Ann
McKechin: When I first saw the amendment, I thought back
many years ago to when I was studying law at university and the
wonderful case from, I think, the 19th century. While a chap was away
at sea, a law was changed at Westminster. He came back, went onshore
and duly committed the said statutory offence. He gave as a defence the
fact that he could not have known about the change in the law. That was
absolutely correct. Regrettably, the finding was that ignorance of the
law was not an excuse, although it is probably a pretty good plea in
mitigation.
To return to
the amendment, most activities in the sea are carefully regulated.
Some, however, have traditionally been considered to have such a low
impact on the environment that there is no need to regulate them. We
now know that in some circumstances even these activities can have an
adverse impact on conservation objectives—we are talking in the
main about recreational activities such as boating, jet skiing, which
my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen, West and South Pembrokeshire
mentioned earlier, and diving. The byelaw provisions for this part of
the Bill are intended to enable us to regulate those activities as
necessary. Offences
under MMO byelaws will be strict liability offences. We had an
interesting discussing on the previous amendment about proof,
successful prosecutions and the consequent deterrent effect. This is
consistent with treatment of some other offences elsewhere under the
Bill such as byelaws made by inshore fisheries and conservation
authorities and other legislation for regulatory offences. Examples of
possible offences are speeding, anchoring in a prohibited area or
taking prohibited species when diving. I entirely understand where the
aim of the amendment and the concerns raised by the Royal Yachting
Association. We do not want to make criminals of those who take all
reasonable steps to comply with the
law. Linda
Gilroy (Plymouth, Sutton) (Lab/Co-op): When the hon.
Member for Newbury was making the case for the amendment I could see
that he was trying to strike a balance. He drew attention to a certain
inconsistency with other parts of the Bill. Rather than reject it
outright, would my hon. Friend the Minister take the amendment away and
have another look at
it?
Ann
McKechin: I hope that my later comments will reassure my
hon. Friend. If an offence was not clear or a person cannot reasonably
have known he was committing the offence, the chances of securing a
conviction would be very low. It would be very unlikely to be in the
public interest to prosecute. At the same time, we do not think that
the Bill is the right place to include due diligence provisions,
because it is better addressed through the secondary legislation
itself.
The power to
make byelaws is broad enough to enable the MMO to provide a due
diligence defence in specific byelaws where that is appropriate. Other
relevant areas of legislation have already taken this approach. For
example, some harbour byelaws and the byelaws for lakes such as
Windermere both specify the geographical area in which they apply,
similar to the way in which the MMO byelaws will, and contain a due
diligence defence. I can tell the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend
that if a due diligence defence is necessary and appropriate in a
byelaw, it will be included. I hope that provides sufficient
reassurance for the hon. Gentleman to enable him to withdraw his
amendment.
Mr.
Benyon: In a sense, the debate on this amendment will be
balanced by a debate that we shall shortly have on another amendment.
It is important to lay down a marker showing that there are legitimate
activities that take place in our seas and that there are industries
that we want to encourage for a whole range of reasons. We want to be
absolutely certain that we are not creating an unfair and inconsistent
law. The Minister made a good point about developing this in secondary
legislation. I am nervous about setting that precedent through the
Bill, because it is subjective and dependent on all sorts of other
factors. However, I shall withdraw the amendment so we can move on to
the next debate. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Nick
Ainger: I beg to move amendment 35, in
clause 141, page 96, line 11, at
end insert— ‘(c) the act
occurred on the seaward side of the 0-6 nautical mile
fisheries zone in a location where European vessels have fishing
rights.’. The
amendment stands in my name and the names of my hon. Friend the Member
for Reading, West and of the hon. Member for Broxbourne. It touches on
a very contentious issue that was raised on Second Reading by Members
on both sides of the House. The Bill contains a blanket defence for
causing damage within an MCZ if that was the result of sea fishing and
if there was no reasonable way of avoiding it. I think that everyone
was surprised that the Bill contains such a broad defence. Many
organisations have contacted us to raise their concerns and have acted
constructively to try to address the issue, which is what my amendment,
too, seeks to do. We recognise that, at this stage, no substantial
changes can be made in areas covered exclusively by the common
fisheries policy. However, the amendment, or something similar, would
address the situation in inshore fishing areas—the nought to 6
nautical mile zones—and in 6to 12 nautical mile areas with no
track record of foreign vessels being allowed to fish.
My amendment
might not be worded perfectly, but I think that the Minister
understands the need to address the problem. Marine habitats have been
drastically damaged by some sea fishing activities. We have mentioned
in previous debates the effect of scallop dredging in Cardigan bay, but
there are many other examples around the UK of the activities, often
not of British fisherman—certainly not of British inshore
fishermen—but of fisherman from other countries, that have
devastated habitats, not just of other species, but of their target
species. Such areas are, in effect, deserts. I could give other
examples from around the world, such as the Grand Banks off
Newfoundland, where over-fishing removed a whole stock that for
centuries provided massive amounts of fish for northern Europe and
north
America. My
amendment would make it clear that the blanket defence is not
acceptable and that sea fishing has to be compliant with the
requirements of the MCZs. We could address the problem by limiting the
CFP to specific areas. Although the amendment might not be worded
perfectly, I hope that the Minister will respond
positively.
Andrew
George: I want to comment on the primary objective in the
identification of an offence. The thinking behind exempting fishing
from prosecution might have
been that, given that the purpose of fishing is to target a particular
species, or species in a mixed fishery, it would be difficult to prove
that damage to a feature or animal within an MCZ was either intentional
or the result of reckless behaviour on the part of the people using the
fishery. Would the hon. Gentleman like to respond to that in relation
to mid-water trawling, for example? He has mentioned scallop dredging,
but what about fishing activities such as mid-water trawling, which are
clearly intended to target a particular species, but in which there is
no intentionality or recklessness to damage an MCZ feature through that
activity?
The
Chairman: Order. I gently remind the Committee that
interventions must be brief and to the
point. 10
am
Nick
Ainger: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s point.
Certainly, mid-water trawling should not cause problems on the sea bed,
but he knows as well as I do that some techniques cause significant
damage to the sea bed. Some forms of trawling use a chain, which churns
up the surface of the sea bed, causing enormous damage to areas of sea
grass and maerl. I accept that certain techniques should not cause
damage; they are fine, and are not a problem. It is the techniques that
do cause damage that are a problem. The argument about reasonableness
is interesting, because, often, alternative techniques could be used. I
recently saw a demonstration of people fishing for razor fish, or razor
clams—this will be a short digression, Mr.
Pope—by passing an electric current over the sea bed. For some
reason, that causes them to pop up, and they are then harvested without
any damage to the sea bed. There are therefore other techniques for
targeting particular species.
Returning to
my amendment, we need to address this issue, because the blanket
defence is too widely drawn. I am sure that we can come up with a
better wording, but if we do not address this issue, we risk
undermining the concept of MCZs, because commercial fishing is likely
to cause the most damage within them, and if we allow this widely drawn
blanket defence, we risk undermining the whole
process.
Mr.
Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con): I rise to support the
amendment. I served on the Joint Committee on the Draft Marine Bill,
and it was of great concern to me that while we had the best intentions
of conserving marine areas and sites of special scientific interest and
protecting them from over-exploitation, we were operating under the
aegis of the European common fisheries policy, which would allow
European fishermen to continue trawling those areas, creating mayhem
and destruction at will.
I am
extremely pleased that the hon. Gentleman has tabled the amendment,
because we are in a position to protect not only inshore
areas—nought to 6 miles from the shore—but areas that are
6 to 12 miles from the shore, where there is no traditional access for
European fishery vessels. The Bill currently provides too much of a
blanket defence. Anybody who fishes in the marine conservation zones
will be able to say, “There is no other method or way that I can
do it, but I’m terribly
sorry that I have caused this damage and taken non-target
species.” In a sense, one could drive a coach and horses through
this piece of legislation. If MCZs are to mean anything, they have to
provide sanctuary and safety for the species, plants and corals within
them. Of course, we
do not want to create a situation in which nothing can happen in MCZs
and no types of fishing can occur in them. We need to ensure that
sustainable fisheries that do not cause damage are allowed to continue,
because if MCZs are to have the support of the public and the
communities who border them, we have to allow those communities to
derive some commercial benefit from them. We also have to strike a
balance between commercial fishing and low-intensity recreational
fishing. It is more than possible for recreational fishing to take
place in the areas under discussion without causing damage. Of course,
the captains of boats that embark on recreational fishing will need to
ensure that their anchors do not drag through areas of special interest
and cause damage, but that is manageable. Naturally, anyone who derives
a sustainable living from conservation zones will want to ensure their
future
integrity. I
will not try your patience, Mr. Pope, because I do not want
to stray too far from the amendment. If I do, please rule me out of
order, but I do not think that I will do so. We accept that MCZs will
provide important nursery areas for endangered species. For example, we
have a growing bass fishery around our shores, but we need to ensure
that there are places where bass can breed in relative safety. There is
a danger in that it is difficult to have a nursery area where
commercial fishing takes place, because, even though the bass may not
be the targeted species, they will end up in the nets of fishing
trawlers and will ultimately be discarded. The bass may go back into
the sea, but they will be dead. We therefore need to make sure that the
MCZs provide nursery areas for endangered species that can then go on
to populate the surrounding areas, which will be of benefit to
commercial fishermen. The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for
Carmarthen, West and South Pembrokeshire therefore offers a win-win
situation. In
conclusion, we need to think globally, but act locally. We are globally
aware. For example, the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire, which
is in south Wales, not New South Wales, is very concerned about
whales—that was very tortuous—on all sorts of levels. At
a time when the World Wide Fund for Nature and others are bringing to
our attention the parlous state of tuna stocks around the world, and
the need to protect them and to provide safe areas for them to breed
where they cannot be persecuted, it would be a rum deal if this country
could not create a few MCZs that provide the necessary levels of
protection for our own marine species to breed in safety. As I have
said, they will be able breed in safety, the young will grow, and they
will then be able to populate the wider area to the benefit of the
species, to the benefit of animals that prey on the species and to the
benefit of commercial fishermen. I support the amendment, and even if
the Government have to go away and think about it, I hope that they
will return on Report with something that we can all
support. Dr.
Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab): If a small plane
took off from Southampton airport, flew over the New Forest national
park and dropped a large
net in the middle at tree-top height in order to catch pigeons to sell
in the restaurants of Southampton, and in doing so uprooted a load of
trees and caught thrushes, blue tits and starlings, and then returned
to Southampton airport, emptied the catch, discarded all the thrushes,
blue tits and starlings, took the pigeons to the restaurants,
apologised for the fact that it had uprooted a lot of trees, but said
that that had been necessary in order to catch the pigeons, there would
be a national outcry. There might also be a headline in the local paper
asking why the trees had been
uprooted. That
is exactly what we appear to be enabling to happen, in a nautical
sense, between nought and 6 miles in MCZs off our shores, but because
we cannot see it in the way that I have just described, our attention
may not be as concentrated on it. I accept that there are areas outside
the 6-mile zone where it is difficult to take action. However, if we
can state in the Bill that it is not a defence in the nought to 6-mile
zone for someone to say that they churned up the seabed in pursuit of
fishing, we will have done something very positive for the sound
passage of the
Bill. Even
if the wording of the amendment is not exactly right, I urge my hon.
Friend the Minister to pay close attention to what it says, because it
is right. If he is able today at least to say that he will consider the
matter and perhaps return at a later stage of the Bill with something
that works as far as the purpose of the amendment is concerned, hon.
Members on both sides of the Committee will be reassured that the Bill
will be as good as it can be when it reaches the statute
book. Mr.
Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab): I rise to
support my colleagues and the amendment. However, I can tell you,
Mr. Pope, that I will not be as elaborate and descriptive as
my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test in making the case. The
point that he made is absolutely valid, although obviously we are
considering the nautical and marine aspect of what he described. I am
anxious about the matter. As other hon. Members said, we must address
the issue of a blanket defence. In supporting the amendment, I
recognise that it is never easy to convince our good colleagues on the
Front Bench that an amendment is 100 per cent. spot-on and that we
should win the case. However, if we are sincere and genuine about the
value of marine conservation zones, we must ensure that whatever else
is in the Bill, we are not doing something that will undermine the very
idea behind the
Bill. Certain
aspects of the clause seem somewhat anomalous. In view of that, I shall
echo the sentiments of my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test
and hope that if Ministers do not accept what has been proposed, they
will at least take the issue away for further serious consideration,
because it is a serious
issue.
|
