View PDF - United Kingdom Parliament

113 Marine and Coastal Access Bill 26 OCTOBER 2009 Marine and Coastal Access Bill 114
[Lords]
[Lords]
from St. Lucia in South Africa, where marine protected
zones were introduced in 1995, showed that in just three
years the biomass of that reserve tripled, making a
strong economic argument for those who would have
opposed it in the first place.
Huw Irranca-Davies: My hon. Friend rightly makes
the point that there can be positives as well as negatives
in these measures if we manage the marine environment
correctly. In fact, we want to reach a point where the
positives significantly outweigh the negatives, but that
requires an approach such as that which we see in this
Bill—a properly planned and managed approach to the
marine environment.
Let me turn to amendment 42 and new clause 10,
tabled by the hon. Member for St. Ives and my hon.
Friend the Member for Great Grimsby. They were
tabled with the objective of making it a legal requirement
that UK and foreign fishing vessels must receive equal
treatment under offence clauses in MCZs. The sea
fishing defence is a blunt instrument that the common
fisheries policy—itself in urgent need of reform—requires
us to put in place. The amendments become relevant in
the light of my own amendment in this group to create a
power for the Secretary of State to restrict or remove
the sea fishing defence by order. As I said in Committee
and have made clear again today, it is my firm intention
that that power should be used in an equitable way. We
will not use it to discriminate against part of the UK
fishing fleet, as to do so would be to shoot ourselves in
the foot.
Neither of the amendments is therefore necessary to
ensure fair treatment of UK fishermen. The Government
are happy to commit that any exercise of the new power
would be made in close consultation with Scottish and
Welsh Ministers, the industry, the MMO, inshore fisheries
and conservation authorities and many others. All these
people and organisations have an interest in supporting
a vibrant fishing fleet, and not disadvantaging our
fishermen.
9.15 pm
The amendments also have a technical deficiency as
they could have a consequential impact on our ability to
manage local fisheries matters where, to pick up the
point raised by my hon. Friends earlier, we can bring in
byelaws, after local consultation, to manage local fisheries
impacts. The amendments could bring into doubt our
ability to bring in MMO byelaws in the 6 to 12 nautical
mile zone restricting sea fisheries activities which apply
only to UK vessels, because in practice foreign boats do
not and will not conduct the same sort of activity. The
amendments would remove that flexibility.
We have the ability actively to manage our inshore
area through IFCAs and MMO byelaws in the Bill, and
the House has made it clear that it wants to see effective
enforcement take place. I would not want to undermine
our ability to act where necessary at a local level.
Mr. MacNeil: Will the Minister give way?
Huw Irranca-Davies: We have other amendments to
deal with, so I shall make progress.
Amendment 23, which was tabled by the hon. Member
for St. Ives seeks to raise the hurdle for fishermen to
make use of the defence available in clause 141(4),
which we have come to know as the sea fishing defence.
We must of course treat our fishermen fairly, and in that
I completely agree with the thrust of the hon. Gentleman’s
arguments. The Bill is already fair to fishermen in the
balance that it strikes. In clause 141(4) it recognises that
fishing is a legitimate activity, and a vital part of our
economy, not to mention being a provider of employment
in places where jobs can be hard to come by.
The fact that I have been regularly called upon, on
the one hand, to strengthen the sea fisheries defence—for
example, in the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend
the Member for Great Grimsby—and, on the other,
have been under great pressure from different quarters
to weaken or remove the defence altogether, reinforces
my view that we have found the right balance in the
current drafting.
Let me reassure the House that where fishermen are
fishing in accordance with the relevant rules and take
reasonable steps to avoid damaging the site, they will be
able to rely on the defence set out in clause 141(4), but
when they break these rules, the legislation will not offer
them an easy get-out. The common fisheries policy
means that we cannot reduce the defence, and it is not
necessary to increase it. Indeed, to provide a stronger
defence would start to undermine the point of part 5,
which is about improving protection for the marine
environment.
Mr. MacNeil: Will the Minister give way?
Huw Irranca-Davies: I have so much to get through.
In any event, the amendment does not work. It
undermines the offence provision in the Bill, confuses
the level of knowledge that a fisherman would need for
a prosecution to be brought, and would almost certainly
constitute a breach of our common fisheries policy
obligations. For all those reasons and more that I do
not have time to explain, I urge the hon. Member for
St. Ives to think carefully and withdraw the amendment.
Amendments 28 and 29 were tabled by my right hon.
Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), my
predecessor and a great supporter of the Bill. Together,
the amendments would significantly narrow the
geographical area within which a defendant could claim
the sea fisheries defence in clause 141(4). That would
mean that the defence would not be available out to
6 nautical miles. It would also mean that the defence
would not be available in those waters between 6 and
12 nautical miles where there are no historic fishing
rights for vessels from other member states. However,
the defence would continue to be available in most of
our waters between 6 and 12 nautical miles, and in all
waters beyond 12 nautical miles.
The reason for including the sea fisheries defence in
the Bill was to avoid breaching European law. The
amendments are consistent with that purpose, and I am
satisfied would not lead to a breach of European law.
However, my concern is that they would complicate
matters for fishermen and enforcement authorities without
delivering any significant conservation benefits. They
would also have an impact primarily on UK fishermen.
However, throughout the passage of the Bill we have
been clear that as a matter of principle we do not want
to discriminate against the UK fleet. Doing so would
still leave marine conservation zones vulnerable to the
activities of foreign vessels.