 House of Commons |
Session 2008 - 09 Publications on the internet General Committee Debates Marine and Coastal Access Bill [Lords] |
The Committee consisted of the following Members:†
Irranca-Davies,
Huw (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food
and Rural Affairs) Chris
Shaw, Committee Clerk †
attended the Committee Public Bill CommitteeTuesday 7 July 2009(Morning)[Mr. Roger Gale in the Chair]Marine and Coastal Access Bill [Lords]10.30
am
Clause 24Research Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs (Huw Irranca-Davies): I am delighted to serve
under your stewardship once again, Mr. Gale. For the benefit
of members of the Committee, I will explain the purpose of the clause.
As we have discussed in previous sittings, and as was discussed at
length in the other place, science and evidence more widely will be
important to the Marine Management Organisation. In recognition of that
importance, clause 2 puts the MMO under a duty to take into
account all relevant facts and matters when making decisions, including
scientific evidence, evidence relating to the social, environmental and
economic elements of sustainable development and any other facts and
matters that the MMO considers appropriate. To ensure that the MMO has
access to scientific advice, it will be required to appoint a chief
scientific adviser and establish a science advisory committee. It is
worth putting that on the record once again, and I hope that members of
the Committee are happy with that explanation for the
purpose behind clause 24 and for the changes that have been made in the
other place to strengthen
it. Question
put and agreed
to. Clause
24 accordingly ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Clauses
25 and 26 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause 27Power
to charge for
services Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill. Andrew
George (St. Ives) (LD): I wish briefly to ask the Minister
for some clarification, or at least reassurance, on the charges that
might be applied, particularly with regard to clauses 25 and 26.
Subsection (1) of clause 27 refers to the reasonableness of the
charges, but it would be helpful if the Minister were to clarify how
those who will be charged by the MMO will be reassured that those
charges are reasonable, how they will be set and the basis on which
they can be tested and challenged if considered unreasonable by those
on whom they are imposed.
Huw
Irranca-Davies: I am happy to respond to the hon.
Gentleman’s query and offer some reassurance. As he knows,
clause 27 will enable the MMO to make a reasonable charge for any
services it provides on a cost recovery basis, so subsection (2) makes
specific provision for it to charge fees for any functions it might be
requested to exercise on behalf of a Welsh Minister or the Department
of the Environment in Northern Ireland. Examples of other types of
service for which the MMO might charge include making available the
results of research, and providing advice, assistance or training
facilities.
Charges will
be based on the Government’s principles of cost recovery, as I
mentioned, and proportionality, and will be linked to the cost of
providing any particular service. Licence fees will vary according to a
scale depending on the nature and size of the activity undertaken, so
it is right to consider the issue of proportionality, which the hon.
Gentleman raised. We see that as the way that the system would work. In
that way, smaller enterprises carrying on small-scale activities are
likely to be subject to lower fees than the larger-scale operations
carried out by bigger businesses. It should be noted that the power to
charge for the licences will flow from an order under part 4, rather
than from clause 27. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and I
reassure him that there will be a scaled approach to the charges, which
recognises the different scales of businesses and of activities that
could be undertaken. I hope that how the charges will work is now
clearer to him, and that he can take back assurances to those who
raised the matter with
him. Question
put and agreed
to. Clause
27 accordingly ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Clauses
28 to 39 ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Schedule
3 agreed
to. Clauses
40 to 43 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Schedule 4Exclusive
economic zone and Welsh zone: consequential
amendments
Huw
Irranca-Davies: I beg to move amendment 22, in
schedule 4, page 236, leave out from
beginning of line 35 to end of line 8 on page
237. This amendment would
delete paragraphs 6 to 8 (amending the Fishery Limits Act 1976). These
provisions are redundant following a decision to deal with the issue in
the transfer of functions order that will be made to transfer fisheries
functions in the Welsh zone to Welsh
Ministers. I
am glad to set the scene. Part 2 of the Bill defines various areas to
be set up, including an exclusive economic zone under clause 41. That
will allow the UK to assert its rights and assume its obligations under
the 1982 United Nations convention on the law of the sea and will
remove inconsistencies in the current maritime zones that we claim.
Areas within the British fishery limits, the renewable energy zone, the
pollution zone, and the gas importation and storage zone will be
replaced by the one EEZ, simplifying the UK’s management of the
offshore areas and bringing the UK into line with accepted
international best practice.
Clause 42
introduces the UK marine area, which defines the geographic area
referred to in the Bill for the purposes of managing our waters. It
defines the UK marine area in relation to the existing territorial
waters— 0 to 12 nautical miles—and offshore from
12 to 200 nautical miles, or to where the UK enjoys
sovereignty. The Bill also makes it clear how the
“marine” works in relation to tidal action, locks and
harbour
basins. Clause
43 introduces a new Welsh fisheries zone, which will encompass the
territorial sea adjacent to Wales, and offshore waters from 12 nautical
miles to the median line. An Order in Council will set up the zone and
define the precise boundaries, which will allow fisheries management
functions to be carried out seaward of the territorial waters, and will
provide for simplified management. That brings Wales into line with
Scotland and Northern Ireland for fisheries
management. Amendment
22 is a simple, minor, technical amendment, the purpose of which is to
remove provisions amending the Fishery Limits Act 1976 to take account
of the creation of the Welsh zone. Those provisions are no longer
necessary, as the required changes will be achieved by a transfer of
functions order, which is to be made under clause 43, transferring
fisheries functions in the Welsh zone to Welsh
Ministers. Amendment
22 agreed
to. Schedule
4, as amended, agreed
to.
Clause 149Establishment
of inshore fisheries and conservation
districts Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Huw
Irranca-Davies: Part 6 will replace the sea fisheries
committees with new bodies in England called inshore fisheries and
conservation authorities, which will have a duty to manage sea
fisheries sustainably, balancing socio-economic benefits with
protection of the marine environment. They will have more money and
strengthened powers, but will keep local involvement in decision
making. IFCAs will be very different organisations from the sea
fisheries committees that they replace. Significantly, IFCAs will have
a new duty to protect the marine environment and to promote its
recovery from the effects of sea fisheries exploitation. In view of
discussion in the other place, we have added a duty in clause 153,
which states that IFCAs must take the steps that they consider
necessary to contribute to achieving sustainable
development.
Mr.
Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con): I do not mean to catch
the Minister out, but is he suggesting that our inshore waters are
currently subject to unsustainable and damaging levels of
exploitation?
Huw
Irranca-Davies: No. That is a generalised and blanket
statement that is sometimes heard, but it is inaccurate and wrong. The
transition from sea fisheries committees to IFCAs will strengthen the
role of those authorities to take account of sustainable exploitation.
All hon. Members want to see the sustainable exploitation of our seas.
That is what the IFCAs are designed to achieve and that is the purpose
of my introductory remarks.
Martin
Salter (Reading, West) (Lab): The Minister will recall
that on Second Reading other hon. Members and I raised the concerns of
recreational sea anglers regarding the composition of the current sea
fisheries committees, which were heavily biased towards the commercial
sector. What assurances can he give the Committee that recreational sea
angling, and environmental interests in general, will have stronger
representation on the new
IFCAs?
Huw
Irranca-Davies: I confirm that it would be appropriate in
many, if not all, instances to have sea fisheries interests represented
on IFCAs because of the way in which they are integral to the
management of the marine and fisheries environment in their areas. The
Bill certainly allows for that, so I am very pleased to give my hon.
Friend that
assurance.
Martin
Salter: Can I invite the Minister to correct himself? Did
he not mean that it would be appropriate to have recreational sea
anglers represented on
IFCAs?
In terms of
membership, there will be statutory seats on each IFCA for the
Environment Agency, Natural England and the MMO. Around a third of
seats will be allocated to single and upper-tier local authority
members. The balance will be appointed by the MMO, and members with
fisheries and marine environmental expertise will make up the balance.
The MMO will be given guidance on appointments to ensure that the
membership of IFCAs fully enables them to deliver their new duties.
Funding arrangements will be
strengthened.
Andrew
George: The Minister has just touched on the question of
membership. He will be well aware that that is an issue of great
sensitivity and potential controversy, because even within the fishing
industry there is not a single view or single interest. Therefore, the
MMO will have to discharge its duties in regard to the selection of
those representatives from the industry with a great deal of care to
ensure that those conflicting interests are properly reflected. He must
acknowledge that that is going to be extremely difficult to achieve in
many areas.
Huw
Irranca-Davies: Many aspects of the Bill, including the
composition of the IFCA committees, are predicated on the idea of
bringing together people whose interests are sometimes compatible and
sometimes conflicting. That is always going to be challenging; I agree
with the hon. Gentleman that it will be a challenge and that the MMO
has to take great care to make sure that things are right. The make-up
of the IFCA committees and how they carry out their duties has a lot to
do—I will come on to this in a moment—with local
accountability and making sure that wide interests are represented, as
well as the interests of local authorities.
Martin
Salter: Another issue that has been raised by
environmental groups and, again, by recreational sea anglers is the
presence on IFCAs of local authority representatives who also have an
interest in commercial sea fishing activity. Where local authority reps
or other representatives on IFCAs have other interests that may
be pertinent, will they be declared? We do not want to end up with an
imbalance as a result of people wearing two
hats. 10.45
am
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2009 | Prepared 8 July 2009 |