part debate, I am content, at your discretion, Mr. Gale, to move to clause 153 and the amendment.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Order. There are one or two things that we have to do first.

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

I want to take the opportunity to welcome the Minister’s statement. In an intervention I said that I welcomed the fact that he will make an announcement in a few days’ time giving detail on the numbers and the designated boundaries of the districts for the IFCAs. That development is welcome, as is this morning’s clarification, particularly as it will have a significant impact on our debate on the rest of this part of the Bill. However, he needs to reflect a little more on the interventions made by both me and the hon. Member for Reading, West about IFCA membership. The appointment of representatives by the MMO needs to be handled sensitively. They will not only be local authority representatives, as the hon. Member for Reading, West indicated. They could be enthusiastic recreational sea anglers, for example. Such people would need to declare their interests. They might be members of the local wildlife trust or of a local fishing community. They could be engaged in the fishing industry, or have family members engaged in it. Such interests need to be declarable at the time of appointment to the IFCA.

What has also come out of our debate is that there appear to be conflicts of interest in Wales, not only between fishing activities such as scallop dredging and the interests of the marine environment in Cardigan bay, but within the industry itself. There are often conflicts between fishing activities, such as between powerful boats that can drag heavy fishing tackle over the sea bed—in scallop dredging or beam trawling for example—and other inshore fishing industry activities, such as coastal potting. There are also conflicts between those who set static gear around the inshore areas and those who then cannot trawl either in the mid-water or on the sea bed because of how that static gear has been laid.

All those conflicting interests in the industry, let alone the potential conflicts within the IFCAs themselves, need to be carefully and sensitively handled, and the Minister—and the Secretary of State as well as the MMO in the future—might need to consider allowing the IFCAs to have a sufficiently large membership to ensure that all those representative interests are properly balanced in the authority.

I am grateful to you, Mr. Gale, for allowing me to respond to an important introduction to a debate on the future of what will be extremely welcome bodies.

Clause 153

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

I beg to move amendment 53, in clause 153, page 103, line 12, at end insert—

‘(ba) seek to further the conservation and recovery of marine flora and fauna in the district,’.

I should like to take this opportunity to emphasise that furthering the conservation and recovery of the health of the marine flora and fauna in the district should be clearly spelled out as an objective of an IFCA. Clause 154 is about the protection of marine conservation zones, but not all the inshore waters will be a MCZ, so the purpose of this amendment is to spell out the importance of protecting, through further conservation and recovery, the marine flora and fauna outside MCZs, too.

I have perhaps spoken more than most about the interests of the fishing industry. Although much of the fish that our fishermen catch and bring to our coastal communities is sold to other states in Europe, we still eat a lot of fish in this country and that fish is caught in the sea. Farming fish is a less satisfactory method of producing fish for the marketplace than catching wild fish. Fishermen are often unfairly and inaccurately caricatured as the villains of the sea or the inconsiderate plunderers of the sea’s resources, and my amendment might appear to be anathema to them. It could be seen as a further step contrary to the interests of fishermen who simply want to help themselves to the marine resource free from any impediment.

On Second Reading, however, I pointed out that the fishing industry itself is keen to ensure that the marine resource is protected. It recognises that it needs sustainable fishing and it has a shared interest in ensuring that fish stocks can recover and that spawning stocks are protected. Fishermen, marine conservationists and marine biologists share an interest in ensuring that these things are properly regulated. Fishermen recognise how the viability of their own business is undermined if they are out there doing precisely the same as their competitors in the sea and going for the last fish in any particular water. It is therefore in their interest that the marine resource is protected, so they are often in favour of measures to achieve that. The closure of the Trevose spring spawning ground on the north coast of Cornwall is an example of an initiative that was proposed and promoted by the fishing industry itself.

I hope that the Minister realises that, rather than having a purely conservationist perspective, the amendment recognises a shared interest between the promotion of marine biodiversity and a sustainable fishing industry.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

May I thank the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he introduced this part of the debate? I understand the sentiments behind the amendment, but I hope to be able to explain why it is unnecessary and why, if we accepted it, it might lead to the very imbalance that he has talked about. I will give some clarification and a fair deal of reassurance.

Clause 153 sets out a requirement that IFCAs carry out their key duty in a way that is consistent with sustainable development. As was discussed in the other place, the breakdown of duties set out in the clause includes the pillars of sustainable development, and the need to balance environmental, social and economic drivers. In broad terms, IFCAs’ key duty requires them to have regard to all aspects of sustainable development in carrying out their functions.

In the other place, my noble Friend Lord Hunt recognised that an explicit reference to sustainable development in the clause would aid consistency and clarity and reinforce the fact that the Government take the sustainable development duty seriously. As such, clause 153(2)(c) places a requirement on IFCAs to take the necessary steps to contribute to sustainable development. We have also made a change to require the Secretary of State to give IFCAs guidance on how they are to make such a contribution.

As my noble Friend Lord Hunt said in the other place, the duty placed on IFCAs in relation to the recovery of marine flora and fauna includes, as outlined in clause 153(2)(b), a duty

“to protect the marine environment from, or promote its recovery from”

the effects of exploitation when managing sea fisheries resources within their district. The marine environment is defined in clause 181, and includes flora and fauna that are dependent on, or associated with, a marine or coastal environment. As such, the duty already requires IFCAs to promote the recovery of marine flora and fauna. If a habitat has been damaged in the past by fishing, but is still able to recover, the authorities will have to weigh that in the balance when considering appropriate controls on fishermen. The authorities cannot take as a baseline the condition of the district from a certain date and ignore what it was like in the past.

On the duty to further conservation, it is important to note that IFCAs have a specific duty in MCZs, as outlined in clause 154, to ensure that the conservation objectives of MCZs are furthered. That will ensure that those sensitive areas are protected. Additionally, IFCAs, as public authorities, are required by clause 125(2) to exercise their functions in a way that best furthers, or, where that is not possible, least hinders, the conservation objectives of any MCZs in their districts. If they fail to do that, the relevant statutory conservation body can require them to explain why, and could publish that explanation. Where specific actions of IFCAs fail to meet their duty, they can be judicially reviewed.

In other areas, it is fundamental that IFCAs should be required to balance all the different aspects of sustainable development. A requirement to further conservation would unbalance that primary duty, so that conservation would be given undue prominence in relation to sustainable fisheries management. One motivation for adding a duty to further conservation to the Bill is to help drive culture change. There has been a lot of discussion about driving culture change when sea fisheries committees are replaced by IFCAs. Concerns have been expressed that SFCs are too influenced by commercial interests. Our view is that the range of statutory and other changes we are making in replacing SFCs with IFCAs will mean that environmental protection is taken very seriously and becomes embedded in the way in which they operate. I will explain why. Most importantly, IFCAs will have new duties placed on them to balance the protection of the marine environment with the sustainable exploitation of sea fisheries resources. That is a fundamental difference, as SFCs do not have that duty. The Secretary of State will produce guidance for IFCAs on how they are to meet the new duties. There will be full public consultation on that guidance. I know that the hon. Member for Newbury does not like the word but until we get a better one I am going to use it—key stakeholder groups will be involved in the production of that at the early stages through their role in the IFCA implementation work.

There will also be a range of other means to drive cultural change, most notably the restructuring of committee membership to include statutory seats for the Environment Agency, Natural England and the MMO. Other members will be appointed by the MMO and will include people acquainted with the needs and opinions of the local fishing community and those with knowledge of or expertise in marine environmental matters. This includes representation from a range of sectors such as those with interests in environmental issues, recreational fishing and commercial matters. The Secretary of State will produce guidance for the MMO on the appointments process, which will ensure that IFCA membership reflects the needs of the districts and enables them to meet their new duties. Again, there will be full public consultation. Accountability will be ensured by the statutory requirements for IFCAs to produce annual plans, as we have heard, under clause 172 and reports, under clause 173. In addition, the Secretary of State must, as we discussed earlier, submit a four-yearly report to Parliament, as set out in clause 178. I believe that the weight of all those requirements will drive culture change and ensure that IFCAs effectively deliver their new duties, both in MCZs but also across the wider district that they cover.

As Lord Hunt said in the other place, placing an explicit duty on IFCAs to further the conservation of the marine environment outside MCZs would fundamentally alter and unbalance the primary duty to manage the exploitation of sea fisheries resources in a sustainable way. IFCAs are going to have to balance the social and economic benefits of exploiting sea fisheries resources with the need to protect the marine environment. That is consistent with the MMO’s position, and is in line with Government’s wider commitments to the principles of sustainable development. In the other place, there was recognition of the need for IFCAs, in meeting the general duty, to take into account all aspects of sustainable development. For example, Baroness Carnegy of Lour spoke of the importance of balance when considering the interests of local people and conservation of the environment. Another motivation for change to the clause is to ensure that IFCAs play their part in delivering the requirements of the water framework directive, to which I referred earlier. I hope that gives some clarity.

To conclude, IFCAs’ new duties in MCZs will require them to further the conservation objectives in those sensitive areas. Elsewhere, IFCAs’ general duty will ensure the protection of the environment is properly balanced against social and economic considerations. The range of statutory and other changes that we are making in replacing SFCs with IFCAs will ensure they can deliver their new duties. I hope that, with that extensive reassurance, the hon. Gentleman will agree to withdraw the amendment.

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

I am grateful to the Minister for that extensive tour de force on various clauses and his reassurance on the issue. Clause 153(2)(b) deals with the need to promote “recovery” from

“the effects of such exploitation”.

That is clearly recovery from fisheries exploitation, whereas the IFCAs may well look at the recovery of marine flora and fauna from impacts other than fishing. On clause 154, as I said a moment ago, that only applies where a MCZ has been designated. The Minister quite rightly emphasises the importance of getting the balance right, perpetually referring to the requirement to further the cause of sustainable development. Having said that, may I refer him to the debate that we had last week, as I remain unhappy about the lack of an adequate definition of “sustainable development” and the tenets that underlie it?

The Minister argued strongly that there is a wide stakeholder interest, which is welcome and will reassure the hon. Member for Newbury that these people are, as it were, old fishing stakes—perhaps that is a more acceptable metaphor to him. In my own area, there is welcome news that the integrity of both Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly will be retained and that, unlike Wales, there will be no bleed-over into bits of England. Unlike the position for the Welsh, the national integrity of Cornwall will not be affected. With the creation of 10 districts, the ability to achieve those outcomes will be much enhanced. On that basis and the reassurances offered by the Minister, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 168

Martin Salter (Labour, Reading West)

I beg to move amendment 51, in clause 168, page 112, line 16, at end insert—

‘(4) In relation to its area or to a specified part or parts of its area, an IFC authority may enter into an agreement with an eligible body authorising the eligible body to perform any function of the authority.

(5) In this subsection “specified” means specified in the agreement.

(6) In this subsection “eligible body” means the Environment Agency or the Marine Management Organisation.

(7) The Secretary of State may by order amend subsection (4)(c) so as to add any body or description of body to the list, or remove any body or description of body from it.’.

Roger Williams (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

Many of us are concerned about the migratory salmonids, such as salmon and trout. It is often said that the reduction in numbers is to do with commercial fishing outside the estuary as well. If we are to ensure that those populations do not decrease further, there has to be good co-ordination between the IFCAs and the Environment Agency. Will the hon. Gentleman indicate how that will occur?

Martin Salter (Labour, Reading West)

Sadly, I am not the Minister, but I can give my view on that important point. The Committee will be aware that fish do not read maps. We can designate IFCAs and boundaries between the Environment Agency and the enhanced sea fisheries committees, but at the end of the day, a migratory fish species will move from saline water up through the estuaries, hopefully, if not over-exploited or poached, into the hon. Gentleman’s wonderful constituency of Brecon and Radnorshire. The Environment Agency is already the sea fisheries power out to the 6 nautical mile-limit, and its important role is recognised in the current arrangements, as it has been in previous legislation, as the prime agency with responsibility for migratory fish. Committee members should make no mistake: the economic value of salmon in particular is immense, and is considerably more valuable than commercial fishing interests in many regions of the country.

Richard Benyon (Conservative, Newbury)

I am intrigued by the hon. Gentleman’s amendment and am inclined to support it. Will he clarify it a bit more? I like the idea of a degree of flexibility, and that is precisely what would be required, because some estuarial areas are immense and some are very fine and under intensive management already. What we want to avoid is a turf war, or perhaps a surf war—[Laughter.] I apologise, it just came into my head. We want to avoid a turf war between two organisations, which could be to the detriment of the management of fisheries. I agree with the hon. Gentleman on flexibility, but that should not result in conflict between two organisations.

Martin Salter (Labour, Reading West)

May I put on the record that that was probably the worst pun of the parliamentary Session?

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Order. No, it was rather good.

Martin Salter (Labour, Reading West)

Let us get back to fish, rather than surfing. I thank the hon. Member for Newbury for his support for the principle of the amendment. He is absolutely right. Estuaries do not easily conform to conveniently drawn lines on maps, nor do the fisheries’ interests. For example, in the Humber estuary, the commercial interest comes a considerable way inland and therefore it would not be, as I initially thought when I looked at the proposal, convenient simply to draw a line parallel with the coast where the estuary meets the sea. That would not work. The way to proceed is on a case-by-case basis, and the amendment seeks to achieve that.

As to how we avoid turf wars, hon. Members should bear in mind that deliberations in Committee effectively inform future judgments. If there is a dispute, counsel and advisers will often go back to our debates to ascertain what Parliament intended. Clearly, what Parliament would wish in this case is to pre-empt any unnecessary turf wars. There will be enough for IFCAs to do without treading on the toes of the Environment Agency, which, by and large, does not do a bad job. It could do with more resources, but with the increase from the sales of fishing rod licences its resources are expanding. It does not do a bad job of managing our freshwater fisheries. I certainly do not want its powers, its influence or, more importantly, its expertise to be limited.

In conclusion, the amendment makes good environmental sense. It also makes good logistical sense. It certainly makes good sense in terms of using the current experience and expertise at our disposal, and it makes eminent sense as regards the management of those fisheries, which are important to both the commercial and the recreational sector.

Charles Walker (Conservative, Broxbourne)

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Reading, West. He is a great champion of fishing and fishermen. I spend many evenings on riverbanks with him and many days catching the beautiful freshwater fish that swim in our rivers. I share his concern. It would be quite ridiculous for me to fish at Teddington for chub and roach, not bass and mullet, and to see an IFCA fishery officer cruising past me in his boat. Although it is clearly in the tidal reach, Teddington is not a sea fishery. There are lots of pike, carp and exciting fish, but they are not sea fish.

There are issues of overlap that we need to be concerned about, particularly where we have migratory fish runs, but the Environment Agency is responsible for recruitment and breeding in the rivers. It will take a close interest in what is happening to migratory fish stocks in freshwater fisheries, namely rivers. It will know what spawning numbers are required, and what catch rates and release rates are being achieved. It would be mad for the EA to hand over responsibility for the estuary to IFCAs; commercial sea fishermen could net out the salmon and sea trout as they nose into the freshwater, thereby denuding that river of its native stock that leads to sustainable recreational fisheries in the river.

It is not just fishermen who benefit from stocks of salmon and sea trout. It is also local hoteliers, the local tourist trade and, dare I say it, those lovely animals that people like to see in our rivers, otters. Like the hon. Member for Reading, West, I have no time for mink, but I have a lot of time for otters, and sustainable fisheries support healthy otter populations.

Martin Salter (Labour, Reading West)

May I counsel the hon. Gentleman? We all enjoy seeing otters in the natural environment, but some of the wildlife trusts that have reintroduced otters into our rivers have done so without regard to the available food source. That is an important issue. There needs to be some balance to ensure that that apex predator does not do untold damage to fisheries.

Charles Walker (Conservative, Broxbourne)

The hon. Gentleman makes my point perfectly. The Environment Agency has responsibility, in the main, for our freshwater fisheries. It should be consulted and included in important decisions, and it should have the final say on what happens. If we are to have viable fish populations, we need to ensure that the interests of fish are balanced against the interests of otters. That will always be the case.

I spend a lot time fishing on the Bure in Norwich. I shall be in Norwich in the coming weeks, but not to fish, unfortunately. The Bure is tidal up to Horning, and the idea of IFCA officers patrolling Horning among the pike fishermen is ridiculous. The amendment is good and sensible. We discussed it a year ago in the Joint Committee on the Bill, when we got frightfully excited about it, and now we are frightfully excited about it again. The issue matters to fishermen on both sides of the House. Fishing transcends party politics. It is not quite a religion, but it is very close to being so. I therefore hope that the Minister will accept the amendment in good grace, and ensure that the Government implement the necessary changes so that common sense prevails.

Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)

I want briefly to add my support for what is an eminently sensible amendment. Outside the window, in front of the Houses of Parliament, there is a stretch of estuary upon which, as the hon. Member for Broxbourne has intimated, an inshore fisheries vessel could potentially sail back and forth, which would clearly be inappropriate in terms of estuarial fish management. We do not have such long tidal runs in my Southampton constituency, but the Eling Tide Mill and the Wood Mill tidal reaches represent the end of an estuary that would also be inappropriate for inshore fisheries management. A permissive regime that allows negotiations on how management is best undertaken seems a straightforward way to proceed.

Martin Salter (Labour, Reading West)

I was remiss in not mentioning the Southampton estuaries, because the combined value of the migratory fish runs of salmon and sea trout in the Test and the Itchen, which flows through the hon. Gentleman’s fair city, is worth millions—I cannot remember the correct figure—to the local economy. Does he agree that we tamper with the enforcement regime of that valuable resource at our peril?

Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)

I agree. I am slightly concerned that I have encouraged my hon. Friend to expatiate further on the joys of fishing and of estuarial fish stocks. While I share hon. Members’ enthusiasm for inshore fisheries and the management of inshore fish stocks, I must say that the idea of spending seven hours on a riverbank catching nothing whatever does not inspire me to the same degree as others on the Committee.

Charles Walker (Conservative, Broxbourne)

The hon. Gentleman has clearly not been fishing with us, because we never spend seven hours on the riverbank not catching anything.

Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)

As I feared, we are going to get into fish-catching stories.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

No, we are not; we are going to curtail the “Wind in the Willows” tendency.

Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)

I will rapidly proceed to my conclusion. We looked at the matter in some detail during pre-legislative scrutiny, and we came to a straightforward and logical conclusion about how the issues should be managed. The amendment reflects that, and it is important that we move substantially along that route in the final form of the Bill.

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

I will not comment on the sadness of people who get excited about this issue.

My constituency has some of the finest fishing areas in the UK—the Tywi, the Teifi, the Taf and so on—and I am appreciative of the huge income that that generates for the local economy. However, rather than talking about migratory sea fish, I want to return to something that the Minister and I discussed earlier. The Dee estuary is an example of where the sea fisheries committee covering an area has delegated its responsibility to the Environment agency. The amendment would confirm that such a working arrangement may operate.

Although hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have made the case well for the importance of migratory fish and the inter-relationship between the Environment Agency, which looks after our rivers and parts of our estuaries, and the role of IFCAs, I am concerned that if the amendment or something similar is not in the Bill, there might be difficulties in managing certain fisheries, such as the cockle fishery in the Dee estuary. I support the principle of the amendment and am interested to hear what the Minister has to say.

Russell Brown (Labour, Dumfries and Galloway)

I should declare at the outset that I am neither a fisherman nor a golfer. I believe that the skills required for both of those sports are far more than I can handle. Apart from anything else, I do not have the patience for them.

I apologise for this, Mr. Gale, but I probably should have spoken to my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West before he moved the amendment. While I am minded to support it, I am not sure whether it is a probing amendment. Having working relationships and arrangements in place to ensure that we do not end up with inshore fishery vessels up and down stretches of rivers where they are not required is paramount. As I said, I am unsure whether my hon. Friend wishes to do anything more than probe the Minister.

Martin Salter (Labour, Reading West)

To reassure my hon. Friend, I will press the amendment to a Division if the Minister’s response is not as robust as the Committee hopes that it will be.

Russell Brown (Labour, Dumfries and Galloway)

On the basis of that robust statement, I will say nothing further. We will all listen more than a little attentively to what the Minister has to say.

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

I have attached my name to the amendment and I wish to give the sentiments that underlie it a fair wind. It is clear from the contributions so far that it would be likely that the amendment would be supported if the Committee were to divide. All that I want now is advice on the technical drafting, which I am sure that the Minister will give in any case. I hope that the drafting will pass muster. Certainly, at least allowing an IFCA, if it desired, to delegate in certain circumstances, particularly with regard to estuaries, is a good principle and common sense. The absurdity of the scenarios that the hon. Member for Reading, West outlined in his opening address was very well expressed.

Martin Salter (Labour, Reading West)

The hon. Gentleman inspires me—it is not often that I am inspired by anyone. Has he given any thought to what would happen if an IFCA decided not to use its delegation, but there was an overpowering environmental case to change the management arrangements and use that delegation? Who would hold the ring in those circumstances?

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

I am inspired to respond—it is not often that I am—to the hon. Gentleman. There are sometimes circumstances, particularly at the mouth of an estuary, in which the interests of a sea fisheries committee and those of the Environment Agency are in conflict, or certainly where the bodies do not see eye to eye. There is, in fact, a cross-border issue. I cannot envisage circumstances of the kind that the hon. Gentleman described a long way upstream in an estuary, where an IFCA might not wish to delegate its authority. Having drafted the amendment and served on the Joint Committee, he will perhaps have considered the issues more deeply than I have, but I am aware that there are circumstances in which there has been a possible contradiction, certainly an overlap, and a possible conflict between the objectives of the current sea fisheries committees and what the Environment Agency is trying to do at the mouth of an estuary.

Martin Salter (Labour, Reading West)

This might be a “get out of jail free” card for the Minister, but it occurs to me that there might be a case for redrafting the amendment for consideration on Report to resolve the question of how to deal with a conflict, which I am not sure the amendment as drafted would do as strongly as we would like. My hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen, West and South Pembrokeshire put forward a good arrangement that would operate by consent, but people are not always reasonable and we do not want to leave the door open for unreasonableness further down the road.

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

The hon. Gentleman demonstrates his reasonableness by being prepared to bring back an amendment on Report after ensuring that it is technically proficient and capable of achieving what I think we all wish to achieve: a common-sense outcome.

Under proposed new subsection (6) in amendment 51, there would be the option of not only a delegation to the Environment Agency, but of a delegation to the MMO, but I cannot envisage the circumstances, particularly in the context of an estuary, in which the MMO, rather than the Environment Agency, would be the preferred body. I perhaps should have intervened on the hon. Gentleman when he was discussing that, but he might wish to respond to that point. Perhaps I have not foreseen the circumstances in which such a scenario might occur. Other than that, I simply want to say that the sentiment behind the amendment is absolutely right. We look forward to the Minister’s response, and particularly to clarification about the amendment’s technical ability to achieve what I think the majority of the Committee wish to occur.

Richard Benyon (Conservative, Newbury)

The only thing I can add to this debate, which has been good, is to tell the Minister that running through the Bill is a thread of localism, or the potential to encourage a more local approach to the management of fisheries. I think that the amendment is in that spirit, so I hope that the Minister will respond to it favourably.

Ann McKechin (Labour, Glasgow North)

Good morning, Mr. Gale.

This debate has seen many passions rise, and clearly we have several keen anglers in the Committee, including my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West. I was struck by some of his comments, particularly the fact that fish do not read maps—presumably they do not have satnavs either. I also noted his comments about the need for flexibility and localism, which were backed up by the hon. Member for Newbury, and the need to look at things on a case-by-case basis. A number of strong arguments have been presented.

The Bill provides clear rules for IFCAs, the Environment Agency and the MMO in relation to fisheries management. Clear rules aid the aims of transparency and responsibility, which have to be key components of the Bill. The Environment Agency will maintain lead responsibility for the management of freshwater and migratory species, while IFCAs will lead on marine species management and the MMO will carry out the fisheries management activity currently carried out by the Marine and Fisheries Agency, including enforcement of the common fisheries policy. That arrangement provides a clear division of responsibilities among the organisations, but we recognise the need to ensure that there is close co-operation at an operational level, which was very much supported by hon. Members. I was particularly interested in the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen, West and South Pembrokeshire about the existing operation in the Dee estuary. Both the MMO and the Environment Agency will have a statutory seat on each IFCA, and I know the agency is keen to be actively involved in committees.

The Bill also provides for cross-warranting of enforcement activity among the three organisations, building on existing successful cross-warranting arrangements. The Bill places a duty on IFCAs to co-operate with other relevant public authorities, which will include the MMO and the Environment Agency. Government guidance will also set out the need for IFCAs, the agency and the MMO to work closely together and that is likely to include memorandums of understanding. The model set out in the Bill will provide effective inshore fisheries management. However, some very constructive points have been made during the debate on the merit of providing additional flexibility. I recognise the value of providing such flexibility in terms of better regulation and more effective joined-up working.

We are not able to accept the amendment as worded. Arrangements for delegation need to be set out in much more detail than they are in the amendment and in a way that is consistent with the MMO delegation clauses. The hon. Member for St. Ives raised a good point about conflict. We would not agree to a delegation without the Secretary of State’s approval. As proposed new subsection (7) under the amendment currently stands, the Secretary of State would have the right to “remove any body”, but not to intervene in the delegation. The issue of conflict needs to be dealt with at the time of appointment, rather than when there is a review of any problem that may arise after that.

I accept that such a change could be useful in strengthening the future-proofing of part 6 of the Bill. I would like to reflect on the issues that have been raised and to consider whether we could make a change that takes into account the considerations of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. On that basis, I urge my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West to withdraw the amendment.

Martin Salter (Labour, Reading West)

This excellent debate has been an example of us doing what we came to Parliament to do: improving legislation. We started off with a fundamentally good Bill and we are trying to make it better. If I am receiving an indication from the Minister that this matter will definitely be brought back on Report—words such as “consider” are not enough—to reflect the points made by hon. Members, particularly the issue teased out by the hon. Member for St. Ives about enforcing a delegation where one is needed for conservation reasons, I accept that the amendment as currently drafted is deficient, and therefore—

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Order. It is not my position, place or desire to editorialise but, before the hon. Gentleman does what I think he is going to, I warn the Committee that Hansard cannot record a Minister nodding.

Martin Salter (Labour, Reading West)

Thank you, Mr. Gale.

Ann McKechin (Labour, Glasgow North)

I am grateful for your clarification, Mr. Gale. I am happy to confirm that we will consider the matter on Report.

Martin Salter (Labour, Reading West)

I think that that is a stronger “consider”. I am taking that as meaning that the matter will be brought back on Report. Would the Minister like to intervene on me to confirm?

Ann McKechin (Labour, Glasgow North)

I am happy to confirm.

Martin Salter (Labour, Reading West)

I visited the dentist earlier this week, and sometimes this is like pulling teeth. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 184

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 2—Duty on Welsh Ministers in relation to management of inshore fisheries

‘(1) In exercising their powers under this Act or other Sea Fisheries Acts, Welsh Ministers shall seek to ensure that the exploitation of sea fisheries resources in Wales and the Welsh Zone is carried out in a sustainable way.

(2) At intervals of no more than four calendar years, Welsh Ministers shall make a report to the National Assembly for Wales on how they have discharged their powers in accordance with subsection (1).

(3) The first report of this kind shall be made within four calendar years of the enactment of this Act.

(4) A report made under this section must include—

(a) an assessment of the extent to which the exploitation of sea fisheries resources in the Welsh Zone is carried out in a sustainable way;

(b) actions the Minister has taken in order to seek to ensure that the conservation objectives of marine conservation zones are furthered, insofar as these actions relate to fisheries management;

(c) actions the Minister will take in the light of the assessment provided in the report, in pursuance of the objective in subsection (1);

(d) any other matter relating to the management of sea fisheries resources that the Minister considers appropriate.’.

New clause 3—Transfers of powers in relation to fisheries

‘In Part 1 of Schedule 5 to the Government of Wales Act 2006 (c. 32) (Assembly Measures), in field 1 (agriculture, fisheries, forestry and rural development) insert—

“Matter 1.1A

Provision to confer a statutory duty upon Welsh Ministers in relation to the management of fisheries.”’.

New clause 4—Duties of the Welsh Ministers in relation to fisheries in Wales

‘(1) At regular intervals the Welsh Ministers shall report to the National Assembly for Wales on the way in which their powers pertaining to the management of sea fisheries resources have been discharged in accordance with the scheme produced under section 79 of the Government of Wales Act 2006 (c.32), insofar as this applies to the management of the exploitation of sea fisheries resources.

(2) A report made under this section shall include—

(a) an assessment of the extent to which the exploitation of sea fisheries resources in Welsh waters is carried out in a sustainable way;

(b) particulars of actions the Welsh Ministers have taken in order to seek to ensure that the conservation objectives of Marine Conservation Zones are furthered; insofar as these actions relate to fisheries management;

(c) particulars of actions the Welsh Ministers will take in the light of the assessment provided in the report;

(d) any other matter relating to the management of sea fisheries resources that the Welsh Ministers consider appropriate.

(3) In this section “regular intervals” means intervals of no longer than four years, with the first interval being measured from the date of enactment of this Act.’.

Roger Williams (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

Thank you, Mr. Gale. I seek your guidance on whether to start with issues arising from the clause stand part debate and then move on to the new clauses.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

It is the same debate, because the stand part debate embraces the new clauses. I called the hon. Gentleman first because his is the first name on the first new clause tabled. I am sure that he would wish to address both issues.

Roger Williams (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

Thank you for that guidance, Mr. Gale. I would like to speak to a number of issues relating to clause 184 and the powers given to Welsh Ministers with regard to fisheries in Wales. They have, quite rightly, decided to form the IFCA in Wales. When we look at provisions in preceding clauses, it is not entirely clear whether they apply equally to Wales. Although Welsh Ministers have the power to introduce and confirm byelaws relating to fisheries, as I understand it they do not have the same powers as the Secretary of State regarding emergency byelaws. In clause 157, an IFCA has the power to impose an emergency byelaw if it believes that some element of the fishery system is exploiting a particular species, or a particular juvenile stage of that species. However, it is not clear whether that power falls to the Welsh IFCA, and therefore to the Welsh Ministers.

Under clause 157, an IFCA has the power to extend an emergency byelaw with the permission of the Secretary of State. My understanding is that the Secretary of State would not have any power to extend an emergency byelaw in Wales and, therefore, the power does not extend to Wales. I would like some clarification of that matter.

In the preceding clauses, definitions of particular issues are set out very clearly, but it is not entirely clear whether those definitions relate to Wales as well. For example, sea fisheries resources, exploitation, fishing communities, marine environmental matters and the marine environment are all defined, and that extends to those issues the power that an IFCA may have. It is not clear whether those definitions relate to the powers in Wales, so I should like some clarification of that as well.

In preceding clauses, a duty is placed on the Secretary of State to report on the sustainability of fisheries, on a four-yearly basis, as set out in the Bill. The hon. Member for Newbury has said that IFCAs have to report on an annual basis as well. There is, I accept, regular updating on the work of these very important bodies. However, there is no duty set out in the Bill for Welsh Ministers to report to the Welsh Assembly in a similar way. Elin Jones, the relevant Minister in the Welsh Assembly, has said that the Bill does not need to set out a duty for Welsh Ministers in that regard. They would do it naturally, because of their concern and their interest in these matters. However, I have tabled new clauses 2 and 3 to tease out the issues. They differ slightly because of the sensitivities and technicalities of the devolved settlement and the Government of Wales Acts 1998 and 2006.

New clause 2 imposes a duty on Welsh Ministers to report back to the Welsh Assembly. From my point of view, and that of my party, imposing duties from Westminster on a devolved Assembly is not within the spirit of the devolution settlement. We would prefer to give Welsh Ministers the power to determine how to carry out what we believe the responsibilities should be.

New clause 3 seeks to amend the Government of Wales Act 2006, which sets out which matters are devolved and reserved. It does that by listing fields that are subject to devolution, and matters that are specific elements in those fields. The new clause sets out a new matter within the field that includes agriculture, fisheries, forestry and rural development:

“Provision to confer a statutory duty upon Welsh Ministers in relation to the management of fisheries.’”

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

The hon. Gentleman mentioned Elin Jones, and I am sure that he has received the same letter as me, in which she states:

“Following a recent meeting with the Countryside Council for Wales I have considered reporting requirements further and I will be making a commitment to report annually to the Assembly on the exercise of fisheries functions. I will be setting this out in a statement shortly.”

Does that not mean that she accepts the regular reporting on the performance of the Welsh IFCA—for want of a better description—that the hon. Gentleman and I, would like to see? Does that letter not confirm that everything the hon. Gentleman wants will be delivered by the Assembly Minister?

Roger Williams (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

I believe, as does the hon. Gentleman, that it would be within the spirit of the devolution settlement for the Minister to be able to take that forward. All we do in new clause 3 is set out a matter within the field, which gives the Minister an opportunity not only to report, but to carry out the functions that might be associated with her work, or that of future Ministers, as far as the IFCA is concerned. The new clause would make only a minor amendment to the 2006 Act, and would ensure that there was capacity in the Assembly, and in the Minister’s powers, for the work to be carried out as well and as fully as possible.

David Jones (Conservative, Clwyd West)

The hon. Gentleman says that new clause 3 would amount only to a minor amendment, but my reading of it is that it would confer primary legislative competence upon the Assembly. Does he suggest therefore that, notwithstanding what the hon. Member for Carmarthen, West and South Pembrokeshire has to say, the Minister does not have that power to create a duty upon herself?

Roger Williams (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

The hon. Gentleman takes a great interest in these matters, and I have listened to views that he has expressed in the Welsh Affairs Committee. The amendment to the Act attempts to ensure that the Welsh Minister has sufficient powers to carry out what the Secretary of State carries out in relation to the IFCAs in England. I am sure the hon. Gentleman agree that the Welsh Minister should have those powers to ensure that the capacity for sustainable fisheries in Wales is equivalent to that in England.

David Jones (Conservative, Clwyd West)

I am not sure whether I want Welsh Ministers to have the powers. I and, I imagine, most members of the Committee, would like to see a positive duty imposed upon those Ministers. To return to my point, is the hon. Gentleman saying that in the absence of new clause 3, it would not be possible for the Welsh Minister to impose upon herself the duty that the hon. Member for Carmarthen, West and South Pembrokeshire has said that she intends to impose?

Roger Williams (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

The hon. Gentleman is straining at a gnat. The issue is that in taking up the IFCA powers in Wales, the Welsh Minister should have equivalent responsibilities to those of the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in England. New clause 3 intends to tease from the Minister whether Welsh Ministers have the capacity and the competence to carry out in Wales functions that are equivalent to those that the Secretary of State has in England.

Although I have tabled two new clauses, new clause 3 is my preferred way forward. Will the Minister indicate whether the Government intend to go down that route on Report? That would enable the Welsh Minister to carry out her duties to the fullest degree to ensure that sustainable fisheries in Wales are as well supported as those in England.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Before we proceed, may I remind the Committee that the issues under discussion are being taken together? I have no indication at this stage whether any of the new clauses will be moved formally when the time arrives. If any hon. Member wishes to move any of the new clauses, the Chair will need to know in good time.

David Jones (Conservative, Clwyd West)

Thank you, Mr. Gale. I rise to speak to new clause 4, which I tabled with other members of the Committee, and to new clauses 2 and 3, which were tabled by the hon. Members for Brecon and Radnorshire and for St. Ives.

The inshore fishing industry is of particular importance in Wales. According to some estimates, it accounts for some 60 per cent. of landings in Welsh ports. As we have heard, the Welsh Assembly Government have decided that they do not wish to follow the IFCA model that will prevail in England; they would rather follow a more centralised, in-house route that is of a pattern with their general approach to the Welsh tourism industry, for example, and to the Welsh Development Agency.

Clause 184 provides that Welsh Ministers shall have powers to make byelaws equivalent to the authority for an IFCA district, which possibly answers one of the points raised by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire.

Roger Williams (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

My point was not about byelaws, but about emergency byelaws, which can be implemented by IFCAs in special circumstances. It is not clear whether that power appertains to Wales.

David Jones (Conservative, Clwyd West)

Doubtless, the Minister will respond to that point. The principal concern is that no corresponding duties are imposed upon Welsh Ministers in connection with the execution of their powers. That has been the subject of criticism from a number of bodies, including the Countryside Council for Wales, which is the Welsh Assembly Government’s own adviser, the World Wide Fund for Nature, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the Wales Coastal and Maritime Partnership.

The Countryside Council For Wales takes the view—I think that it is right—that the proposed Welsh regime fails to provide a sufficiently clear, transparent and robust inshore fisheries structure that gives the marine environment in Wales protection equivalent to that in England. It has advised of the need for the Bill to impose on Welsh Ministers further duties that are equivalent to those on IFCAs.

In particular, the council takes the view—I think that it is the right view—that it is necessary to impose on Welsh Ministers a reporting duty equivalent to that in clause 178, under which the Secretary of State must lay a report about the conduct and operation of IFCAs at the end of every four-year period. The absence of such a duty was the subject of criticism by the Welsh Assembly’s Sustainability Committee, which recommended that such a duty be imposed on Welsh Ministers.

As we have heard, the Welsh Minister for Rural Affairs says that she plans not to delegate fisheries responsibility to a third-party organisation, but to manage it in-house. She has said that there is no need for specific duties to be prescribed on issues for which Welsh Ministers are already ultimately responsible. She takes the view that mechanisms for reporting to the Assembly are already in place in normal Assembly business and standing orders. She therefore feels that having an additional requirement for Welsh Ministers with responsibility for fisheries to report to the Assembly annually or at other regular intervals would be unnecessary because that process already exists.

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

I remind the hon. Gentleman of the quote that I gave to the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire, in which the Welsh Minister clearly does accept the need to report annually to the Assembly. Did the hon. Gentleman actually receive the letter that I received? It makes it quite clear that she wants to report annually, and she will be making a statement to that effect.

David Jones (Conservative, Clwyd West)

I have no doubt that that is the case. Nevertheless, I take the view—this view is shared by others, including such persuasive bodies as the Countryside Council for Wales—that such a duty should be included in the Bill. I remind the Committee that, notwithstanding new clause 3, primary legislative competence in respect of fisheries is not devolved to the Welsh Assembly, nor is it intended to be so devolved.

I find it hard to see why the Government consider it appropriate to impose reporting duties on the Secretary of State in the English context, while imposing no such duties on Welsh Ministers in the Welsh context. I find it equally hard to understand why the Welsh Minister should resist such a duty being included in the Bill when she intends to pursue it in any event.

Roger Williams (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

The present Welsh Minister may well report regularly, but that places no duty on any Minister who takes up her post in the future.

David Jones (Conservative, Clwyd West)

And that, of course, is the nub of the issue. The current Welsh Minister no doubt has admirable intentions, but that does not mean that she can determine the actions of any of her successors.

It is important that a duty be included in the Bill, and that view is shared by the Countryside Council for Wales, Wildlife Trusts Wales and similar bodies. Like us, they take the view that Welsh Ministers should report regularly to the Welsh Assembly. That would ensure that the Assembly scrutinised Welsh Ministers’ exercise of their powers in the same way as Parliament scrutinised Ministers’ exercise of their powers in the English context.

New clause 4, which I have drafted, is similar in spirit to new clause 2, which was drafted by the hon. Members for Brecon and Radnorshire and for St. Ives. Its purpose is similar, save that new clause 4 relates to the Government of Wales Act 2006. Section 79 of that Act imposes general sustainability duties on the Welsh Assembly and Welsh Ministers. The obligation is that Welsh Ministers should create and keep under review a sustainable development scheme setting out how they propose, in the exercise of their functions, to promote sustainable development. It appears to be a neat solution to the issue by relating the sustainability obligations under the Bill to the obligations that are already in place as a matter of statute under the 2006 Act.

I should like to speak briefly on new clause 3 to which the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire has referred. It proposes to confer on the Welsh Assembly primary legislative competence in respect of the management of fisheries. The hon. Gentleman described it as minor amendment. With due respect, to confer primary responsibilities on a devolved body is a fairly significant step. Interestingly, the Welsh Minister who, as a member of Plaid Cymru, one would expect to welcome primary competence, has refused such a measure. In a letter dated 31 March to the chairman of the Assembly’s Sustainability Committee she said:

“The process of developing the Marine and Coastal Access Bill began in autumn 2005 which coincided with the development of the Better Governance for Wales White Paper.”

That White Paper preceded the Government of Wales Act 2006. She continued:

“The advice at the time to Ministers was that the existing devolved powers, together with the new powers to be created under the Bill for fisheries, were sufficiently comprehensive for Welsh Ministers to effectively manage Welsh fisheries and that specific Welsh clauses would be pursued, as required, in the Bill.”

That is what has happened. The Minister continued:

“It was not, therefore, felt necessary to seek legislative competence in this area.

I am content that my existing powers, plus the additional powers which the Marine and Coastal Access Bill provides, are sufficient for Welsh Ministers to effectively manage and enforce Welsh fisheries, in line with the Assembly Government’s Fisheries Strategy,”

I do not think that it is any business of this Committee on behalf of this Parliament to inflict primary legislative competence upon an unwilling devolved body. I would certainly resist that, but I would press most strongly that the duty to which I have referred should be placed in the Bill to balance the powers that are already created.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

This has been a good debate. It has taken me back to my time as Under-Secretary of State for Wales, a role which my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen, West and South Pembrokeshire also filled admirably in his time in the Wales Office. In fact he took the Government of Wales Act 2006 through the House and got that balance right between the devolved interests and our reserved and retained interests. Curiously, the new clauses try to tease out the same sort of aspirations, but approach it from different angles. Let me deal with them in some detail.

New clause 2 would place a duty on Welsh Ministers to ensure that the exploitation of sea fisheries resources, which is more than merely managing fish, is carried out in a sustainable way. It would apply both in Wales and the new Welsh zone. New clauses 2 and 4 would place duties on Welsh Ministers to report to the National Assembly for Wales on their management of sea fisheries resources. That includes an assessment of the extent to which fisheries are carried out in a sustainable way and actions the Minister has taken to seek to ensure that the conservation objectives of MCZs are furthered and the actions the Minister takes in light of the assessment.

We are aware that the Welsh Fisheries Minister, Elin Jones, has written to Members because of the concerns expressed in the other place and in the Commons on Second Reading. As she sets out in her letter, mechanisms and arrangements for reporting to the Assembly are already in place, as has been mentioned. I shall expand on that a little. Those mechanisms are in place through normal Assembly business and standing orders. An additional requirement for Welsh Ministers with portfolio responsibilities for fisheries to report annually to the Assembly is unnecessary, as that process already exists. Welsh Ministers can already be held to account by fellow Assembly Members in the exercise of fisheries functions, either through Assembly questions, in correspondence, or in Committee and other meetings. In fact, Welsh Ministers are regularly questioned on the exercise of their fisheries functions.

David Jones (Conservative, Clwyd West)

Do not the same arrangements also prevail in this Parliament? Why is it necessary for positive duties to be included in the Bill for England but not for Wales?

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

I shall come to that in a moment, because Welsh Ministers currently have quite a package of accountability, on which I shall expand, and I think that will deal with some of the concerns expressed by the hon. Gentleman and others. One issue is that there is a marked difference between Welsh Ministers’ accountability to the Assembly and the proposed accountability for IFCAs. Those are local authority committees, so to ensure accountability they will have to provide the Secretary of State with annual plans and reports, as we remarked earlier. In addition, the Secretary of State will have to produce a report for Parliament once every four years, on the conduct and operation of IFCAs. That will allow the Government to ensure that IFCAs are held fully accountable for carrying out their new duties.

The accountability for fisheries that already exists in the National Assembly will be extended to cover the additional responsibility with respect to inshore fisheries from April 2010. Therefore, an additional reporting duty is considered unnecessary for Welsh Ministers. Although I hesitate to keep using this phrase, as part of the project to deliver the new fisheries management system in Wales, a stakeholder advisory group—which I mention at the risk of annoying the hon. Member for Clwyd, West—has been set up, comprising fisheries managers, local authorities, environmental interests and the NGOs. The advisory group has the task of providing advice to the project, and of designing a model for the delivery of local and national input into fisheries management. Welsh Ministers have asked the advisory group to design reporting requirements to seek to maintain transparency through that management; they have already asked it to take on that role.

I understand that the Wales Environment Link and, in particular, its constituent member the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds Cymru, believe that there are not sufficient requirements on Welsh Ministers to act sustainably in the exercise of their fisheries functions, nor sufficient mechanisms for the relevant Welsh Minister to be held to account. However, as has been described already in the other place, here in Committee today and in the letter from the Welsh Fisheries Minister Elin Jones, that is not so

The Countryside Council for Wales has also provided a briefing note, which I am sure hon. Members have seen; I understand that since it was issued, CCW has met Elin Jones, who explained her position, as set out in the letter to hon. Members. I understand that it was in effect at that meeting that she made a commitment to report annually to the Assembly on the Welsh Ministers’ exercise of fisheries functions. Both CCW and WEL are fully involved in the project that I have described to deliver a new fisheries management and marine enforcement regime in Wales.

Last month, the Assembly Government launched their latest sustainable development scheme, which again confirmed that sustainability is part and parcel of their work. Fisheries are of course included in the scheme and, in line with the Wales fisheries strategy, which was launched last year, it commits to an ecosystem approach to fisheries management in Wales, with sustainability at its heart.

The success of devolution means that the management of sea fisheries and wider governance arrangements in Wales are different from those in England. I hope I have explained to the satisfaction of Opposition Members why their proposals are unnecessary in the Welsh context. Elin Jones says in her letter:

“This Bill provides the framework powers for future fisheries management in Wales. Therefore, I now believe it is for the Welsh Assembly Government to work with its partners to determine how Welsh Ministers should exercise these new powers.”

I concur fully with that, and she is getting on with it now—not waiting for the Bill to pass.

David Jones (Conservative, Clwyd West)

No one doubts Welsh Ministers’ intentions, as I said earlier, but how does the Minister deal with the point made by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire? Despite the best intentions of Elin Jones, she cannot bind her successors’ actions.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

In fact, in response to the pertinent issues raised by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire, not least on definitions, I can clarify that the definitions referred to in the Bill are equally applicable to Welsh Ministers when making legislation under clause 184, as they are to IFCAs when making byelaws under clause 155. The hon. Gentleman has my assurance that that is correct.

Roger Williams (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

My point was that clause 157, as I understand it, specifically gives IFCAs in England the right to make emergency byelaws, which can be extended up to 12 months—even longer with the written permission of the Secretary of State. Obviously, we would not want the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to write little notes to the Welsh Assembly about emergency byelaws.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

I was coming to that point and I can clarify the matter. The Welsh Assembly Government will not be able to make emergency byelaws as IFCAs can; the hon. Gentleman is right in his interpretation. However, through their own powers, Welsh Ministers can create emergency orders that can be enacted just as quickly as emergency byelaws, so we have explored the matter already. In addition, we envisage very few examples of an emergency byelaw needing to be employed, the key being that the matter could not have been reasonably foreseen. The vast majority of fisheries issues requiring byelaws do not fall into that category. Just to reiterate, while Welsh Ministers do not have the power to make emergency byelaws as IFCAs can, they have the power to make emergency orders, which can be created as fast as emergency byelaws.

Roger Williams (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

To tease out the detail on this, as I understand it, the Welsh Assembly’s powers can be negatived in the Assembly, and can only be put in place for 40 days.

David Jones (Conservative, Clwyd West)

Subject to renewal.

Roger Williams (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

Yes, whereas the powers of English IFCAs can be in place for 12 months. It is justified to look at the issue again to see whether that power should be applicable to the Welsh Assembly.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point but the Welsh Assembly Government Ministers are able, within their current powers, to deal with a genuine emergency situation that would require an urgent and rapid response. If there was a willingness to extend or renew the order, and take it further than the 40 days, that is within their power. The nature of some of these eventualities means that, first, measures are immediate, given their necessity, and secondly, they could be temporary to stop something that is happening right at that moment. The powers exist, but in a different form from the measures in the Bill.

David Jones (Conservative, Clwyd West)

The problem that the Countryside Council for Wales identified is that although there is a power to make an order, it is subject to annulment within 40 days of being laid. The council makes the fair point that although it is possible in Wales to put in place an order instantly—one that comes into force from the day on which it is laid—it can be subsequently annulled within 40 days, that is not what prevails in England.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The approach is different, but it can have the same effect. Even though the order can be annulled after it is laid, if it is laid in response to a genuine emergency—such a thing would be dealt with through a byelaw for an English IFCA—whether in Cardigan bay or elsewhere, the effect is the same: it stops the activity and defers the impact of the damage. However, I fully understand that the mechanism is different. We are not trying to force on Welsh Assembly Government Ministers an identikit version of how to deal with those eventualities, but those Ministers will have the power to deal with them.

David Jones (Conservative, Clwyd West)

The difficulty is that we are effectively dealing with the problem for up to 12 months in the English context but, in the Welsh context, a measure is potentially subject to annulment within 40 days. The Minister must agree that that situation is less satisfactory.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

The Secretary of State also has the ability to remove an emergency byelaw, so even though such a measure can be laid for up to 12 months, the Secretary of State may decide that it is no longer required. I think that we might be dancing around this subject when both approaches—emergency byelaws under the IFCAs, and the laying of an order in the Welsh Assembly Government—can achieve the same purpose. We are trying to reach a point at which the same effect can be achieved when we face immediate potential damage either within a marine conservation area or a wider sea area, and a point at which the approach in the Bill, following consultation and agreement with the Welsh Assembly Government, respects both where we are on devolution and the wishes of the Welsh Assembly Government, which it does. Although the hon. Gentleman makes a valid point about annulment, the Secretary of State can decide to revoke an emergency byelaw.

David Jones (Conservative, Clwyd West)

I hope that the Minister will forgive me, but he is not respecting the will of the Welsh Assembly. He is respecting the wishes of Welsh Ministers, who are an Executive body.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

Yes, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not want to undermine either the power of the great democratic institution that is the Welsh Assembly Government, or the intent of the Welsh Assembly Government Minister, seriously to deliver on what is in the Bill and to strike the right balance between the framework powers that we can give the Welsh Assembly Government to get on with this, in consultation with all the organisations, agencies and individuals on the ground, and bringing forward things that are fit for purpose in Wales.

Mr. Williamsrose—

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

I want to make some progress on new clause 3, but I will give way.

Roger Williams (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

The Minister is very kind. We raised the point that the current Minister in the Welsh Assembly has committed herself to reporting annually, but she is unable to commit other Ministers in that post in the future. Is the Minister aware that it lies within the competence of the Welsh Assembly to put that commitment in either its standing orders or some other legislative process?

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

Yes indeed. The hon. Gentleman goes to the heart of an aspect of our debate. It is completely within the competence of the Welsh Assembly Government Minister to introduce a set of standing orders on the way in which this should be carried forward ad infinitum, in the same way that any future Government in this place can decide, should they want to, to change how they deal with the situation. They would do so in the full glare of transparency and publicity. In the same way, Welsh Assembly Government Ministers, who are held democratically accountable, can introduce their own long-term decisions on how they would deal with this. We therefore come to the essence of the question: do we trust the Welsh Assembly Government to get on with this and deliver on the aspects that are within their power? The current Minister’s intent is clear. Elin Jones will undoubtedly read our debate with some interest. She will want to reflect on how to take some of the matters forward, but she is not waiting for the Bill to come out of Committee, because she is already working on the transition towards her own powers.

Turing to new clause 3—[Interruption.] I feel as if I have entered the TARDIS and flown back to my days in the Wales Office to re-do the Government of Wales Bill. The new clause would amend schedule 5 to the Government of Wales Act 2006 by inserting a matter in field 1 in respect of fisheries. The measure would enable the National Assembly for Wales to legislate to impose statutory duties on Welsh Ministers in relation to the management of fisheries in Wales.

If I have not done so already, I wish to make it clear that the Government are fully committed to devolution in Wales and to enhancing the legislative competence of the National Assembly in ways that are consistent with our current settlement. I am sure that hon. Members agree that our track record proves just that. We have made provision in part 2 of the Bill to meet the Assembly Government’s request for a Welsh fisheries zone in the offshore area, thus giving Wales parity with Scotland and Northern Ireland. We have taken account throughout the Bill of the need to ensure that provisions are applicable in the Welsh context and that Welsh Ministers will become the marine planning authority and the licensing authority for the waters around Wales.

I cannot agree to the new clause. Conferring full law-making powers on the Assembly is not an exercise that we should do lightly, as the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire knows, and certainly not at this late stage in the passage of the Bill. It would be a major step, not a tinkering. It should be considered carefully in a broader context of fisheries management as a whole, rather through amendment at this late stage. I hope that I have explained that there is a robust framework in place prescribing how Welsh Ministers should exercise their fisheries functions, and that framework is being enhanced by the Bill. Welsh Ministers are already fully accountable for their actions to the democratically elected Assembly. There is therefore no reason for the proposed new clause and I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

Order. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire looks as though he is about to rise to his feet. He cannot withdraw the new clause because it has not been moved. The Question before the Committee is on clause stand part. If the hon. Gentleman has further things he wishes to say, I will call him, should he catch my eye. I have had no indication that any of the proposed new clauses are to be put to a vote, and I want to be absolutely clear what we are doing.

Clause 189

Martin Salter (Labour, Reading West)

I apologise to the Minister for not giving him direct notice of my point. The clause addresses sea fish size limits, and it would be remiss of me if I did not make a comment. It is a shame that the hon. Member for Broxbourne is not here—or perhaps not—as he gets similarly agitated about this.

I want to press the Minister on the promised review of his predecessor’s quite disgraceful decision not to implement the bass minimum landing size limit. The purpose of the Bill is to improve the environment for all species of fish and life forms around our coasts. The bass is an extremely valuable recreational fish. The recreational value of our bass fishery has not been assessed, but is pretty serious. I know the hon. Member for Newbury is keen to catch bass on the fly and I am quite happy to stick hooks in them; anyhow, they are superb fish.

Although the last Fisheries Minister but one made a solemn promise to implement a bass management plan, which involved raising the bass minimum landing size from the current 36 cm—a ridiculous limit given that he optimum spawning size for bass is around 40 to 42 cm—all 750,000 recreational sea anglers, who are all registered voters, were disappointed to say the least by the Minister’s predecessor’s subsequent decision. The Minister is showing himself to be very flexible and, at my behest, he met interested parties from the world of recreational sea angling. I am giving him the opportunity to say when he plans to review his predecessor’s decision. We were promised a review many months ago. I know that his officials would like to kick it into the long grass, but I can assure him that while there is breath in my body, that will not happen.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

In response to a good and timely reminder of the obligation that I made when I had a very good meeting with my hon. Friend and the Angling Trust in Portcullis House, I will make good on my commitment to review the minimum landing size for bass at the earliest possible opportunity. I have slightly lost sight of it during our proceedings in Committee, so I cannot give a date. However, I am more than happy to discuss the issue further with my hon. Friend to make a good on my clear statement that I would review the matter at the earliest opportunity.

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

This is an important issue. Will the Minister confirm my reading of the Bill, which is that IFCAs will have the power to introduce byelaws to increase the minimum landing size in their own districts, as many authorities have done in the six-mile zone in the current districts? That applies to byelaws dealing not only with minimum landing sizes for a whole range of fish species, but with various lobsters, and a number of other matters that aid the conservation of fisheries.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

Indeed. The hon. Gentleman’s interpretation is quite right. There is flexibility in the Bill to do what he says.

To reiterate, my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West raised the fundamental issue of the review of the minimum landing size of bass, and he has rightly been persistent in pursuing it. I will speak to my officials and get back to him on the earliest date for a review of the issue.

Martin Salter (Labour, Reading West)

May I remind the Minister that I shall be standing down at the next election, so I would appreciate it if the review took place between now and next April?

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

Indeed. The point is well made and noted. I really do hope to deliver before my hon. Friend stands down.

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

The issue of the minimum landing size of bass has been rightly raised, and it affects many inshore fisheries areas. Indeed, it also affects to offshore areas beyond the 12-mile limit, although I know that the serious issues raised in that respect are not part of this debate. We have also mentioned the regulations that IFCAs will operate within and IFCAs’ ability to introduce not only their own byelaws to protect the fishing resource, but variations in landing size, which will, one hopes, increase rather than decrease landing size.

In my intervention a moment ago—I know that the Minister was seeking inspiration from his civil servants and that he may not have heard me—I said that other important issues are pertinent to the conservation of fishing stock, and they relate not only to the minimum landing size, but to the protection of spawning stock.

I have mentioned berried lobsters, and the Cornwall sea fisheries committee has been attempting for some time to introduce measures not only to V-notch lobsters, which should be protected because they are immature, but to ensure that berried lobsters are equally protected. Where byelaws are required to protect such lobsters and other sea creatures that are targeted by the fishing industry, I hope that the Minister will give the Committee some reassurance that IFCAs will have the power to introduce measures to protect stock.

Martin Salter (Labour, Reading West)

I do not disagree with the thrust of what the hon. Gentleman has said, but does he recognise that there is limited value, particularly with species such as bass and other highly mobile fish, in having locally based size limits? Clearly, the stocks will move around.

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

I entirely accept that point, but I am concentrating primarily on shellfish. I support the criticism that the hon. Gentleman has been making—hence my comment about ensuring that there is a reference to regulations that go beyond the six-mile limit. As far as nationally set minimum landing sizes are concerned, I certainly hope that future Secretaries of State will err on the side of increasing those beyond their current size and allowing IFCAs to introduce their own byelaws to raise further those standards and the minimum landing sizes beyond the nationally set limits.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

I clarify that the clause allows for orders to be made to set a maximum size limit or a size range outside which no fish may be landed, sold or carried. It updates the conservation powers currently available to Ministers and provides a potentially valuable tool to aid the conservation of certain species of fish. For example, a maximum size limit or a size range could be a more effective technical conservation tool for some species, such as elasmobranchii, than a minimum size limit by ensuring that the larger, more fecund specimens are returned to the sea when caught. IFCAs will certainly be able to increase the minimum landing size to suit local circumstances, a point made by both hon. Gentlemen. I can offer the assurances the hon. Member for St. Ives is seeking: the provision allows flexibility and will aid the conservation of certain species.

Clause 197

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

I beg to move amendment 56, in clause 197, page 124, leave out from beginning of line 11 to ‘subsection’ in line 12 and insert—

‘(1) Section 1 of the Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Act 1967 (c. 83) (power to make orders as to fisheries for shellfish) is amended as set out in subsections (1A) and (1B).

(1A) In’.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments 57 and 58.

Government new clause 5—Variation etc of orders as a result of development.

Government amendment 62.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

Part 7 makes changes to the Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Act 1967, under which applications can be made for several and regulating orders that allow the cultivation of shellfish and the regulation of wild shellfisheries. The changes that we hope to make will reduce the cost and burden of applying for several or regulating orders and ensure that they can be used effectively. It will achieve that in part by removing the current criteria under which public inquiries are triggered during application.

Several orders essentially grant an exclusive right to develop a private fishery to the grantee, either an individual or a company. Regulating orders either impose restrictions or make regulations regarding the dredging, fishing and taking of shellfish specified in the order. Regulating orders also allow grantees to introduce quotas for shellfish stocks and a system of licensing to restrict the number of persons authorised to exploit the fishery. The orders offer an attractive and sustainable alternative to the uncertainties of fishing for wild stocks and provide for the improved management of shellfisheries.

In the other place, Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer and Baroness Wilcox spoke passionately about the shellfish industry and the problems that it faces as a consequence of a long-running court case in the Menai strait, which hon. Members will be aware of. The Government listened carefully to their concerns on the Floor of that House and I have met both Baronesses separately to discuss their concerns. My noble Friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath indicated on Report that the Government would be prepared to bring forward amendments to the Bill in this House, and we are trying to make good on that commitment today. Government amendments 56 to 58, 62 and new clause 5 are intended to deliver on that commitment and resolve the current impasse on the granting of new shellfish orders, which has resulted from the Menai strait court case. In simple terms, the Crown is no longer consenting under the present system to any orders where its land is concerned, and shellfish development opportunities are being lost.

All sides agree that the present situation simply cannot continue. I pay tribute to my officials at this point, because they have worked extremely hard to come up with proposals that offer a balance between the needs of shellfisheries and the rights of landowners. I genuinely believe that these amendments and new clause offer the very best solution to shellfishermen and landowners. The Government are committed to ensuring that shellfisheries have a viable future and this is our opportunity to make that commitment a reality.

I am aware that some aspects of these amendments are technical. With your permission, Mr. Gale, I shall discuss them at some length, because they are detailed. As a package, they deliver what the Government intended to do and what we promised in the other place.

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

Before the Minister goes into the detail of these amendments, which I of course look forward to hearing, will he confirm that his Department gave the Shellfish Association of Great Britain just two hours to comment on these proposals before they were due to be tabled last week? Clearly, the SAGB is a very important body to be consulted, because it shared the Government’s concern on this issue. He is about to go into a lot of detail on these amendments, but to give an important stakeholder—I hope that the hon. Member for Newbury does not mind my using that term—only two hours in which to comment on them was clearly insufficient. I know that the SAGB was not particularly happy about that.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

No. I can confirm that, as a result of the debate in the other place and the previous discussions that we in DEFRA have had over quite some period on the impasse, the first occasion that this set of proposals was discussed with the shellfisheries was on 15 June. The shellfisheries were not informed of the amendments, but the principles underpinning our approach were discussed on 15 June.

Again, I pay tribute to the officials who worked very hard to turn those proposals, through discussion with stakeholders, into the reality of an amendment. I suspect that that is probably why the SAGB is saying that it had limited time to look at the detail of the amendments, and I sympathise with it on that. However, the thrust and the fundamentals of what we are discussing here have been on the table for some time. In fact, aspects of this issue were not only debated in the other place but accepted by their lordships as being a good way to move forward.

Richard Benyon (Conservative, Newbury)

That may be the case but the Minister must recognise that there is a widespread feeling of growing concern across shellfisheries that we are about to take decisions today that will have a fundamental effect on the future of their businesses. A growing number of shellfisheries are aware that even larger numbers of shellfisheries are as yet unaware of the implications of these amendments and they would like the opportunity to consult the Government and inform Ministers about the effect of these amendments on their particular shellfisheries.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

I reiterate that this is not a new problem. The issues that arose out of the Menai strait case have been articulated loudly and publicly. Furthermore, our Department and the Welsh Assembly Government have been engaged with all stakeholders for quite some time. The point that we have come to today in this Committee is that we have a package of amendments that might not have been subject to detailed scrutiny by stakeholders during the three-month consultation period, or whatever, but the fundamentals of what we are debating today have been aired in many different contexts.

Therefore, we have the opportunity here—we do not often have a legislative vehicle that allows us to take such an opportunity—to put through a package of measures. I will discuss the detail of the amendments, which may give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he is looking for that this is the right package that will give the certainty to shellfisheries as a whole across the UK that there is a way forward, to get those consents up and running again and to give shellfisheries the long-term certainty that they can invest in sustainable shellfishing around the UK. I will explain how the concerns of shellfisheries will be addressed.

Government amendments 56, 57 and 62 amend the Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Act 1967 to remove the need for consent of the Crown estate or the duchies to be given before an order affecting any part of the sea shore that is owned by them can be granted. Removing that requirement will give the Secretary of State the power to grant shellfish orders without Crown consent.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following: Government amendments 57 and 58.

Government new clause 5—Variation etc of orders as a result of development.

Government amendment 62.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

I am glad to return to the Committee to pick up where we left off this morning on shellfisheries. It might be helpful at this juncture to pick up on one point raised about the timeline. A genuine concern was aired about the nature and extent of the discussion and dialogue. Not many of us had a lot of time to see the word-by-word detail of the amendments, but the fundamentals of what is being proposed have been around for some time, and I will sketch them out briefly.

The Shellfish Association of Great Britain was working in 2007 on a memorandum of understanding with the Crown estates that featured most of the elements now contained in these clauses. The association has had a lot of opportunity, with my officials and others, to shape the proposals that have ended up in the Bill. Officials from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs have met on numerous occasions to discuss potential solutions to the Crown estate problem. However, it was only with the resolution of a court action, which concluded on 14 May, that negotiations could commence in earnest and in detail with interested parties, in particular the Crown and the shellfish industry. After that point, we could move from the entrenched positions that had had to be adopted while the court case proceeded.

The solutions proposed in the Bill—I shall turn to them in a moment, as I want to explain in detail how the package works—aim to put the relationship between the shellfish industry and landowners on a more commercial footing that is based on agreements, with mechanisms for developments to take place, but with compensation and the removal of consent, which everybody has wanted. Those proposals all come from the industry. If the Committee will bear with me, I will sketch exactly how the process will work in practice.

Government amendments 56, 57 and 62 will amend the Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Act 1967 to remove the need for consent of the Crown estate or the duchies to be given before an order affecting any part of the sea shore on their land can be granted. Removing that requirement will give the Secretary of State the power to grant shellfish orders without Crown consent, removing a potential obstacle to granting new orders. Such a measure is sought by all parties, and I hope that it will be welcomed by all parties.

The removal of that procedure, which all parties consider to be outdated, will thus allow us to overcome the current impasse, in which a number of several and regulating orders are not being given. At the moment, shellfisheries cannot obtain certainty for long-term investment, despite the best efforts and good will of all parties. The amendments will allow us to overcome the impasse and start granting new several and regulating orders. Both the Crown estate and the shellfish industry support the proposal.

As the amendments all link together and come as a package, I will turn to amendment 58, which requires the appropriate Minister, when considering an application for a several and regulating order, to have regard to the powers and duties of the Crown Estate Commissioners. That is important because those powers and duties come from the Crown Estate Act 1961. The Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Act 1967 already contains a statutory duty to consult the commissioners as land owners when considering an application for an order that will affect Crown land.

It is important that we recognise that the Crown Estate Commissioners have specific powers and duties that require them to act in a particular way. I must make it clear that the amendment does not grant the commissioners any extra powers, nor does it give them anything with regard to shellfish orders that they do not currently have. Having regard to the Crown estate’s powers and duties simply means that we must take account of them when arriving at a decision on whether to grant an order. We are not bound to accept any objection that they raise, just as we are not bound to accept any objection from any other landowner. The commissioners are constrained in what they can do with regard to the Crown estate in a way that other landowners are not. Our proposal merely acknowledges that difference.

David Jones (Conservative, Clwyd West)

Before I put my question, I declare an interest: by an extraordinary coincidence, the legal firm of which I am a director represents one of the parties in the Menai strait action to which the Minister referred. I understand the thrust of his proposed solution to this difficulty, but the amendment states that Ministers should

“have regard to the powers and duties”.

Will he expand on that? To which powers and duties should they have regard, and how will they have regard to them? What will they do when they have regard to them?

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

I shall return to that very pertinent question in a moment, but first I want to flesh out the other parts of the proposal.

New clause 5 will insert powers to vary shellfish orders, which is important because it acknowledges the fact that landowners cannot always foresee what development opportunities might arise over the lifetime of an order, which is potentially 60 years. The new clause will allow an order to be varied when landowners, including the duchies and the Crown estate, want to develop land on which an order is in place and when that development would make it impossible, or impracticable, to exercise the right conferred on the fishery. The power to vary an order reflects our desire to put the relationship between the grantee and the landowner on a more commercial footing, with the use of commercial contracts or memorandums of understanding clearly to define the relationship and the system for dealing with future developments. In earlier discussions with the Government, both the Shellfish Association of Great Britain and the Crown estate supported such a measure.

Clause 69 sets out the issues to which the licensing authority must have regard in determining applications for marine licences. Under subsection 1(c), those issues include

“the need to prevent interference with legitimate uses of the sea”,

which in turn include fishing and shellfisheries. Thus the licensing authority is well able to have regard to fisheries’ interests and to reach a balanced view on the merits of an application.

We do not intend to interfere with this marine planning process by insisting that fishing interests should automatically override all other needs or uses of the sea. If the order is varied, the landowner could be liable to pay compensation to the grantee of a several order for the loss of part, or all, of the order. It will be open for the grantees and landowners to agree a level of compensation, either when the order is varied or right from the outset. We believe that the ability to consider such outcomes at the outset of the making of an order will help to put the relationship between the two parties on a much more commercial footing. It will also make the agreements more transparent. That idea was previously supported by the shellfish industry as well as the Crown estate. The new clause will provide certainty to grantees of shellfish orders and landowners and signal a new relationship allowing the industry to develop and move forward.

The hon. Member for Clwyd, West asked about Crown powers. Those powers will be as set out in the Crown Estates Act, section 1(3) of which states that the commissioners will have a duty “to maintain and enhance” the value of the estate

“but with due regard to...good management.”

A letter from DEFRA to the Shellfish Association of Great Britain dated 26 June stated:

“Having regard to the CE’s powers and duties simply means that we must take account of them in arriving at a decision as to whether to grant an Order. It does not mean that if the CE object to the creation of an Order that we are bound to accept their objection as valid and reject any applications to grant an Order in these circumstances. But it would be open to the CE to challenge the SoS as to how their view has been taken account of in our decision making process.”

It is important that I read this next part into the record:

“Similarly, we would be bound to explain to any consultee how their view has been taken account of in our decision making processes; the difference is that the CE have explicit statutory powers and duties and our proposal reflects that point. If as you hinted you have legal or other advice which contradicts this view, I would be grateful if you could share it or summarise it”.

We concur with that view.

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

So that I can better understand the background, I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify that the Crown estate is answerable to the Treasury and to Parliament and that, under the 1961 Act, one of its primary objectives is to produce a surplus for the Treasury. Does that not create a potential conflict between two separate Government Departments, one of which is there to create financial surpluses for the Government, while the other surely seeks to maintain the responsible management of the marine resource? There is a clear conflict between two Government Departments, and I do not understand how the Minister’s proposals are going to resolve it.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

As I pointed out, the amendments have been subject to long discussions. They have been supported by the Shellfish Association of Great Britain and the Crown estate, and they resolve that situation. There will always be a question of the need to resolve different interests across Whitehall. There needs to be close dialogue, whether one is thinking of the Infrastructure Planning Commission, marine planning or most aspects of Government.

It might be worth explaining how the Crown estate works. As the hon. Gentleman rightly points out, the Crown estate manages Crown land on behalf of the Government, and the surplus revenue goes to the Treasury. In return, the monarch receives a fixed annual payment—the civil list. The Crown estate is responsible to Parliament, but is run independently of the Government by a board of appointees. Let me give a brief history lesson of why we have got to where we are today. In 1955, a Government committee under the chairmanship of Sir Malcolm Trustram Eve recommended that to avoid confusion between Government property and Crown land, the latter should be renamed—[Interruption.] I am sorry, Mr. Gale, I have been slightly distracted by the hon. Member for Broxbourne bringing what seems to be a weapon into the Committee.

To avoid the confusion between Government property and the Crown, the latter was to be renamed the Crown estate and managed by an independent board. Those recommendations were implemented by the Crown Estate Acts 1956 and 1961. Under the 1961 Act, the estate is managed by a board, which has a duty to maintain and enhance the value of the estate and the return obtained from it, but with due regard, as I pointed out earlier, to the requirements of good management. The Crown estate must report to Parliament once a year, providing accounts and information about Crown estate activities for the year, including future activities.

In England and Wales, the legal presumption is that the sea bed and the foreshore are owned by the Crown, and that presumption extends to the bed of all tidal rivers and to all islands in tidal rivers and coastal waters. The presumption also applies in the absence of any evidence of a grant by the Crown to any private individual. It is estimated that the Crown estate owns about 50 per cent. of the UK foreshore.

We cannot use the Marine and Coastal Access Bill to ride roughshod over the Crown estate’s rights as set out in the Crown Estate Acts. To say that shellfisheries, for example, are more important than the Crown estate’s duty is not an argument that would make the running, and it would be very hard to get cross-Government agreement to amend either the Crown Estate Acts or this Bill in a way that would limit its rights.

Does the group of amendments deliver emphatically what everybody wants? The amendments contain the fundamentals of the discussions that have gone on for a long time to resolve problems, especially those between the Shellfish Association of Great Britain and the Crown estate. We have taken the fundamental areas of agreement in principle with those parties and incorporated them into five amendments that work together—not separately. As was debated to some extent in the other place, by considering the amendments today as a package—not one by one—we have a golden opportunity to have several and regulating orders back up and running, to give certainty to the shellfisheries industry, to recognise the rightful regard that we must also have to the Crown estate, to recognise variance where it is needed in long contracts, and to recognise that in some situations there might also be a need for compensation.

The amendments do all those things, and although I appreciate that their details have not been seen for long by many people, their fundamentals have been discussed ad nauseam in meetings with my officials, with me, and with many other people, including representatives of the Shellfish Association of Great Britain and the Crown estate. There is good will to make this happen, and I urge Committee members to take the opportunity.

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

My point is about something that might be a detail within the Government amendments. The Minister refers to the role of the Duchy of Cornwall and the Duchy of Lancaster. Their interest, as I understand it, applies only to the foreshore. In Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, the foreshore is owned by the Duchy of Cornwall separately from the Crown—I do not know which bits are owned by the Duchy of Lancaster. Therefore, presumably all that the Minister has just explained in relation to the Crown estate cannot apply in the same way to the duchies, and certainly not to the Duchy of Cornwall, which is not as answerable to Parliament and does not operate with the intention of producing a surplus for the Treasury. It is, in that sense, a different operation to the one that the IFCAs and the MMO will be negotiating.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

Although the duchies perform much the same function as the Crown estate, and their land is affected by the creation of a shellfish order, it is not possible to express their rights clearly in primary legislation. I am assured that even though the duchies do not have an Act of their own that sets out their duties, as the Crown estate does, the amendments apply equally to them and the Crown estate. Therefore, the measure would equally apply to the duchies and to shellfisheries on those estates, and that has to be good news.

Richard Benyon (Conservative, Newbury)

There is a perception that the Minister has bowled us a fast ball. I am grateful to him and his officials for providing me with background information, which I received relatively recently, and I have been endeavouring to understand what we are trying to achieve. The Minister makes a laudable effort to resolve a long-standing problem. However, strong concerns remain among shellfish fishermen and owners of shellfish rights around UK waters. We need to put their concerns on record, and the Minister needs to address them and, if it is his belief, point out that their perceptions are unfounded.

Those involved in the Menai strait case have made an impassioned plea that the matter not be dealt with at this stage, because they believe that that would “undermine the foundations” of their business. They believe that such an approach would be a laudable attempt to deal with the disease, but that doing so would kill the patient. We need a careful explanation of what the Minister is seeking by trying to solve the impasse between the Crown Estate Commissioners and DEFRA.

Some involved have for years defended their businesses against the proposals to build a marina within the Menai strait fishery. The proposal, in their view, would have crippled the UK’s biggest mussel-producing area, which produces £5 million of mussels a year. They have just celebrated a Court of Appeal ruling, but now feel that it is being reversed by the Minister at the eleventh hour. I hear what the Minister says about the length of time that he has been in negotiations, but the Bill has seemingly been going through Parliament for an interminable time, and it is strange that we have reached this clause and are keen to tackle other elements of the Bill, but we are suddenly faced with Government amendments that are causing great concern.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. It is worth reflecting on the fact that we originally did not conceive of addressing the matter in the Bill. However, in the other place, Baroness Wilcox and Baroness Miller identified a valid concern that we in the Department and others had been wrestling with for some time and wanted the opportunity to address. Such opportunities are rare, and now we have one, even though it was not originally conceived that we could do anything about the matter in the Bill. The hon. Gentleman is right that this is the eleventh hour, but the other 10 hours and 59 minutes have been spent in some very detailed discussions.

Richard Benyon (Conservative, Newbury)

I know that the Minister has consulted Baroness Wilcox among others. I confess that I have not, but I must do so before long because she has a great understanding of the matter. She might be broadly happy with what the Minister is doing, and she speaks for a sizeable group of people in the industry, but others are concerned. It has been put to us that if

“the Committee makes the amendments, it will be paving the way for the destruction”

of legitimate businesses,

“hastening the demise of a sustainable marine cultivation industry worth £22M a year to the UK economy.”

I should like to talk about the concerns of the Shellfish Association of Great Britain.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

I just want to make it clear to the hon. Gentleman and the Committee that I have not spoken recently to either Baroness. As far as I know, they are as exercised about the measure as some in the Shellfish Association of Great Britain, as some in the association want the measures.

Richard Benyon (Conservative, Newbury)

I am sure that that is the case. The more I get involved in coastal Britain, the more I know that one can never give an authentic voice for any particular industry, only for aspects of it.

The Shellfish Association is keen to put across the fact that the Government did not inform the industry’s national trade association of the wording of the proposed amendments until after the Committee had begun. It strongly believes that the proposed amendments to the Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Act 1967 will severely undermine the legal protection that it and its successor provide to shellfish farmers, which they have done for a great length of time.

The association would like the Minister to address three things: the criteria for any consideration by Ministers, the scope for any compensation payments, and the need for greater consultation. In the short time that I have had the information from the association, I have not been able to assess the amendments that it would propose or to put them to the Minister. I am asking for breathing space and for us to return to the matter on Report. He and I can work together constructively to ensure that the problem is solved quickly. However, at this stage, with the main industry body having very serious concerns, it would be wrong to make the amendments.

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

I rise to support the hon. Gentleman and his plea for the Minister to give the issue a further rethink. It was as a result of my coming into possession of the Government amendments at the weekend and, shortly thereafter, learning of the complaints and strong expressions of concern from the Shellfish Association of Great Britain, that I tabled a measure relating to the Government’s proposals, which of course could not be selected because of the time factor. That further underscores the difficulty of our eleventh-hour debate.

I appreciate the pressures under which the Department has been operating, and I do not doubt that there have been lengthy and complex negotiations. Like the hon. Member for Newbury, I find that trying to get my head around the confluence of different legislation about the Crown estate and shell fisheries, as well as trying to bolt that on to the Bill, is a significant challenge. I appreciate the Minister’s argument about the industry not necessarily having one concerted and harmonious voice on this or any other issue—such a claim is a matter for debate and can perhaps be tested outside the Committee—but I believe that we are being asked to consider the issue rather quickly.

The industry has seen the Minister’s amendments and it has proposed alternatives. The right and proper thing to do is what several members of the Committee have done so far: table amendments, listen to the debate and then consider the consequences of rushing things through when we might have the opportunity to resolve issues on Report. The honourable course for the Minister in such circumstances is to accept that although important progress has been made in recent weeks, it is not sufficient to make me comfortable with the Government’s present position. I would support the Minister more if he were to reflect on the concerns that have been expressed, withdraw the amendments and return with well worked-up amendments on Report, following further negotiations with the industry.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

We have had a useful discussion. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland and I have probably shown ourselves to be willing to listen to and engage with the Committee, as well as to adjust, when necessary, and reflect on what has been said.

Let me address the impasse and the challenge of getting any agreement between the parties that had been to the High Court on the matter of shellfisheries. We were able to engage with them properly only after 14 May, when the action concluded. However, prior and subsequent to that, we have been fully engaged on a way forward. I can honestly say that if we were to take time to reflect over the summer and return on Report, the amendments before hon. Members would be no different. The detail is fresh to many of us, including me, but the amendments have come to fruition over a long time, and the fundamentals of this issue will not vary over the summer.

I will tell the Committee, quite honestly, what my concern is. Despite the fact that, as I have said, we are usually quite sympathetic to the idea of going away and reflecting on matters, my concern is that we will get to the end of the summer and one or other of the parties will walk away from the position where we are now. We have taken this long to get to a point where we have something that is broadly acceptable, even if some people are completely up in arms about it—we have to acknowledge that.

However, there are sections of the shellfish industry that currently do not have several and regulating orders. There are companies now that are struggling to make business and to take commercial decisions; there are companies that are faced with taking decisions about whether or not to continue investing in shellfisheries.

Let me turn directly to two of the points that were raised about the Menai strait case. [Interruption.] I will just deal with those points and then I will come back to other points, because I have a little more detail to flesh out here.

In respect of the Menai strait, which is where this proposal effectively came to fruition from, a question has been asked. If these amendments were accepted, would the marina on the Menai strait have been built? Could that have gone ahead? It is true that there is a chance that the marina would have been built, but I must say that it is far from certain. First, the developers would have had to apply for permission relating to the development under the new regime that is set out in the Bill, to request that the order be varied, and it is unclear whether that permission would have been granted. If the developers received permission, Welsh Ministers would still have to consider the request to vary the order. What is clear, however, is that the new variation process would have provided the grantees of the Menai strait order with a means of obtaining adequate compensation and the opportunity to vary the order, potentially to provide them with a new area to cultivate shellfish in. So I understand the concerns about the Menai strait, but I want to make it clear that we are not talking only about the Menai strait. We are talking about a very important, highly sustainable UK industry, which at the moment has no certainty to invest.

Richard Benyon (Conservative, Newbury)

I entirely accept what the Minister says. However, the fact remains that, given that the industry has these very serious concerns, even if we were to approve these amendments today in Committee, that would not speed up the ability of shellfisheries elsewhere in the country to get those several rights. That will happen at Royal Assent. Consequently, we can sort this matter out on Report, everybody can feel that they have been consulted and unless I am missing something—I admit that I am relatively a new boy to this House—it can be resolved in exactly the same time scale as it would be if we accepted these amendments today.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

Let me return to that issue in a moment, because there is a job to be done on working with the industry, the Crown estate and others who are potentially affected by this change; that is the job that needs to be done. Having said that, I maintain my position that what we have in front of us here are well crafted amendments that will do the job that many people have been asking us to do so for so long.

I will come back in a moment to how I think we should take that matter forward. Before I do so, let me address one of the other issues that was raised by the hon. Gentleman, about how compensation would be worked out. We see two possible ways in which compensation can be worked out. First, in commercial agreements between the landowner and the grantee of an order, the variation order can refer back to those agreements, which will either set the amount of compensation or how it is to be determined. Secondly, when considering a variation the Secretary of State can appoint an independent inspector to assess the appropriate level of compensation. That process would look at the value of shellfish that are landed and at any moneys paid to the grantee for the right to fish on the landowner’s land.

I want to address the crux of the matter and the potential way forward. I recognise that our amendments are detailed and, moreover, that they have caused some concern; I also must say that they have gained some support out there from parts of the shellfish industry and others. In fact, we are pleased to note that we have the acceptance of the clauses by the Crown estate and the duchies, and a potential applicant for a major order in Morecambe bay supports these amendments. We note that the recent briefing note from the Shellfish Association of Great Britain to the Committee focuses on the technical detail of the amendment and states that while accepting the thrust and aim of the proposed amendment and that it does serve as an effective mechanism to break the current logjam, it is suggested that the following amendments be made to the amendment.

Our amendment is written in such a way as to allow more detailed discussions about the criteria that Ministers would use before an order was varied and about how compensation would be calculated. We do not believe that it would be helpful now to limit those issues in the Bill. We need to consult and engage with the industry in detail on them. It is possible that a lot of what is being sought and what the hon. Member for Newbury raised can be achieved. I am more than willing to work with the hon. Gentleman, as I will work with the Shellfish Association of Great Britain and others—there are disparate interests within the shellfish industry—to bring forward the notes and guidance, which we need to draw up in full consultation with the industry, the Crown estates and the duchies. We have the summer to get on with it.

In consulting with the industry, we will also ensure that individual grantees of orders, in addition to the Shellfish Association of Great Britain, are allowed the opportunity to comment and provide input. I am more than happy to get on and continue that dialogue to flesh out with hon. Members how this will work, to identify where we can improve the operation of the new processes for varying orders and to bring forward the notes and guidance. That is what we need to get on with in the summer, because ever since I have been in this Department this issue has been a roadblock to investment in shellfisheries. We now have in front of us—here, now, today—a way forward. Over the summer, we can engage in constructive dialogue, which I invite hon. Members to get involved in, to flesh out where we are.

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

The Minister’s arguments are becoming inconsistent. Earlier he told us that by making a decision here today and not waiting for Report to make the amendments, the industry could make commercial and investment decisions over the summer that would not be possible if we waited and withdrew the current amendments. Now he is saying that it will take all summer to negotiate a lot of the other conditions attached to the orders that back up the amendments. Surely these things can be negotiated simultaneously over the summer. Given the clear concern in the industry at present, surely the Minister must accept that his argument about making commercial and investment decisions over the summer does not stand. We can come back and consider everything together in a co-ordinated fashion on Report.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, but he might have misunderstood me, which might be my fault. We have the opportunity to send a clear signal based on the long and arduous discussions that we have had over quite some time. Over the summer, we should get on with fleshing out the detail of how we put the process into practice, not looking at revisiting amendments. Frankly, what is in front of us is based on the principles that many of those involved have been calling for. This is a very good set of amendments. We can delay and see if we can come back with something else, but I say to the hon. Gentleman seriously, if we substantially alter the amendments, one or other grouping will walk away from the table. I appreciate the lateness of seeing the detail, but the amendments are on areas where there has been consistent agreement on what needs to be done. We have the opportunity to signal today that we are now minded to deliver on this issue and to get on with the notes and guidance.

Richard Benyon (Conservative, Newbury)

While I respect the Minister’s desire to proceed, I still have not got an answer on the time scale and why it is different. If he can give an assurance that the industry’s concerns will be listened to this summer, and that, if those concerns are valid, he will introduce amendments on Report, I will go quietly. I do not think that this is a good way of doing business. There has been fantastic consultation on the Bill with a range of organisations, none of which will be entirely happy, but most of which will be content. The issue under discussion is an exception, because a key coastal industry feels left out. If the Minister gives an assurance that, if the amendments are made, a proper consultation will take place, and that valid concerns that can be accommodated on Report will be listened to, I will go along with him.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

That is a good suggestion. The whole thrust of the Committee has been to listen solidly to opinions. I can honestly say that the provisions, even if they are analysed over the summer, will be shown to be right. I hear what the hon. Members for Newbury and for St. Ives have said; we need to discuss how we will implement the provisions with the industry. I do not think that we will get a set of amendments that will satisfy everybody—that is the history of the issue—but if, during the summer, the amendments are suddenly shown to be defective, I will not close my mind to revisiting them. However, I am 99.99 per cent. certain that they are right.

We all need to engage with the industry and implement the solution to the impasse that is on offer. We will then consult properly over the summer. I hope that the hon. Member for Newbury will engage with that and recognise that we are balancing the issues of a highly viable future for shellfisheries—although, without the several and regulating orders, their future is terribly uncertain at the moment—with the absolute necessity to have due regard to the Crown Estates and their powers.

Clause 221

Martin Salter (Labour, Reading West)

Very good chairing, Mr. Gale, and frighteningly quick. Clause 221 amends section 212 of the Water Resources Act 1991. I have been persuaded not to table an amendment to the clause. I am not having second thoughts, but I am slightly queasy having looked at the issue again. Section 212 of the 1991 Act gives fishery owners who are affected by certain byelaw changes the right to claim compensation. That is clearly outdated. Sea fishermen have no right to claim compensation if a decision on quotas is made for sound conservation reasons. Why on earth should owners of inland fisheries, such as a put-and-take rainbow trout fishery in which the hon. Member for Broxbourne might recreate with his fishing rod, be able to claim compensation if such a decision is made by the Environment Agency or other competent body for good scientific, environmental or ecological reasons?

Clause 221(2), which amends the Water Resources Act 1991, states:

“In subsection (1), for the words from ‘the claim’ to the end substitute ‘the Agency”—

meaning the Environment Agency—

“may pay that person such amount by way of compensation as it considers appropriate.’”

However, I would rather delete the subsection altogether. The Joint Committee considered evidence that led us to conclude that there are times when the Environment Agency is nervous about making the right byelaws, or taking the right decision for fisheries and the environment, because of the threat of compensation. What I want to know from the Minister is exactly how the phrase “as it considers appropriate” will be interpreted. If “appropriate” means a big fat zero, that is very appropriate from where I stand, as there needs to be a level playing field. If the word “appropriate” is going to continue to raise doubts in the minds of officials, particularly in the EA—I have praised them this morning, but they can be risk-averse at times—and if it will hinder them from taking decisions that will benefit the environment, I remain concerned.

Charles Walker (Conservative, Broxbourne)

The hon. Gentleman will recall the spring salmon conservation measures that the EA introduced to protect scarce spring runs on many rivers in England and Wales. A number of fishery owners and fishermen were very nervous about those conservation measures, but by and large the measures have been hugely successful. They have started to increase spring salmon runs, and they have started to ingrain the culture of catch and release among game fishermen. That started with spring salmon, but has extended throughout autumn and summer runs.

Martin Salter (Labour, Reading West)

The hon. Gentleman strengthens the point. Indeed, my next address to the nation, in a moment, will be on precisely those issues—fish steps, catch and release, and the new byelaw-making powers that we propose to grant to the EA. There is no doubt that the conservation measure he mentions was successful, and he is right to say that we have ingrained into game fishing—game fishermen have been a little slow on the uptake regarding the benefits of catch and release—sensible conservation measures.

Charles Walker (Conservative, Broxbourne)

One of the original responses from such fishermen was, “Well, if I can’t keep the salmon I catch, I’m not going to bother going fishing for them,” and many fishery owners were concerned that they would lose revenue, but that threat never materialised. Indeed, more fishermen are now pursuing spring salmon, because there are a few more of them around.

Martin Salter (Labour, Reading West)

The hon. Gentleman will know that we are anglers, not fishmongers. Frankly, given the cost of salmon fishing, most of the people who can afford to do it can afford to go to Waitrose or somewhere else for their fish. The argument that we fish only for the pot belongs in a bygone age.

To conclude, I should like some assurance from the Minister regarding what exactly is meant by the phrases in subsection (2). Does he share my concern that one interpretation of that wording could continue to make some agencies risk-averse when we want people to be bold on behalf of the environment?

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

Yes, I do share those concerns, and I have given the matter considerable thought. The phrase “as it considers appropriate” in clause 221(2) takes us to the meat of this debate. I agree with my hon. Friend that the obligation to pay compensation to an owner or occupier of any fishery that is injuriously affected by a fisheries byelaw has at times discouraged the EA from proposing byelaws that are necessary for the conservation of fish stocks. Let me give my hon. Friend some assurance by stating quite clearly that I consider that compensation should not be paid in circumstances in which the byelaw in question was made for the express purpose of conserving fish stocks, as increases in stocks will ultimately benefit fishery owners. I hope that gives him the reassurance that he rightfully seeks on this issue, because we want the EA to make the right decisions where appropriate in such circumstances.

Clause 222

Martin Salter (Labour, Reading West)

I want to flag up an issue of huge concern to recreational anglers, and certainly coarse anglers, who form the vast majority of those who fish for pleasure, rather than for a living: the outmoded and arcane system of byelaws currently in place in this country. Those byelaws are probably not legally enforceable when it comes to the taking of fish. It is perfectly possible for someone to go fishing in the Thames area under a regime that allows two fish of certain species to be taken, provided that they are over a particular size, and then to cross the road into the Anglian region, where totally different byelaws are in place.

It is impossible for those of us who have fished all our lives to know whether we are on the right side of a regime boundary and what its particular byelaws are. It is totally impossible for eastern Europeans, many of whom are keen fishermen, to understand those byelaws and know where they apply. The Poles are particularly keen recreational anglers and help boost the number of people who go fishing in this country, but sadly they have a culture of taking fish for the pot, which has caused problems in my constituency and in the constituency of the hon. Member for Newbury. I can understand that, because in their culture the Christmas delicacy is carp, Britain’s single most popular fish.

Carp is worth millions to the economy because of the livelihoods it sustains in the fishing tackle industry and the fisheries, and the diversity from which farmers have been able to generate additional income. It is a hugely valuable recreational resource, but it is perfectly possible for someone to fish in the Thames at Reading, Pangbourne or Goring and catch a prize, 30 lb carp—a fish for which anglers would wait years in the hope of catching—and barbecue it legally on the bank. That does not do much for community relations. It is the result of a clash of cultures, and it is not illegal. As my party spokesman’s on angling, I am bombarded with letters from anglers from all over the country asking why we are not going after those people and prosecuting them, but the practice is legal, because our byelaws are unenforceable, unintelligible, vary from region to region and need radical overhaul.

To touch upon a point raised by the hon. Member for Broxbourne, we need a comprehensive system of catch and release. I am pleased to announce that, in response to lobbying by yours truly and the excellent new Angling Trust, the governing body for angling, the Environment Agency has not waited for Parliament to conclude its deliberations on the Bill: consultation is now running parallel to our deliberations in Committee. The consultation was launched on 22 June and closes on 14 September. I encourage all of Britain’s 3 million anglers to participate in that, because it is a radical overhaul of a system that is, frankly, unworkable and indefensible.

We also need to decide who owns fish and to determine which fish swim in public water. Fish in a river can never be owned by anyone and therefore need the protection of workable byelaws. Fish in an enclosed pond or lake, however, are different. I occasionally fish in a lake not far from a house owned, I believe, by the family of the hon. Member for Newbury, and those fish belong to the Englefield estate, but the 30 lb carp I mentioned, if swimming up the Thames, belongs to no one. If I were to remove a fish from the hon. Gentleman’s lake on the Englefield estate, he would undoubtedly, if so inclined, call the police, and I could be prosecuted under the Theft Act 1968, although the schedule of penalties is low and not a huge disincentive—I would probably get more money selling carp than I would ever have to pay in fines.

The Minister may correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that the changes in the amendments would increase the schedule of fines. The matter can be resolved, and there is legislation in place, which needs to be improved. Until we address the byelaws and until we encourage the Environment Agency to bring forward a coherent system of regulation, we will still have the problem of people taking fish for the pot, illegal movement of fish, and fisheries legislation that makes no sense to the angler who pays £25 or £26 for their rod licence.

Charles Walker (Conservative, Broxbourne)

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says and I support him wholeheartedly. However, he will be aware that a number of trout streams across England have a tradition of removing a limited number of fish for the pot. Catch and release is growing, but there are some streams that are so populated with small trout that there can be a sustainable take from them. What does he propose to do in those circumstances?

Martin Salter (Labour, Reading West)

That is why a consultation has been launched by the Environment Agency. That is why it is right and proper that we seek not to prescribe the matter in the Bill, but to give the Environment Agency the byelaw-making powers. There is a world of difference between a river that is primarily a coarse fish river where one would expect fish to be returned, and a stream where one can generate a sustainable harvest. There is a world of difference between people stealing fish to reseed and populate other fisheries in a way that could spread diseases, particularly KHV—koi herpes virus, which could decimate carp stocks in the UK if unchecked—and sensible fisheries management.

I hope that the Environment Agency will use the powers we give it to bring forward byelaws that will deliver a national catch and release policy with exceptions. Those exceptions could include the trout stream of the hon. Member for Newbury, or sensible, well-organised clubs such as Newbury angling club, or the Reading and district or Thatcham angling associations—to give the clubs in our constituencies a plug—which could apply to the relevant Environment Agency fisheries officer for an exemption. Until we bring in a framework that is coherent, understandable and enforceable, we will not make sense of the issue.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

This has been another good discussion about the Bill and what is happening outside it too. My hon. Friend is right to point out that currently fish theft carries a maximum penalty of £200 during the day and £1,000 at night, and, potentially, imprisonment for three months. Clause 222 amends paragraph 2 of schedule 1 of the Theft Act 1968, raising the penalty for committing the offence of taking or destroying fish to level 5 on the standard scale—£5,000. Some such fish, not least carp, change hands on the black fish market for £1,000 a piece and more.

My hon. Friend referred to the consultation recently launched by the Environment Agency. I am pleased that the Angling Trust and others are fully engaged in the consultation, on how many fish, if any, might be taken from fisheries and rivers. The byelaws will be drafted based on the public response to the consultation, using the powers in the Bill. Those byelaws will deal with fish theft, and the EA has been constrained to act before the amendments give it the power, once the Bill has received Royal Assent. I also draw my hon. Friend’s attention to powers that we have given the EA, under clause 218, to make byelaws to set maximum size limits on fish that may be removed from a fishery.

Finally, schedule 16(8) would remove the current exemption for owners of certain private fisheries to permit anglers to remove freshwater fish during the close season, as that would undermines any catch and release byelaws that the agency may introduce to address fish theft. My hon. Friend’s points are well made.

Martin Salter (Labour, Reading West)

I thank the Minister. I am sure that the Committee will be grateful to him for addressing a number of issues in subsequent clauses, which will save me from seeking further stand part debates. Can I push him on the broader powers of the Environment Agency? He will be aware that I recently convened a meeting of recreational anglers to find out what they were looking for in a marine Bill. Concern was expressed over whether the Environment Agency’s current duty to improve, develop and maintain fisheries, and enhance the social and economic contribution of fisheries, would continue. I see no sign that it will not, but I invite the Minister to put that on the record because reassurance would be much appreciated by Britain’s 3 million anglers.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

Indeed, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance on the record today.

Schedule 16

Martin Salter (Labour, Reading West)

I beg to move amendment 52, in schedule 16, page 283, line 22, leave out ‘21’ and insert ‘22’.

My amendment relates to section 22 of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975. The Minister will be aware that I raised the issue briefly on Second Reading. I noticed a bit of a mismatch between the Bill and that Act. Basically, section 22 has been left unrepealed, unlike the provisions relating to proceeds. We have proposed legislation to ban the sale of rod-caught salmon, as the hon. Member for Broxbourne pointed out, but missed the opportunity to ensure that the same provision follows through within the marine Bill. We now have the chance to put that right.

The dates when sale of salmon and trout is prohibited no longer correspond to the close seasons for those species. We are giving the Environment Agency complete flexibility to set close seasons through byelaws. That can only result in confusion on the riverbank. Section 22 is redundant and should be repealed. I know that that is the opinion of the Atlantic Salmon Trust, the Salmon and Trout Association and other fisheries specialists. Therefore, the Minister has the opportunity to accept this minor and technical amendment to ensure consistency across the piece.

Ann McKechin (Labour, Glasgow North)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the issue, and he makes a strong case for the section’s repeal given that one of the key drivers is the repeal of old and obsolete legislation. However, the amendment does not quite do the trick, as the repeal of section 22 also needs to be reflected in part 5(B) of schedule 22 to the Bill. I have also been advised by my officials that that section of the 1975 Act applies to both England and Wales, and also to the Scottish side of the border at the River Esk. Accordingly, as the remit of the Environment Agency covers neither Wales nor Scotland, it would be appropriate for us to consult with the devolved Administrations as to how the section would affect their own domestic legislation.

My hon. Friend’s amendment could leave us in a confusing situation in which it could be unclear whether section 22 is repealed. I am sure that he will want to avoid that situation. Accordingly, I should like him to withdraw his amendment on the basis that we will consult, as appropriate, with the devolved Administrations about the repeal of the section, and come back to the matter on Report.

Martin Salter (Labour, Reading West)

I am not as comforted by the Minister’s assurance as I should like to be. All I am hearing is a commitment to consult. The arguments against accepting the amendment as it appears on the amendment paper will result in technical adjustments to a schedule and the need to consult with devolved Administrations. I am not sure whether I am in order, but I invite the Minister to intervene on me to give me a slightly stronger assurance than a commitment to consult because, frankly, the cats in the streets could commit themselves to consult.

Ann McKechin (Labour, Glasgow North)

With respect to my hon. Friend, when we make legislation that affects devolved Administrations it is important that we do not give undertakings in Committee on their behalf, but consult them before making changes. I have made it clear that we will carry out that consultation between now and Report. I am sure that the outcome will be positive, and that we will be able to come back on Report with an appropriate amendment, but the amendment might not be in the exact terms that my hon. Friend has sought, as it might not be appropriate in Scotland or Wales, where the Environment Agency’s remit does not extend.

I also take this opportunity to clarify a statement made in the House on Second Reading by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. He may have implied that part 7 of the Bill would give responsibility for managing marine fisheries to the Environment Agency. He wishes it to be known that the new and more flexible powers given to the agency in that part of the Bill are exercisable only in respect of fisheries for migratory and freshwater fish.

I have been told that the Environment Agency’s remit does in fact cover Wales and the Scottish borders at the River Esk, so I apologise for any confusion, but we have not had the chance to discuss the amendment with the devolved Administrations, so my points about the need to consult them remain. We will consult on the matter and come back to it on Report.

Martin Salter (Labour, Reading West)

I thank the Minister for that magnificently robust response and point out that one purpose of raising such issues on Second Reading and saying clearly on the record that

“We must return to this issue in Committee, but I wanted to put a marker down for the Whips to expect an amendment”—[Official Report, 23 June 2009; Vol. 494, c. 744.]

is precisely to give the ministerial team time to prepare a robust response, and possibly even to trigger the consultation. If the issue is not resolved, I will divide the House on the matter further down the road, but I accept the assurances given. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

New Clause 5

Clause 228

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

Briefly, the purpose of the clause, as I understand it, is to repeal what the Department considers to be obsolete or spent enactments. I agree with the spirit of what is proposed, which is a clear cross-party commitment to reduce regulatory burdens on the private, public and voluntary sectors through the conclusion of the Davidson review, as the explanatory notes supporting the Bill explain. I could ask Ministers to address each of the measures, but I will not do so.

I am particularly interested in the most ancient of the enactments, the White Herring Fisheries Act 1771. I am told by those engaged in the industry that the Act was not so much about regulation or control as an enabling piece of legislation, which I am given to believe has aspects that are still extant and operational, particularly in Scotland, and that enable access to the white herring fisheries industry that might not otherwise apply if the Act is repealed. For that reason, I would welcome any advice—via any channel of inspiration—that the Minister can provide in order to furnish the Committee with an explanation.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

I admit that I am stumped. The hon. Gentleman has beaten me on the White Herring Fisheries Act 1771. When I am defeated, I admit defeat. I do not have the information to hand, but I shall definitely consider the matter and write to the hon. Gentleman and other Committee members.

Clause 229

Andrew George (Liberal Democrat, St Ives)

I hope that I am not wearing your patience thin, Mr. Gale.

Will the Minister explain the interrelationship between the MMO’s operational area and enforcement officers and the IFCAs? To what extent can different enforcement officers co-operate with each other? Currently, sea fisheries committees have their own enforcement arrangements. Presumably, the purpose behind MCZs is to have internal integrity even when their boundaries extend beyond the six-mile limit. A common sense approach would be for enforcement to be seamless across the six-mile zone. I looked for such an approach in the Bill, but did not find it.

The six-mile limit is a contentious issue, especially for those in the inshore industry. In particular, those who lay static gear in, or around, the six-mile zone, often find that their gear has been towed away by foreign vessels fishing up to, and sometimes—illegally—beyond that zone. Without a very good understanding and working relationship between enforcement officers, the six-mile zone will be less well policed than almost anywhere else. That remains a particularly contentious issue. Many engaged properly and responsibly in the industry believe that the law is being regularly flouted. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

I am pleased to be able to provide the hon. Gentleman with some reassurance. We are not reinventing the wheel. Our approach is based on current best practice. The overlapping geographic jurisdiction that he has described will be managed as it is now through close co-operation at an operational level in England and through the Environment Agency’s and the MMO’s seats on each English IFCA. There will also be statutory consultation and a duty on IFCAs to co-operate with the EA. Cross-warranting of enforcement officers will enable the MMO and EA officers to enforce IFCA byelaws, and vice versa, thereby making the best use of expensive enforcement assets.

We want resources to be used well and people and organisations to work together. The clause allows marine enforcement officers to be appointed by the MMO and Welsh Ministers. Such officers could include commissioned officers of the Royal Navy. In fact, anyone in the Royal Navy, RAF or Army in charge of an aircraft or hovercraft will automatically be marine enforcement officers. The clause also allows for the Secretary of State to appoint marine enforcement officers in advance of the establishment of the MMO, so that we can get on with business. It is also worth saying in passing, because it did not have a lot of debate in the other place, that marine enforcement officers will also receive training to ensure that they use their powers properly and safely. We expect that the first MEOs will be existing British sea fisheries officers who have already received MEO training. He is right to make that observation. We want to make best use of collaboration and co-operation and the Bill allows that to happen and to build on existing best practice.

Clause 290

Richard Benyon (Conservative, Newbury)

I beg to move amendment 41, in clause 290, page 186, line 28, at end insert—

‘(6A) Where excepted land described in paragraphs 3 and 11 of Schedule 1 to the CROW Act (excepted land for purposes of Part 1) becomes land which is not excepted land for the purposes of coastal margin by virtue of an order made under section 3A of the CROW Act, in discharging the coastal access duty in relation to the creation of new rights of way Natural England and the Secretary of State shall use their best endeavours to treat such land as excepted land unless they are satisfied that there are no practicable alternatives.’.

We have reached a milestone in our deliberations. We have completed the really important area of the Bill and we are now dealing with something that has been bolted on. Before the Minister rolls about in laughter, what I am actually saying is that this is a very important part of the Bill, but I would have liked it to have been considered separately. What we have discussed up until now is something that has been long called for by a great many people. Coastal access is equally important, but to perhaps a different group of people.

When I say that I am extremely supportive of increasing access to our coastline, Members on the Government Benches might be waiting for me to say “but”. When I say “but” I believe that the legislation can be tightened and improved, but I would like to put on the record that I have always been a supporter of providing greater access to our countryside. There are a variety of different ways of doing that and this is, perhaps, a noble objective, but there are areas where it can be improved.

The amendment seeks to address an issue that was picked up in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 and should be reflected in this legislation; that is, to secure the privacy and protection from members of the public for certain types of building. I will describe why this is extremely important. The new section 3A of the Act states that the CROW Act protection for dwellings and for buildings used for livestock where the public do not have a right of access within 20 m will be moved in relation to the coastal margin.

The justification for that, I am sure, is that a coastal path will, by its nature, in places require closer access to certain buildings—whether they are people’s houses, agricultural buildings, or any other type of building. That really needs some serious thought. Existing rights of way that will become part of the coastal route and already come within 20 m of dwellings or livestock buildings are no argument for saying that this proximity should be visited on any other dwelling or livestock building on the coastal strip.

The amendment provides that where land close to dwellings or livestock buildings has had its excepted protection removed by virtue of a new section 3A order, Natural England and the Secretary of State should none the less be under a statutory duty to treat such land as if it were excepted land. I will put in a caveat there. There may be certain circumstances—very few—where the Secretary of State needs some leeway. An example might be where a promontory or salient of land is squeezed in really narrow terms, in the unlikely event of there being a building there. In other words, in designing and approving the coastal access scheme, Natural England and the Secretary of State should be obliged to avoid creating new rights of way which are positioned in close proximity to human dwellings, or buildings used for farm livestock.

Many residents who live on or very close to the coastline view the coastal access scheme with great concern. Therefore it is reasonable that they should be assured that every effort is being made by the authorities to avoid invading their privacy and the enjoyment of their properties, wherever it is practicable to do so. More importantly, in respect of farm buildings, there is a serious issue of farm biosecurity to be taken into account. As well as the day-to-day management of livestock and agricultural activities, safety for walkers, as well as for livestock, is paramount and must be considered.

We must learn from foot and mouth and other farm diseases. We require a much higher level of biosecurity than we have been happy to accept in the past. I know that the Minister will say that, in the event of a foot and mouth outbreak, farmers and landowners will be allowed to close areas around farm buildings containing livestock. That may be so, but it will probably be too late to do that in many areas. A simple amendment, such as this one, requiring what is already accepted in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 to be applied in this Bill will prevent walkers from walking up to a lambing building, for example, looking over the fence, contaminating the animals and carrying disease. There are some important points to be made on biosecurity and, equally, on safety.

Martin Salter (Labour, Reading West)

The hon. Gentleman is making a strong, powerful case. He talks about the powers available to the Secretary of State for the closures of footpaths and rights of way in an emergency, such as a foot and mouth outbreak, but of course in the countryside—he will know this as a landowner and a farmer—if people have got used to using a certain route and there are no people on the ground to enforce closures, perhaps the best thing is to ensure that that footpath does not run in a potentially dangerous place in the first instance.

Richard Benyon (Conservative, Newbury)

That is precisely what I am trying to achieve here. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for putting that point so eloquently.

One problem with the Bill is that, as with the CROW Act, there can be all sorts of exclusions. However, the majority of people who want to walk in the countryside are not the sort who sit down and look at the local authority website, buy a map, find out where exclusions exist and know when they are leaving farmer A’s land and moving on to farmer B’s and what exclusions and constraints are in place there. So we have to work with the grain of human nature and that means, at the basic level, having an exclusion zone around farm buildings and dwellings where people live. I hope that the Government will accept this important amendment.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

I welcome Committee members’ welcoming this part of the Bill, albeit the hon. Member for Newbury regards it as something of a bolt-on. We regard it as an integral part and parcel of what we propose, because the demand for responsible access to the coast is huge. We are now making more than 70 million trips to the undeveloped coast every year. Recent research shows that walking is the single most popular activity along the coast. The thrust behind this part of the Bill, which is on improving access, is to give people the confidence and the certainty that, when they arrive at the coast there will be clear, well-managed access in either direction and they will be able to enjoy a rich, varied natural environment that many people take for granted.

Under the legislation the Secretary of State and Natural England will be given a new duty to secure two objectives. The first objective is to do with the long-distance route or routes around the whole of the English coast, accessible to the public for journeys on foot. The second objective is that there be a wider margin of recreational land accessible by foot that the public can enjoy in conjunction with the route. Both aims gained broad support during pre-legislative scrutiny.

In the other place, Lord Taylor of Holbeach remarked:

“We fully support the establishment of the coastal route and we also see the value of the second objective in Clause 286,—

which is now clause 290—

“to expand access sufficiently to allow for recreation.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 1 June 2009; Vol. 711, c. 12.]

Lord Greaves also welcomed the coastal access and quoted the Hobhouse report of 1947:

“The love of open air is nowhere more clearly shown than in the use which is made of the coasts of this country. For countless thousands the seaside is almost synonymous with the annual summer holiday”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 30 March 2009; Vol. 709, c. 877.]

These proposals have to be sustainable and workable. One of the themes that we will draw out in the discussion is the input from local people and organisations to bring the routes forward. That underpins amendment 41, which refers to two categories of excepted land under schedule 1 to the CROW Act:

“Land within 20 metres of a dwelling.”

and

“Land covered by pens in use for the temporary reception or detention of livestock.”

Proposed new section 3A(4) of the CROW Act, which is set out in clause 297(5), will allow the Secretary of State by order to modify the provisions of part 1 of the CROW Act

“in their application to land which is coastal margin.”

I recognise the concerns and questions about what changes may be made to the categories of excepted land, as they affect land that is coastal. We published a paper on the order and excepted land, which set out the main measures we expect to be contained in the order.

We have said that land within 20 m of a dwelling will not be excepted land for the purposes of coastal margin because that would not be appropriate where access would be limited to a margin of land next to the sea. In many cases on the coast, there is already access closer than 20 m from a dwelling and it does not cause problems. Further protection is provided by paragraph 2 of schedule 1 to the CROW Act, which excepts buildings and curtilage.

We have no intention of changing the category under paragraph 11 of schedule 1 to the CROW Act, which is mentioned in the amendment:

“Land covered by pens in use for the temporary reception or detention of livestock.”

However, we have said that we are minded to remove paragraph 10 to schedule 1:

“Land within 20 metres of a building which is used for housing livestock”.

The hon. Member for Newbury rightly raises concerns over biosecurity. However, there are safeguards in the excepted land category because we believe that

“buildings or the curtilage of such land”

would include farmyards that are associated with farm buildings. There is also a power in the CROW Act to apply for a restriction or exclusion of access for land management reasons, so those powers are already in place. The hon. Gentleman rightly said that I would refer to the Animal Health Act 2002. Should there be an outbreak of animal disease, there are powers under that Act to close land where appropriate.

We think that we can deal with the issues raised by the hon. Gentleman with the provisions of the CROW Act, particularly the exception for buildings and their curtilage, and the powers in the 2002 Act.

Richard Benyon (Conservative, Newbury)

I want to get this absolutely right. The Minister believes that it is possible within this legislation to have the 20 m around a building as excepted land.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

Within the CROW Act, there are safeguards in the excepted land category. I have referred to the category of buildings and their curtilage, which we believe would include farmyards that are associated with farm buildings. Under the CROW Act, there is also that ability to apply for a restriction or exclusion of access for land management reasons, which I suspect would serve the purpose the hon. Gentleman is trying to satisfy. There are already provisions that can lead to curtailment of access for such reasons so the amendment is not needed.

We will have a further opportunity to debate and discuss the categories of excepted land during the consultation and the debate that we will need to have on the affirmative resolution order under proposed new section 3A of the CROW Act. On that basis, it is not appropriate to accept amendment 41. It would prejudge the results of the consultation on a section 3A order. I understand why the hon. Gentleman has raised the issue, but there is an opportunity to contribute to the consultation on the 3A order, and it should not be prejudged in the Bill. His rightful concerns can form part of the consultation and shape the sort of access that we want. He raised genuine concerns, but I do not think that stamping the measure hard and fast into primary legislation here and now is required. What is required is engagement with the existing powers and consultation on under a 3A order.

Richard Benyon (Conservative, Newbury)

So much of this is going to depend on Natural England. In our discussions, the Minister and his team sounded very emollient and understanding of the needs of those who live and work along the proposed route. However, The Sunday Telegraph, which has made enjoyable reading for hon. Members in recent weeks, had a supplement this week that identified some coastal walks. Importantly, the walks incorporate existing rights of way and voluntary access provision. When one looks closely at the maps of some of the walks—they are around the country and some are in Scotland—one notices that they do not stick dogmatically and rigidly to a route purely on the grounds that it has to provide coastal access. The walks take in the needs of the walker and access and egress points from the coastal route. They also take in the needs of the land user, and routes are deliberately devised to avoid important buildings and access to them. The routes also offer the best views.

We can learn from voluntary access agreements in framing the Bill. A lot of work could have been done to expand and fulfil the Minister’s manifesto objectives to increase access to coastal Britain using a voluntary approach. I lay down a marker: where the Bill is too dogmatic and where it allows a simple-minded approach from certain authorities in how they progress the plan, we will seek to amend it. I hope, with the Minister’s assurances, that we can address the very important issue of farm buildings.

I have one more important point to make. Many existing footpaths go through farm yards, but the direction of travel on footpath designation in the countryside is moving them out of farm yards, for safety and biosecurity reasons. Some farm yards in my constituency are the convergence point for four different footpaths. During the foot and mouth outbreak, enforcing exclusions was a nightmare for those farmers. One of the great values of the Bill is that it will improve tourism in certain areas, which is why it has been welcomed by many people who live in coastal areas, and why it is important that we get it right. Some farm houses will seek to benefit from the Bill by opening bed and breakfasts. By excluding the route from the vicinity of a farm house whose owners want to benefit from tourism, we could be damaging a legitimate and important part of their business. It is perfectly possible to access the dwelling house without accessing the farm buildings. Perhaps the Minister will assure me that those concerns will be carried through the Bill.

Martin Salter (Labour, Reading West)

The hon. Gentleman and I are neighbours politically, and a project that runs through both our constituencies is a testimony to the value of an effective voluntary agreement. The Sustrans cycle path along the Kennet and Avon river and canal had the potential to generate serious conflict between different users, but we had the good sense to sit down and consider whether the towpath route would get in the way of fishermen, bird watchers, walkers or boaters, and reconfigured the route so that all stakeholders were happy. The voluntary approach worked well, and I think neither he nor I had a single complaint during our time as public representatives as a result of that approach. Surely that should inform how we deal with coastal access wherever possible.

Richard Benyon (Conservative, Newbury)

Absolutely, and if the Minister had delegated responsibility for delivering his manifesto to me, I would have been able to provide his Government with a wonderful scheme involving local landowners and farmers in a way that has worked in my area and around the country. I just hope that the flexibility that he talks about will exist, and if he can assure me that those practices will be taken into account, I am happy to withdraw my amendment.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. The argument is somewhat circuitous, because we are arguing both for a blanket-type approach and for flexibility. I assure him that in the consultation we anticipate removal of the standard 20 m exemption in CROW, but we want more flexibility for landowners, farmers and others who want to use their premises on the coast for cafĂ(c)s, restaurants or bed and breakfasts. We want flexibility, and input into the consultation is key to protect their interests as well as those of people with genuine biosecurity interests. That is where we want to make progress. With that assurance, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the Bill.

Richard Benyon (Conservative, Newbury)

I will not withdraw the Bill—I do not yet have that power—but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 291

Richard Benyon (Conservative, Newbury)

I beg to move amendment 33, in clause 291, page 187, leave out ‘aim to’.

Ann McKechin (Labour, Glasgow North)

The amendment, as the hon. Member for Newbury said, sets out how the Secretary of State and Natural England must go about fulfilling the coastal access duty, and sets out what they must take into account. Under the provision as drafted, they must have regard to the safety and convenience of those using the English coastal route, the desirability of the route being close to the sea and providing views of the sea and, as far as reasonably practicable, they must ensure that interruptions to the route are kept to a minimum. That is clearly stated in subsection (2). They must also aim to strike a fair balance between the interests of the public in having rights of access over land, and the interests of any persons with a relevant interest in the land. That means that a balance would be struck regarding the particular piece of land—not that the interests of the relevant person should be set against the interests of the public in the route and in coastal access as a whole. However, the coastal access duty requires Natural England to propose a route, and it must bear that in mind when trying to strike a fair balance. The body is under a duty to consider all options for the route, between the public interest in having the route and the interest of the landowner in having it cross his or her land. That will necessarily involve a balancing exercise between different landowners’ interests.

It is our intention that Natural England and the Secretary of State do everything that is reasonably practicable to achieve a fair balance. I cannot support the amendment, as requiring that Natural England and the Secretary of State “aim to” strike a fair balance is a strong inducement for them to do so, and we provide additional protection by making the Secretary of State jointly responsible with Natural England for making that decision, which should reassure those with an interest in the land. If they failed to do so, a person with a relevant interest in the land could object to the route under the procedure set out in schedule 19. We hope that consensus can be achieved in most cases, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has indicated. That balance lies at the heart of our proposals, and I believe that the correct balance has been struck. I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment on the basis of those reassurances.

Richard Benyon (Conservative, Newbury)

My amendment was sensible, in that it sought to rebalance the fair balance, if the Minister will allow me to express a tautology. However, I understand the points that have been made, and hope that through this process we are able to reassure all sides in the debate that the fair balance can be achieved. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Richard Benyon (Conservative, Newbury)

I beg to move amendment 34, in clause 291, page 187, line 23, at end insert—

‘( ) owns the sporting rights’.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 46, in clause 296, page 196, leave out lines 14 and 15 and insert—

‘(a) has a legal estate or legal interest in the land, or’.

Amendment 43, in clause 296, page 196, line 16, at end insert—

‘(d) owns the sporting rights.’.

Richard Benyon (Conservative, Newbury)

The amendments seek to ensure that those who own sporting rights, separate from being the owner or occupier of land, are included in the statutory provisions for the consultation and in all rights that go with that status. In the Bill, the definition of a person with a relevant interest in affected land who would have particular statutory rights in the consultation process, as well as in the implementation of coastal access, covers only those who own a freehold title or a leasehold title, or are persons in lawful occupation of affected land. Unlike the definition in the CROW Act, that completely neglects those with sporting rights, who have a legitimate legal interest in land.

Sporting rights are granted by type of lease, licence or agreement, and constitute a separate property right. It is vital to understand that they are capable of being owned entirely separately from the land itself, and can be bought and sold. As a legal right, they can be enforced against all parties, including the owner or the occupier of land. Bizarrely, the current definition of a person with a relevant interest in affected land gives full statutory recognition and rights to a person with a simple permission to graze cattle, for example, which in law is an unenforceable right entirely at the discretion of the owner or occupier of the land, while owners of sporting rights have been excluded, despite sporting rights constituting in some cases a valuable property right that can be enforced against all parties, including the owner-occupier of land. If the coastal path, and in particular the additional spreading room, includes land that is used for shooting, that interest in the land will be directly affected by the path, and therefore those who own a sporting right to carry out shooting on the land should be consulted, and that right should be in the Bill. That is important from the public safety perspective, as much as any other. Owners of sporting rights need to be fully consulted and informed as to where members of the public may go, so that they can take the necessary measures to prevent any risk to the public exercising their right of access.

Martin Salter (Labour, Reading West)

The hon. Gentleman will be aware of starred amendment 65, which seeks to achieve the same objective; it was tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test. Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that it is not just shooting interests that are concerned about this issue and that it could impact, in certain circumstances, on recreational sea fishing? He quite rightly raises the matter of public safety. Of course, the casting of heavy leads or weights from the shore is something that is potentially dangerous and sea fishermen do not want to do that if there is any chance of causing injury to innocent passers-by. There is a wider sporting interest at stake here than just shooters and I support that interest.

Richard Benyon (Conservative, Newbury)

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is for that reason that we used the words, “sporting rights”, rather than just the word, “shooting”. When we have this route in mind, we must not think simply of particular areas of the coast that may be relevant to Members in this room. There may be a very narrow area of land between the sea and, for example, a cliff, or there could be much more open land. We have to bear in mind the needs and legitimate rights of all relevant sporting organisations and their supporters.

I believe that owners of sporting rights should be included in the definition of those who have a relevant interest in land, as they are under the CROW Act. The failure to include owners of sporting rights in that way means that they are, for example, not covered by the fundamental principle and statutory obligation behind the coastal access provisions that Natural England and the Secretary of State must

“aim to strike a fair balance between the interests of the public in having access over land and the interests of any person with a relevant interest in the land.”

We come back to that important phrase again—“aim to”. This issue comes down fundamentally to that point.

In addition, there are provisions that enable those with a relevant interest to make an objection to a coastal access report under schedule 1A to the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1959, which is introduced by schedule 19 to the Bill. Hence, those provisions enable those with a relevant interest to have access to the independent appeals process. It should be noted that the need for access to a right of appeal has been clearly demonstrated by the CROW Act. Under that Act, there have been approximately 3,000 appeals to date, of which about two thirds have been successful. Clearly, those responsible for implementing access do not always get it right. Clause 296 states that those with a relevant interest in land are persons whom Natural England must

“take reasonable steps to consult”.

A further area of concern is sporting rights on existing CROW access land and what happens when land is reclassified as “coastal margin”, especially in respect of spreading room. The owners of those existing sporting rights have certain rights under the CROW Act. Under section 22, for example, they can close land at their discretion. The Government propose that that right will not apply to coastal margin, with no distinction being made between the route and additional spreading room. If such rights are to be lost, owners of those rights should have full statutory rights to object to proposals to reclassify land where existing rights are at stake.

That issue does not seem to be addressed anywhere in the Bill, or in any supplementary guidance, which means that owners of sporting rights will only have the limited rights of any member of the public where land with existing CROW protections is reclassified. It is worth recalling that the Joint Committee on Human Rights stated, in respect of the absence of an independent appeals process from the Bill as it was introduced and happily later amended, that that rendered the Bill incompatible with article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Joint Committee noted:

“In all comparable legislation providing for the designation of public rights of access over private land there is provision for a right of appeal by those affected to an independent court or tribunal.”

The Joint Committee went on to say:

“The Secretary of State’s decision approving the coastal access scheme will amount to the determination of the ‘civil rights’ of those with an interest in the land affected, within the meaning of Article 6(1) ECHR”.

That is the right to a fair hearing. The Joint Committee recommended that the Bill be amended to provide a right of appeal to an independent body, saying that an amendment

“would remove the incompatibility with Article 6 ECHR that we have identified”.

That led to the introduction of an independent right of appeal, which is greatly welcomed.

There is a key group of people who do not have the same status as those listed as having a relevant interest, which does not sit comfortably with the reasoning of the Joint Committee, which specifically refers to the determination of the civil rights of those with an interest in affected land. The position appears to be all the more arbitrary and unjust, given that the Bill gives greater protection to those with no legally enforceable rights than to the owners of sporting rights who do have a legally enforceable property right.

The Government’s arguments in another place on this issue do not stand up to scrutiny. The Minister, Lord Hunt, argued that land under CROW included a number of grouse moors that made shooting interests particularly pertinent and that Natural England’s involvement with local authorities would ensure that shooting interests were properly represented because local authorities

“will have an in-depth knowledge of local interests, such as shooting interests, and will be able to advise Natural England on the proper persons who should be consulted.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 1 June 2009; Vol. 711, c. 31.]

First, the CROW Act makes specific provision for grouse moors. Obviously that is not particularly relevant here, but that provision applied only in respect of dogs under section 23, which the Government intend to exclude under the proposed section 3A order. That is understandable in the context of the current proposals with regard to such matters as grouse moors, although it does not address the other part of the measure, which deals with lambing. I believe that that could be of great concern to farmers in certain parts of coastal England and Wales. It also fails to take account of the fact that shooting takes place on all types of land, and especially in coastal areas. Some 59 leases are granted by the Crown estate to wildfowling clubs covering around 500 miles of the foreshore. These are very ad hoc arrangements enabling people with a great love of the countryside to contribute to conservation. It is hard to see how their rights will be properly secured under this provision.

Secondly, there is no reason to suppose that local authorities have an in-depth knowledge of the complex nature of land ownership in their areas. They understand certain aspects of it, but I would not expect my local authority to have an in-depth understanding of the wide variety of sporting rights that exist in an inland area like mine and I am sure that the same would be true in coastal areas.

Thirdly, the Government propose to disapply section 22 of CROW under the proposed section 3A order, which allows the closure of land for a limited number of days at the discretion of owners or those with an interest in the land, and is vital to those exercising sporting rights. Section 22 of CROW would continue to apply to spreading room, which is the coastal margin other than that over which the route passes, but section 24 can now be used by owners of sporting rights to obtain closures or restrictions to enable them to exercise their rights. There is an essential difference between people who own the land, and who could live many miles away and not have much interest in it, and those who are on the land all the time and could have an interest in the sporting potential that it offers.

Section 24 relates to applications for closures or restrictions in respect of land for land management. Is the activity of shooting by a person owning sporting rights separate from the land in fact land management for the purposes of the Bill? In correspondence, DEFRA has stated that

“land management reasons... can include management for shooting.”

Does that only cover management activities preparatory to shooting but not the actual shooting, or does it cover both? We need to know the answer. Furthermore, the process of having to apply may be impractical in cases in which the decision on whether to shoot has to be taken at short notice, particularly in pest control.

We want sea anglers to be able to go and enjoy their activity at a moment’s notice. That is part of the joy of activities in the countryside: one does not have to sit down and plan or spend endless hours on the internet trying to find out where exclusions exist. We should be trying to work with the grain of wishes of users of the countryside. If a request is denied, there is no guarantee of a swift appeal under section 30 of the CROW Act. Rights could be rendered meaningless by burdensome bureaucracy and delay. It should also be noted that the application of section 30 won during the Bill’s passage in another place could be rendered meaningless by the use of a future section 3A order by which the remaining CROW protections could be disapplied in respect of coastal margin.

How can owners of sporting rights take comfort from any assurance if they are not even covered by the statutory duty in the Bill under which Natural England and the Secretary of State must aim to strike a fair balance between the interests of the public in having access and the interests of a person with a relevant interest in the land? According to the Bill, they have no relevant interest greater than any other member of the public. That is clearly nonsense. As a look at the CROW Act or the basic principles of property law in this country will confirm, the arguments advanced to date by the Government have produced no good justification for what some must see as an attack on a fundamental right where the proper relationship between citizen and state are at risk.

Martin Salter (Labour, Reading West)

I rise in support of the amendments. Mr. Gale, I draw your attention to the fact that we may be discussing water in the Bill, but the roof just outside this room is leaking tremendously at the moment.

Richard Benyon (Conservative, Newbury)

Someone has nicked the lead.

Charles Walker (Conservative, Broxbourne)

For fishing.

Martin Salter (Labour, Reading West)

Perhaps.

I agree with the hon. Member for Newbury, but I must tease him gently. He referred to local authorities having an in-depth knowledge of who owns what and what sporting rights exist. I am sure that he will not mind if I reveal that when he was preparing for a speech the other day for the “save our rivers” campaign, which he and I both support, he required a list of all the angling clubs from my constituency to his. I was happy to provide it, as I am a member of most of them, but the irony was not lost on me that some of those angling clubs rent water off him, so there are cases where even the landowner is not entirely sure which parcel of land is leased to which particular sporting interest. I mean that in a most affectionate and friendly way.

I would also like to put on record my slight surprise that although this is a hot issue, particularly among wildfowling and fishing interests, the Countryside Alliance, which is normally quick to lobby me on such matters, has been strangely quiet. However, I understand that it has opened up its usual channels of communication with the Conservative party. I would like to point out that the election has not yet occurred. It is always useful when lobbying organisations are equal across the House in making their representations.

Charles Walker (Conservative, Broxbourne)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Martin Salter (Labour, Reading West)

As long as the hon. Gentleman is rude to the Countryside Alliance.

Charles Walker (Conservative, Broxbourne)

Is it not nice that wildfowling, like fishing, crosses all social and economic boundaries?

Martin Salter (Labour, Reading West)

Yes. I am conscious that Members from this party might not speak to me ever again if I continue this love-in with the hon. Member for Broxbourne.

I was lobbied heavily by an organisation for which I have immense respect, and which I cited in my contribution to the Second Reading debate. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Newbury for reminding the Committee of the deliberations of the Joint Committee, which raised the issue as well.

There is correspondence on record from the Minister to the British Association for Shooting and Conservation that is clearly drafted by civil servants and is, frankly, nonsense. It needs to be deconstructed. I know that the Minister, as a reasonable man, will have a way forward for us, but I will read into the record the response to the initial concerns about why the arguments hold very little water, like the roof of the House of Commons.

The Department’s response to BASC can be summarised as follows: shooting is not pertinent to coastal access issues. The letter mentions only wildfowling, and ignores game shooting, pest control—an issue raised by the hon. Member for Newbury—fishing and stalking interests. The Department claims that coastal land is more complicated and has more interests, and that it believes that shooting tenants and holders of sporting rights should be excluded from those able to appeal against the route. That is on the record as a response from the Department to shooting interests, so there is clearly a conflict which needs to be resolved. DEFRA goes on to sweeten the pill by saying it will give Natural England the power to exclude tidal land from spreading room. However, Natural England had already planned to do that. It is not going to help a lot of the shoots, pest control, fishing or stalking interests on the coast.

Here is the irony. A Labour Government have given more rights to the tenants of grouse moors than to wildfowling clubs. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs understands country pursuits. Wildfowling is a pretty ordinary down-to-earth pursuit—a down-in-the-mud pursuit. People spend a lot of time up to their waist or neck in water. How ironic it is that those who can afford expensive grouse moor shooting appear to be given rights in the appeal process, rather than Joe Soap participating in the centuries-old activity of wildfowling.

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.