View PDF - United Kingdom Parliament

More documents

Recommendations

Info

103 Marine and Coastal Access Bill 26 OCTOBER 2009 Marine and Coastal Access Bill 104 [Lords] [Lords] [Mr. Alan Reid] strip above the high water mark for fishing purposes, subject to any other legislation in force. The National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations and the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation are adamant that only the 1771 Act gives fishermen those rights throughout Great Britain. As the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Doran) said, the Scottish Fisheries Act 1705, gives rights in Scottish waters, but the 1771 Act is the only one that gives rights throughout Great Britain. Legal advice to fishermen’s organisations is that when the 1771 Act was passed, “white herring” referred to all sea fishing and not just fishing for white herring. By inference, it has continued to apply to all forms of sea fishing that have existed at any time thereafter. The courts have always interpreted the Act as applying to all forms of fishing, not just white herring fishing. When it was passed, it was intended to apply to all forms of fishing, which is how it has always been interpreted. As hon. Members have said, keeping the 1771 Act can do no harm, but repealing it could cause great damage to the fishing industry because of the law of unintended consequences. I hope that the Minister will assure the House that the rights given to fishermen by the 1771 Act will be preserved by other enactments. If he cannot quote other enactments that give fishermen those rights, I hope that he will accept amendment 17, and keep the 1771 Act on the statute book. If it is repealed, we may find later that unintended consequences result in fishermen losing rights to fish the seas, to use harbours, or to lay up their boats on beaches. I want to refer to another theme of the Bill that other hon. Members have also mentioned: equality of treatment for our fishermen and other EU fishermen. There would be absolutely no point in declaring a marine conservation zone between the 6 and the 12-mile limit, only to find that our own fishermen were excluded from it, while fishermen from all other EU countries were able to fish there. It is a flaw in the Bill, which the Minister must address. Mr. MacNeil: If that situation were to arise, would the hon. Gentleman agree that the MCZ should be declared null and void almost immediately? Mr. Reid: The hon. Gentleman is quite right: there would be no point in declaring an MCZ between the 6 and 12-mile limit if European fishermen were able to fish there and ours were not. To summarise, I support the Bill. It is a good Bill that sets out how to make progress towards the future for the sustainable development and protection of the marine environment. There are, I believe, one or two flaws, and I have referred to two of them this evening. I hope that the Minister will reflect further on those flaws, keep the 1771 Act and look again at the 6 and 12-mile limit to ensure that our fishermen would not be discriminated against if MCZs were declared in those areas. One thing we learned from my hon. Friend, and from other contributors, was about the White Herring Fisheries Act 1771, but he also introduced two socking great red herrings. My hon. Friend appears to be under the impression that marine conservation zones will, perforce, ban fishing in them, because he claims that is integral to an MCZ. I would be most obliged if he would intervene and tell me where exactly the Bill says that, as I cannot find it anywhere in it. Mr. Austin Mitchell rose— Mr. MacNeil rose— Rob Marris: I shall give way. Mr. MacNeil: A marine conservation zone implies a degree of protection, so the question arises, “From whom is it to be protected?” Rob Marris: It does, and I shall come on to that, but I shall give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby. Mr. Austin Mitchell: I did not say that there were proposals to ban fishing in the marine conservation zones, but what I will say right now is that if that is the proposal, it is unacceptable to the fishing industry; it is a monstrous proposal. We cannot have a patchwork quilt, which is what the MCZs will be. They will not be universal, but they will be no-go zones in which fishermen cannot fish. That is an impossible way of ensuring conservation. Rob Marris: There we go, that is another red herring, as it is not in the Bill. If we look at the Bill, we find that clause 117(6)(b) refers to “enabling or facilitating …recovery or increase” of stocks. Clause 129(3)(b) talks about “prohibiting or restricting entry”, so there could be a prohibition, but the word “restricting” also appears in the Bill, which is of course different from “prohibiting”. Clause 123(3)(a) refers to measures contributing to “the conservation or improvement” of stocks. The red herring is in amendment 44 and new clause 8, which my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby tabled, because he sees things as one or the other, as do elements in the fishing industry. Yes, I will demonise the fishing industry, although not individual fisher folk, because the industry has an appalling record. Sadly, that record has been maintained for many years, although, gradually, it is getting a bit better. Historically, it has an appalling record of fishing stocks out: we see that all over the world—we see it in the North sea; we see it in the collapse of the Canadian cod fishery off the Grand banks of Newfoundland; we see it in the collapse of the Pacific fishery off the west coast of Canada. By the way, that did not happen under a common fisheries policy, as that fishery is not covered by the North American Free Trade Agreement under national legislation. Rob Marris (Wolverhampton, South-West) (Lab): I propose to confine my remarks to new clause 8 and to amendments 44, 23 and 5. The tone of the debate on the new clause was set by the opening speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell). Mr. Mitchell: Will my hon. Friend give way? Rob Marris: Let me make my point and then I will give way. Inherent in amendment 44 and new clause 8 is the concept that conservation and preservation of marine
105 Marine and Coastal Access Bill 26 OCTOBER 2009 Marine and Coastal Access Bill 106 [Lords] [Lords] stocks—marine fauna and marine animals are mentioned in the Bill—is counterpoised to the interests of the fishing industry. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and others, “Be careful in what you wish for because you might get it”. If marine conservation zones improved fish stocks and thus improved the circumstances for the fishing industry, passing new clause 8 and amendment 44 tonight would mean that the Government would have to take statutory measures to mitigate the consequences of that improvement. That is inherent in the wording of new clause 8 and amendment 44, which shows that those who framed them and support them see conservation and preservation of marine fauna and the interests of the commercial fishing industry as counterpoised, but they are not. I firmly believe that, handled sensitively, marine conservation zones could help increase fish stocks and, therefore, in the medium and longer term, help the commercial fishing industry. Mr. Mitchell: My point was simply that conservation measures are best handled on a universal basis within our fishing area. My hon. Friend is obviously scarred by the experience of Canada, which he has quoted previously in the House. As he comes from Canada, I can understand that. However, the Canadian depredation of cod stocks was caused not by the absence of conservation zones, but by universal over-catching by Canadian and other vessels. The fishing industry’s record has been good on occasions—Iceland is a classic instance of conservation of stocks. We should contrast the fishing industry as it was with the industry now. An increasing proportion—44 per cent.—of the British industry conforms to the responsible fishing agenda set out by Seafish. The fishing industry now believes in conservation, and fights for it. Rob Marris: On that basis, my hon. Friend no doubt realises that there is no contradiction between marine conservation zones and the commercial fishing industry, and will withdraw his new clause 8 and not press amendment 44. 8.45 pm Mr. Mitchell: One cannot do conservation in itsy-bitsy pieces in minute marine conservation zones—or small marine conservation zones; I am not sure how big they will be—that are not linked up as a network. Rob Marris: That depends on how big those marine conservation zones are and how deep the pre-existing depredations, which the marine conservation zones are designed to help to restore, are in relation to the sea bed. If the opportunities for commercial fishing were lessened or, in some cases, subject to temporary exclusion, that would help. I accept that we cannot do anything with marine conservation zones of 1 square metre, but the Government are not making such a proposal, as the Minister will no doubt elucidate. If, given that there is no such contradiction, the scales have fallen from my hon. Friend’s eyes about the Aunt Sally that he has set up, he will no doubt withdraw new clause 8 and not press amendment 44. Mr. John Gummer (Suffolk, Coastal) (Con): When the system is localised, the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) says that a generalised system would be better. However, when we wanted to have generalised systems, nobody was more antagonistic to them than he was. He might not agree, but he steadfastly supported the dock labour scheme in Grimsby, which did more to damage the industry than almost anything else. Rob Marris: That is one of the few illuminating pieces of evidence in this part of the debate. Right hon. and hon. Members will not be surprised to learn that Wolverhampton is one of the furthest places from the sea in the United Kingdom, and as far as I am aware—I am aware of my family history back to 1050 on my father’s side—I have no fisher folk in my family. Surprisingly, however, SBS/Fletcher, which manufactures boats, is in my constituency. One piece of evidence that stood out, as several hon. Members have mentioned, came from the hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Cox), who was briefly in the Chamber and spoke about the experience of the fishery closure in Lundy. Another piece of connected evidence was provided by the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George), who spoke about the success of the closure of a spawning area between January and March or April each year. Those relatively small-scale—relative to the geography and the coast of the United Kingdom—schemes have worked to the benefit of not only conservation but the commercial fishing industry in those areas. Those are two pieces of evidence for my assertion that the Aunt Sally contradiction simply does not exist. I want to consider the other red herring suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby. When talking about criminal sanctions and so on, he referred to accidents. Perhaps he will intervene to tell me where the Bill refers to accidental damage. What I do see is a reference to recklessness, in clause 140(2). The word “recklessly” appears in paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d). Subsection (2) contains only those four paragraphs, and they all contain the word “recklessly”. As a lawyer, I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby that the term “accidental”means something rather different from what is meant by the term “reckless”. Perhaps he sees no difference between the two, but I assure him that there is one. I do not think that the Government should get rid of clause 141(4)(b), as amendment 23 suggests. Government amendment 5 and amendment 42 also seek to alter the subsection. Paragraph (b) states that it is a defence for a person who is charged with an offence to show that “the effect of the act on the protected feature in question could not reasonably have been avoided.” That takes us to the reckless rather than the accidental end of the scale. Government amendment 5 states: “The Secretary of State may by order amend this section so as to remove, or restrict the application of, the defence provided by subsection (4).’ That is relevant to the passage that I quoted a moment ago. Amendment 5 would give the Secretary of State regulatory powers to remove the defence in subsection (4)(b). I believe it was the hon. Member for St. Ives who seemed to have gained the impression from the Government that, if granted by the House tonight and enacted by Parliament, those powers would be used quite quickly, and I am concerned about that for constitutional reasons. I freely admit that my lack of knowledge is to blame,
Page 1 and 2:
Monday Volume 498 26 October 2009 N
Page 3 and 4:
HER MAJESTY’S GOVERNMENT MEMBERS
Page 5 and 6:
HER MAJESTY’S GOVERNMENT—cont.
Page 7:
HOUSE OF COMMONS THE SPEAKER—The
Page 10 and 11: 3 Oral Answers 26 OCTOBER 2009 Oral
Page 12 and 13: 7 Oral Answers 26 OCTOBER 2009 Oral
Page 14 and 15: 11 Oral Answers 26 OCTOBER 2009 Ora
Page 20 and 21: 23 26 OCTOBER 2009 Territorial Army
Page 22 and 23: 27 Territorial Army 26 OCTOBER 2009
Page 24 and 25: 31 Marine and Coastal Access Bill 2
Page 48 and 49: 79 Marine and Coastal Access Bill [
Page 62 and 63: 107 Marine and Coastal Access Bill
Page 74 and 75: 131 26 OCTOBER 2009 Territorial Arm
Page 80 and 81: 3WS Written Ministerial Statements
Page 83 and 84: 1W Written Answers 26 OCTOBER 2009
Page 111 and 112:
57W Written Answers 26 OCTOBER 2009
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187:
1MC Ministerial Corrections 26 OCTO
Page 190 and 191:
Col. No. COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVE
Page 192 and 193:
Members who wish to have the Daily
show all

View PDF - United Kingdom Parliament

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?