View PDF - United Kingdom Parliament

33 Marine and Coastal Access Bill 26 OCTOBER 2009 Marine and Coastal Access Bill 34
[Lords]
[Lords]
Government new clause 4—Variation, review and
cancellation of agreements under section [Power to enter
into agreements with eligible bodies].
Government new clause 5—Agreements under section
[Power to enter into agreements with eligible bodies]:
particular powers.
Government new clause 6—Supplementary provisions
with respect to agreements under section [Power to enter
into agreements with eligible bodies].
Government amendments 6 to 8
Amendment 27, in clause 184, page 117, line 27, at
end insert—
‘(2A) The provisions in sections [Power to enter into
agreements with eligible bodies], [Eligible bodies], [Variation,
review and cancellation of agreements under section [Power to
enter into agreements with eligible bodies]], [Agreements under
section [Power to enter into agreements with eligible bodies]:
particular powers] and [Supplementary provisions with respect to
agreements under section [Power to enter into agreements with
eligible bodies]] shall apply to Welsh Ministers in relation to
Wales.’.
Huw Irranca-Davies: I shall speak to new clauses 2, 3,
4, 5 and 5, and amendments 6 to 8.
Part 6 will replace sea fisheries committees with inshore
fisheries and conservation authorities—IFCAs—in
England. These 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, while retaining
local involvement in decision making. Under the current
Bill model, IFCAs will lead on marine species management
in the inshore area, including in estuaries. The Environment
Agency will lead on protection for salmon, trout, other
migratory species and freshwater fish in estuaries and as
far out as the 6 nautical mile limit.
As many hon. Members are aware, in January we
launched a consultation on options for the number of
future inshore fisheries and conservation districts. Following
that consultation, I am happy to confirm that 10 IFC
districts will be established, and the new IFCAs will be
established with full powers and duties in April 2011.
The Department will carry out more detailed consultation
in 2010 to establish the exact landward and seaward
boundaries of the new districts. I know that that
announcement will be welcomed by all Members of the
House.
During a useful Commons Committee discussion on
part 6, concerns were raised by a number of Members
that the Bill as drafted did not provide sufficient flexibility
to ensure the most joined-up inshore fisheries management,
particularly in areas such as estuaries. In Committee,
considerable pressure was exerted on us to amend the
Bill so that IFCA functions can be delegated to the
Environment Agency in particular, so that marine fisheries
in estuaries could be managed in the most efficient way.
To address this, we have tabled new clauses 2, 3, 4, 5
and 6 and amendments 6, 7 and 8, which provide the
option for IFCA functions to be delegated to the
Environment Agency and to neighbouring IFCAs. An
order-making power is provided to add to the list of
eligible bodies so as to enable delegation to be made to
other, named public bodies. Bodies can also be removed
from the list.
Bill Wiggin (Leominster) (Con): Will the Minister be
kind enough to explain briefly why he has chosen the
Environment Agency rather than the Marine Management
Organisation for this function?
Huw Irranca-Davies: That is a good point. The Bill is
future-proofed, in that the Secretary of State, with the
agreement of an IFCA and partners on the ground,
could agree in future to delegate to another body. That
could be the MMO, another IFCA or the Environment
Agency. It could be another body which, at this moment,
I cannot imagine. We have future-proofed the Bill, but
we have also made it clear that the Secretary of State
can waive that delegation power. The purpose of the
measures is to give that flexibility, recognising, as has
been the focus of the Bill, that there will be local
solutions on the ground. I am sure the hon. Gentleman
will welcome that.
Mr. Austin Mitchell (Great Grimsby) (Lab): I have no
quarrel with or opposition to what is proposed, because
it seems a sensible redistribution of functions to bodies
best able to perform them. However, I should like my
hon. Friend’s assurance that fishing, which has been
excessively heavily burdened with regulations, will not
be burdened with further regulations as a result of this
reorganisation.
Huw Irranca-Davies: My hon. Friend, who is a stalwart
advocate of the fisheries not only in terms of Grimsby,
in his constituency, but throughout the UK, is right to
raise the issue of fisheries’ regulation, but I assure him
that the proposed changes would provide flexibility to
ensure that the best organisation had responsibility for
forward fisheries management locally and regionally.
The proposed changes would not add any bureaucracy
or regulation, and he can report back those assurances
not only to his constituents, but to sea fishermen throughout
the UK.
4pm
Andrew George (St. Ives) (LD): Do the Government’s
proposed changes risk causing an unintended consequence?
Sea fisheries committees already co-operate informally
across borders, and they can assist each other, for
example, with monitoring and enforcement measures.
No formal agreements exist, but would the proposed
changes require IFCAs to introduce such agreements?
Huw Irranca-Davies: No. The Bill includes a provision
to formalise agreements on working across estuaries or
water areas, but existing voluntary arrangements and
the ability to work together across areas, including on
enforcement and so on, will continue. The proposed
changes would not hamper that arrangement, and we
would not want that to happen. However, they are
designed to respond to the concerns, rightly raised in
Committee, that the demarcation of IFCAs and the
Environment Agency represented a somewhat rigid
approach to who was responsible, not least in upper
estuary areas. The sole purpose of the proposed changes
is to introduce flexibility; it is certainly not to override
the effective existing partnerships with sea fisheries
committees and others.
The Bill already provides for MMO functions to be
delegated to relevant bodies, including IFCAs, and our
proposed changes would provide for a similar model of
delegation for IFCA functions. I shall turn to the key