View PDF - United Kingdom Parliament

35 Marine and Coastal Access Bill 26 OCTOBER 2009 Marine and Coastal Access Bill 36
[Lords]
[Lords]
[Huw Irranca-Davies]
elements of that delegation. First, the delegation of
functions would occur from an IFCA to an “eligible
body” in relation to any specified areas of an IFC
district. Secondly, any delegation would require the
Secretary of State’s approval, and it would be carried
out only where there was agreement between the IFCA
and the relevant body. That is important, because, to
take up the hon. Gentleman’s point, I should say that
through that mechanism we are looking for collaboration
and partnership, not an imposed solution. Any delegation
would have to be by agreement and on the approval of
the Secretary of State.
Thirdly, “eligible bodies”could include any neighbouring
IFCA, given the example of working in partnership,
and the Environment Agency. Fourthly, the Secretary of
State could also, by order, add additional eligible public
bodies that had a purpose or function that was connected
to the inshore marine area. Finally, the proposed changes
include a requirement for the Secretary of State to
review all those agreements at least every five years, and
to cancel agreements if appropriate in the light of such
reviews. None the less, under the terms of the Secretary
of State’s original approval, it would be possible to
waive that requirement.
Let me make it clear, however, that we do not have
specific expectations about when the option of delegation
will be applied; that is not for us to decide in the Chamber.
If the proposed changes are accepted, the issue will be
looked at in detail by IFCAs and the Environment
Agency. However, the proposed changes would provide
useful additional flexibility, as the Committee asked for,
and would future-proof the Bill. For example, they
would allow one IFCA to exercise management right
across an estuary, even if a local authority boundary
split the estuary; and, they would allow for the Environment
Agency to manage all fisheries in upper estuaries where
marine species are insignificant.
I hope that the proposed changes provide reassurance
that the Bill will allow fisheries management to be
carried out as flexibly and efficiently as possible in
inshore areas and, in particular, in estuaries. That issue
exercised many Committee members, including my hon.
Friends the Members for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda
Gilroy) and for Reading, West (Martin Salter), who are
in the Chamber, and others. The proposed changes
would benefit the users of the inshore marine area and
the regulators.
Mr. Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD):
If an IFCA delegated a responsibility to another body,
such as the Environment Agency, and subsequently
wanted to take back that power, would it have to wait
for the review that the Minister mentioned, or would it
be able to do so with the Secretary of State’s permission?
Huw Irranca-Davies: No, we would not want to have
to wait five years for a review. It would be within the
Secretary of State’s power to revisit the decision, and if
the arrangement were redundant or were not working,
or if there were a local desire for a different configuration
of fisheries management, that could be reviewed at that
time. That flexibility exists. The five-year review offers
the opportunity to consider how all the arrangements
are working. With those comments, I commend
Government new clauses 2 to 6 and Government
amendments 6 to 8 to the House, and I look forward to
hearing from the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire
(Mr. Williams), if he is lucky enough to catch your eye,
Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con): It is a great
pleasure to have the Bill back on the Floor of the
House. I hope that the constructive relationship that we
have established across the House is maintained as we
work towards introducing important legislation governing
the future of our marine environment.
New clauses 2 to 6 and amendments 6 and 8 relate to
the delegation of functions by IFCAs to other eligible
bodies. When this issue was raised in Committee, not
least by the hon. Member for Reading, West (Martin
Salter), the Minister committed to bringing something
back on Report. The amendments will ensure that
IFCAs are able to delegate elements of inshore fisheries
management to other bodies. We believe that power
over fisheries management needs to be returned to as
local a level as possible. Fishermen, scientists and
conservationists who work at the local level know how
to manage our marine environment best and should be
trusted with managing its future. We therefore see an
important role for IFCAs in the future of fisheries
management, but it is imperative that they represent the
diverse range of interests that often play a role in our
fisheries. The old sea fisheries committees that IFCAs
will replace have, on occasion, been accused of being
unrepresentative, especially of interests such as recreational
angling. IFCAs must have a new, more representative
membership.
IFCAs will not always be best placed to carry out
certain functions, some of which could be managed by
other organisations or by agencies that have more relevant
knowledge or are simply better placed to perform them.
It is important that IFCAs are flexible and are able to
delegate their functions where necessary or sensible,
and we therefore support the proposed measures. It is
crucial that the relationships between the Environment
Agency and IFCAs, Natural England and the Marine
Management Organisation are clear in the Bill.
In Committee, we spoke about wanting to avoid a
turf war. I apologise again for suggesting that it might
be a surf war, and I promise not to suggest that IFCAs
should be fit for porpoise; I shall try to keep the puns to
an absolute minimum. How those organisations relate
to each other is vital. Ultimately, it should be up to
IFCAs—not, as the Minister says, to the Government
or Government agencies—to decide how to devolve
relevant powers to as local or relevant a level as possible.
It should also be for IFCAs to decide where the correct
balance of those powers lies. We are broadly supportive
of the measures, and we look forward with interest to
hearing what the amendment of the hon. Member for
Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) reflects about
the Welsh dimension to this issue.
Andrew George: I am pleased to have this opportunity
to reflect on the Committee stage of the Bill. The debate
has been very constructive across parties, and I congratulate
both the Ministers who served on the Committee for
the manner in which they discharged their duties. I look
forward to hearing further constructive debate today.