View PDF - United Kingdom Parliament

115 Marine and Coastal Access Bill 26 OCTOBER 2009 Marine and Coastal Access Bill 116
[Lords]
[Lords]
[Huw Irranca-Davies]
If my right hon. Friend’s amendments were accepted,
it would mean that the sea fisheries defence was available
to fishermen in some areas, but not in others. The
defence would always be available in relation to offshore
waters beyond 12 nautical miles, but never available to
inshore fishermen operating within 6 nautical miles of
baselines around the coast. Between six and 12 nautical
miles, the situation would be very confusing. Within
those waters, fishermen would need to possess a detailed
knowledge of the historic fishing rights enjoyed by all
foreign vessels. For all those reasons, I do not think that
the amendment is absolutely necessary, and when I come
to the Government’s amendments I shall explain why.
My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby
tabled amendment 24 to make it clear that, where a
fishermen is pursuing his or her trade in a reasonable
way, they should not be guilty of an offence under
byelaws made under clause 139 or under the general
offence set out in clause 140. I assure my hon. Friend
that the Bill already provides the effect that he wishes to
see. Clause 141 provides that where a fisherman causes
damage while fishing within the law and the damage
could not reasonably have been avoided, he is entitled to
the defence in that part of the clause. In fact, it is
arguably a slightly broader defence. The Bill speaks of
damage that could not reasonably have been avoided,
whereas my hon. Friend’s amendment would provide a
defence only if the damage could not have been avoided
at all—whatever the cost in time, money, or perhaps
even safety. There are other reasons why I have issues
with the amendment, but I hope that I can assure my
hon. Friend that the Bill already contains the protections
that he seeks.
I turn now to sea fisheries defence and Government
amendments 5 and 9. In the light of the very persuasive
points that were made today and in Committee, I shall
move amendments 5 and 9, which future-proof the Bill
in anticipation of the reform of the CFP. The amendment
to clause 141 would give a power to the Secretary of
State to restrict or remove the sea fisheries defence in
subsection (4). It is necessary to include that defence in
the Bill at the current time in order to comply with
European law, but I have considered the concerns that
were raised in Committee. We are currently—right now—
pursuing the greater integration of fisheries and
environmental policies for the forthcoming round of
common fisheries policy reform negotiations. As I said
at the outset, the UK is leading the way.
The future status of the defence is dependent on the
outcome of discussions that are currently under way,
but its purpose is to enable us to provide the protection
that marine conservation zones need, in compliance
with the common fisheries policy, so the associated
amendment to clause 311 would ensure that the power
was exercised by means of a statutory instrument, subject
to an affirmative resolution. That is important, because
removing the defence will mean amending primary
legislation and, in effect, widening the scope of what is
considered to be criminal activity.
The amendment would give the order-making power
to the Secretary of State, who has responsibility on
behalf of the UK for negotiations on fisheries matters
with partners in Europe. However, I know that the
devolved Administrations have a keen interest in how
and when the power would be used. Consequentially, it
would be exercised only following early and close
consultation with Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland
Ministers. Appropriate arrangements would be agreed
with the devolved Administrations and incorporated
into a concordat that is being developed on how the
separate Administrations will work together to deliver
the nature conservation aims of the Bill.
Many people have spoken about amendment 17,
which relates to white herring fisheries. The amendment
would remove from the Bill the repeal of the remaining
sections of the White Herring Fisheries Act 1771. The
hon. Member for St. Ives, who has added his name to
the amendment, raised the issue in Committee on 7 July.
I undertook to write, as he said, and I did so over the
summer. My letter of 4 September confirmed the
Government’s view, which we still hold. Although I
heard all the views expressed today and am not an
unreasonable man, I still hold the view that the 1771
Act should be repealed. I recognise that some in the
fishing industry, particularly those in Scotland, remain
concerned about the potential impact of its repeal. Let
me explain.
Clause 229 repeals a number of old fisheries enactments,
including the 1771 Act. The effect of the repeal in
Scotland will be rather different from that in England,
Wales and Northern Ireland, because in Scotland the
repeal will have little effect, as the relevant rights are
effectively covered by the Scottish Fisheries Act 1705.
In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, the repeal will
remove the remaining rights set out in the 1771 Act.
Only fishermen who are employed in the white herring
industry are entitled to the rights of free access to
natural ports and harbours for curing fish, erecting
tents and huts and drying nets. Repeal of the 1771 Act
is appropriate because there is no longer any good
reason why one group of fishermen should enjoy a
benefit that no others have. The Act was designed to
encourage the white herring fishery of the 18th century,
and our view remains that that purpose, and the policy
behind it, is no longer relevant.
Let me add why we are repealing the Act, rather than
simply leaving it. Hon. Members will agree that redundant
legislation should not be left on the statute book to
gather dust. The 2006 Davidson review looked at where
outdated legislation could be scrapped, simplified or
consolidated in line with the principles of better regulation.
It identified 30 such fisheries-focused Acts and
recommended that DEFRA should use this Bill to
repeal out-of-date primary legislation and to consolidate
much of the rest. In response to the review, it was
decided not to undertake a wholesale review of fisheries
Acts, but to identify those that should be repealed
through the Bill. Nine such Acts were identified, of
which six, and part of another, were put forward for
repeal. I understand people’s concerns about this matter,
but those concerns do not apply to Scotland because of
the 1705 Act. Indeed, they apply only to fishermen who
are fishing for white herring.
Finally, on Government amendments 13 and 14, I am
grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Reading,
West (Martin Salter) for proposing a similar amendment
in Committee. I was not able to accept it, because the
wording did not quite achieve the end that he and I both
desired, but I am pleased to bring it back now in a form
that is fit for purpose. The amendments add section 22
of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975 to the
list of sections to be repealed. Quite simply, that section