View PDF - United Kingdom Parliament

37 Marine and Coastal Access Bill 26 OCTOBER 2009 Marine and Coastal Access Bill 38
[Lords]
[Lords]
Turning to the Government amendments, I welcome
the Minister’s confirmation regarding the establishment
of 10 IFCAs. As he knows, I have been campaigning for
that for some time to reflect the significant local engagement
that currently exists through the sea fisheries committees.
That is something of such good quality and value that it
would have been a great disappointment had the
Government decided to go for the original proposal in
the Bradley report, which was significantly to reduce
the number of IFCAs compared with the current range
of sea fisheries committees. I should declare an interest
in the sense that two sea fisheries committees operate in
my constituency—in west Cornwall and on the Isles of
Scilly, with the latter having a distinct and important
role in protecting not only marine conservation but a
sustainable fishing industry in its own area, apart from
that around mainland Cornwall.
I would be grateful if the Minister would expand a
little more on the make-up of the IFCAs, to which the
hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Benyon) referred. Who
will sit on them, and how will marine conservation and
commercial interests be balanced when they are first
established? Given my intervention, the Minister will
recognise that there are already good, well-established
working relationships, certainly between the sea fisheries
committees and, I would argue, between those committees
and the Environment Agency. Many of those relationships
work well because they are informal. He assured me
that the amendments will not in any way curtail or
discourage the informal arrangements that have already
been established, and would no doubt continue to be
established, between the eligible bodies, including the
Environment Agency. However, it is important that the
value of those arrangements, particularly in monitoring
enforcement, should not be overlooked. For example,
the vessel that is used in Cornwall, the Saint Piran,
often undertakes work for the Devon sea fisheries
committee, and goes to the Isles of Scilly as well. In
fact, this summer the Secretary of State joined me on
board the Saint Piran and saw its excellent work. The
work of that vessel is largely governed by an informal
arrangement between the sea fisheries committees. It
would be a great pity if those informal agreements and
arrangements were undermined by the terms of the
amendments. I look forward to further reassurance
from the Minister on that.
Broadly speaking, the amendments assume that we
are talking about agreements, not disagreements; indeed,
they are about aiding and encouraging formal agreements
between the eligible bodies. However, they do not foresee
the possibility that there may be disagreements between
bodies in areas that border each other, such as the upper
estuaries, which the Minister described. Can he point
me to elements of the amendments that might help
to resolve any disagreements that arose? Similarly, he
referred to the five-year review and the 20-year length
of the agreements as set out in new clause 2. It would
be helpful if the Minister explained a little more about
why the Government have resolved to use those
particular lengths of time. What would happen if a
dispute between organisations that had established formal
agreement occurred long before the five-year review
period was up?
I have asked some probing questions to seek clarification
from the Minister on measures that the Government
have brought forward entirely properly, the spirit of
which I strongly support. I look forward to his response.
4.15 pm
Martin Salter (Reading, West) (Lab): I support the
Government’s new clauses and consequential amendments,
and I thank the Minister for responding positively in
Committee on 7 July to my amendment 51, which had
the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth,
Sutton (Linda Gilroy), the hon. Members for Brecon
and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) and for St. Ives (Andrew
George), and the hon. Member for Broxbourne
(Mr. Walker), who is sometimes my fishing partner.
It is good that the Government have listened and
recognised a clear flaw in the original concept of IFCAs—
that they would have had responsibility right up to the
tidal limit, even though they are primarily about sea
fishery interests for recreational angling and for commercial
and conservational purposes. It was always somewhat
absurd to suggest that the River Thames at Teddington
should be patrolled by the local sea fishery committee.
We would never have seen a boat from a sea fishery
committee or an IFCA on the tidal Thames there, the
tidal Severn at Gloucester or, I am sure, the tidal Trent
at Collingham, just outside Nottingham. I am pleased
that our representations have been listened to.
Mr. Benyon: The hon. Gentleman puts his finger on a
potential problem, which is defining exactly where estuaries
finish and the sea begins or vice versa. Does he have a
clear definition in his mind that would identify clearly
where all types of estuary start and finish, and where
the responsibilities of the organisation in charge of
them should therefore lie? Perhaps the Minister should
respond to that point.
Martin Salter: I thank the hon. Gentleman, for whose
support in Committee on this matter I was grateful. The
reason why it is not possible to draw a defined line on
the map, and why we must have definitions of the
upstream limits of commercial fishing interests, is that
those limits vary from estuary to estuary. On the River
Humber, for example, the commercial fishing interest is
many miles upstream, whereas on many other estuaries,
particularly on the south coast, it is barely upstream at
all. The decision has to be made on a case-by-case basis.
Our debate in Committee was excellent and instructive
about how Parliament can apply its collective knowledge
to that difficult and not easily surmountable problem.
I obviously support the Government’s proposals, as
they are based on the points that we raised in Committee.
The power to delegate to the Environment Agency is
the obvious route forward, and there could be other
delegations if appropriate. I say to the hon. Member for
Leominster (Bill Wiggin) that it is slightly bonkers to
query a delegation to the EA on freshwater fishery
management, given that it is the agency responsible for
that. We are not likely to delegate the matter to the
United Nations or anybody else. That might explain
why he is no longer the Opposition spokesman.
Bill Wiggin: It is no good the hon. Gentleman attacking
me, because after my intervention I heard the Ministers
say, “Good question.” Perhaps he should speak to his
colleagues on the Front Bench.
Martin Salter: I am happy to attack any Member, as
the hon. Gentleman well knows. Far more importantly,
I am happy to play my part in ensuring that what
started life as an excellent Bill will be an absolutely
brilliant one.