View PDF - United Kingdom Parliament

97 Marine and Coastal Access Bill 26 OCTOBER 2009 Marine and Coastal Access Bill 98
[Lords]
[Lords]
The purpose of amendment 23 is slightly different. A
number of conservation bodies are concerned about the
fisheries defence. I think that they have a justification
for their concerns because, as the provision is drafted,
the defence could be used by some in the fishing industry
who are less reputable—the vast majority do not do
this—and who might not go about their trade in an
MCZ or around a feature that we are seeking to protect
with the care that we would hope for.
The Minister and the Secretary of State, through
Government amendment 5, are proposing that at some
point—I think the Minister suggested quite soon after
the Bill becomes an Act—the fisheries defence will
simply be removed. I propose a tightening of the Bill.
Clause 141 states:
“It is a defence for a person who is charged with an offence
under section 140 to show that…the effect of the act on the
protected feature in question could not reasonably have been
avoided.”
Under the Bill, it is incumbent on the enforcement body
to disprove the defence. I am proposing that a fisherman
would need to demonstrate a three-pronged, higher hurdle
of proof to be able to use the fisheries defence as effectively
as the Minister is seeking to achieve.
The purpose of amendment 42, which the hon. Member
for Great Grimsby clearly supports is, as it says, to
achieve “equal treatment”. The last thing we want to do
as a result of the Bill—the Minister has perpetually
reassured those of us who have raised the issue—is tie
the hands of UK fisherman and allow fishermen from
other nations, including EU nations, to be able simply
to plunder the fish stocks in areas to which UK fisherman
have effectively been told they cannot go and fish. If
that is not achieved as a result of the Bill, it would
undermine its authority and the support for it.
Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD): May I
put it this way to my hon. Friend? It would be irresponsible
to designate an MCZ if it was known that it would be
open to access to trawlers from other countries, when
access to the UK fishing industry is denied. That result
cannot ever be seen to be the intention of Parliament.
Andrew George: My right hon. Friend is absolutely
right. Such a situation would not only undermine the
authority of the UK agencies responsible for enforcing
the Act, but it would not actually save any fish or the
marine environment. All we would be doing is stopping
UK vessels doing something that all other vessels would
be able to do in any case. We would have achieved
nothing at all. It would simply undermine the authority
of the Act itself. I hope that the Minister reflects on
that. If he does not accept amendment 42, I hope he
will table a Government amendment that will achieve
the same object.
The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Benyon), who is
no longer in the Chamber, said that there were legal
reasons why such an amendment could not be introduced,
but I do not think that we are proposing to apply laws
to EU vessels that are not lawful under European law.
We are simply trying to achieve a situation in which we
do not constrain UK vessels in a way that we cannot
constrain their competitors around the UK coast.
I hope that the Minister will reflect on those amendments.
Their purpose is to achieve a balance and to recognise
that the assumption that there is ongoing conflict between
fishermen and conservation bodies is simply not the
case. Increasingly, over time, they are working together.
I think we should be trying to achieve that through
the Bill.
8.15 pm
Mr. Elliot Morley (Scunthorpe) (Lab): I very much
welcome the progress that has been made on issues such
as the fisherman’s defence since I spoke on Second
Reading. I congratulate the Minister and Committee on
the work that they have done. He has clearly listened to
representations and there was clearly an effective debate,
demonstrating all that is effective in the Committee
system.
My proposals would deal with some of those problems
and strengthen the Bill. I particularly wanted to speak
about inshore limits and to seek clarification from the
Minister, who has moved a considerable way on the
matter. I accept many of the points made by the hon.
Member for St. Ives (Andrew George), in that there
should be no contradiction between the fishing industry
and effective marine conservation, which have shared
interests.
There are good examples of what the fishing industry
has done in recent years to improve marine conservation.
Certification schemes such as the marine stewardship
scheme have grown, and a lot of the big retailers,
including the Co-op and Marks & Spencer, take the
issue of sustainable fisheries very seriously. Wholesalers
such as Young’s seafood group, which is based in the
constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Great
Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), have a good record on the
issue. That has spread through to the fishing industry,
which I think has recognised that it is in its interests to
work with conservation groups and conservation policy.
The Isle of Lundy, which has been mentioned, is a good
example of that. Fishermen have benefited from, for
example, larger shellfish and increased catches. There is
no contradiction in the principle.
I was concerned, as were groups such as Wildlife and
Countryside Link, that the fisherman’s defence was far
too widely drawn. My hon. Friend knows as well as I do
that one attractive thing about people in the fishing
industry is that they are open and honest when they talk
about things in detail—they will be quite open about
some of the extremely damaging, and in many cases
illegal practices, within the industry. They generally
point to the other fishing point down the road and say
that the fishermen there and not they are involved in
such practices.
Mr. Austin Mitchell: Up the road.
Mr. Morley: Or up the road. Nevertheless, we cannot
ignore the fact that if we are not careful, we will leave
loopholes that will be exploited.
As has been said, this is an exciting Bill and I have
been very keen on it for a long time. I know how
difficult and complicated it has been to introduce—it
has been a lot more complicated than many people
understand. It is a great tribute to the Government
and the Department that they have managed to make
progress with the Bill and that it is heading towards the
statute book with such widespread support. I very
much welcome that.