View PDF - United Kingdom Parliament

41 Marine and Coastal Access Bill 26 OCTOBER 2009 Marine and Coastal Access Bill 42
[Lords]
[Lords]
Martin Salter: I thank the Minister for that clarification.
He will be aware of representations from the Angling
Trust, which broadly welcomes this Bill, that the current
composition of sea fisheries committees has left the
recreational angling sector very poorly represented. Will
that wrong be put right? In addition, the current system
allows local authority representatives to name substitutes,
if someone cannot make a meeting. It is important that
that right is extended to other stakeholders, who will
have an active role to play in the new IFCAs.
Huw Irranca-Davies: I confirm that what we all want—
and what the Bill is designed to do—is to ensure that
those interests represented on the IFCAs are genuinely
representative. Where there is a strong recreational seaangling
fraternity—or sorority—in an area, it will want
to have its say as well. Having that local determination
and representing genuinely local interests is key, including
in Newlyn, for example, where there are significantly
different types of fisheries. Whether those involved are
commercial or recreational anglers, they need to be able
to have their say.
4.30 pm
The balance of members appointed by the MMO
to each IFCA will reflect the economic, social and
environmental needs of that IFCA. Members will therefore
be appointed according to the relevant expertise that
they bring, which is the right way to proceed. The detail
of the appointment process will be drafted in guidance,
which will be helpful to members and which we will
consult on in 2010. That will help to ensure that the
membership of each IFCA has the right representation
and knowledge across all the relevant sectors, exactly as
I have been saying. Given the level of sea angling in the
inshore area, however, we expect sea anglers to continue
to be represented on IFCAs.
Andrew George: The Minister has mentioned Newlyn.
He will be aware that there are conflicts between different
fishing sectors operating within the six-mile zone, and
also out to the 12-mile zone, although we are primarily
talking about the six-mile zone. He has referred to
clause 151, and although I do not expect him to prescribe
the answers today, will he acknowledge that there are
conflicts among recreational sea anglers, as well as
among different inshore fishing sectors? That, too, needs
to be resolved through the process that he is describing.
Huw Irranca-Davies: I agree. There are, and will
continue to be, different priorities in different parts of
the fishing fraternity. However, one of the benefits of
the consultation will be that those interests are genuinely
represented in that process. That does not mean that
there will not be difficult challenges that will require
people to sit down and agree the priorities in their
IFCA area. However, the important thing is first to
ensure that the membership is properly representative
and then to argue that out. The hon. Gentleman is
absolutely right that the worst possible way forward
would be for a Minister to prescribe exactly who should
be on or to say arbitrarily, “We’ll make sure that we
have one recreational sea angler, one rod-and-line angler,”
and so on. That is not the way, because things will differ
among the 10 IFCA areas.
Bill Wiggin: Will the Minister outline what people
should do if they do not agree with the make-up?
Huw Irranca-Davies: Not only will the IFCA membership
be decided in consultation, but everybody will have the
opportunity to put their views forward. I am sure that
some people will feel that they are not represented fully,
but that can change from time to time as well. We are
enhancing the membership of IFCAs, so that they will
have more than the traditional expertise of sea fisheries
committees. It is worth putting on record the fact that
there is a genuine body of expertise in sea fisheries
committees around the country, but we are talking
about an enhanced role, with other people involved.
Rather than having me prescribe what will happen,
everyone will have the opportunity in the consultation
to put in their two-penn’orth about who should be
represented.
The hon. Member for St. Ives talked about disagreements,
which touches on the point that the hon. Member for
Leominster (Bill Wiggin) has just raised. If there are
disagreements, there is a duty in clause 169 for IFCAs
to co-operate with other local bodies. We expect them
to work closely together, as they do now. Local issues
should be looked at locally, without nanny-state
interventions or a Big Brother or big Minister stepping
in. We are confident, by and large, that it will be
possible to resolve such issues locally.
The hon. Member for St. Ives asked why we have
chosen a five-year review and how disagreements will be
resolved in between. New clause 4 says “no later than”
every five years. A review could therefore be conducted
sooner if, for example, there were representations from
a relevant body, or if the Secretary of State decided, in
respect of representations made to him, that there was a
need to review the situation on the ground.
I welcome the support of the hon. Member for
Broxbourne (Mr. Walker) and his work on the issue
over some time. It is pertinent that he has recognised
that the new clauses and amendments deliver common
sense—we cannot always say that about legislation, but
they are common sense. My hon. Friend the Member
for Reading, West (Martin Salter) was challenged on
the definition—I understand the point about the definition.
This is a practical way forward. It will not be necessary
arbitrarily to define the definition, because it will be
known from the people who are out there doing the
work and patrolling. The amendment will allow a local
definition to be introduced. I welcome the support of
my hon. Friend and others as the Bill went through
Committee; it delivers common sense.
I welcome the intervention by the hon. Member for
Castle Point (Bob Spink), who is a strong advocate on
behalf of his constituents and the fleet in his area. In
the light of the comments that I have just made, I
confirm that IFCAs will receive representations from
fishing interests, and I have tried to make it clear that we
want to ensure that those interests are genuinely represented,
as clause 151(2)(a) provides.
The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire referred
to Wales, and I am pleased that it has arisen early in the
debate. Who speaks for Wales? The hon. Member for
Brecon and Radnorshire rose to his feet. Nothing in the
Bill requires the Welsh Assembly Government to obtain
permission from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of
State on IFCAs and delegations. The Bill does not
require that, and I shall explain why.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for tabling amendment 27,
which is pertinent. His intention is to allow Welsh
Assembly Ministers the same flexibility as that prescribed