Huw
Irranca-Davies: My hon. Friend has made an important
point. Those who are appointed to, or find themselves on, an IFCA will
have to subscribe to the overarching purposes and duties enshrined in
the Bill. Although they will represent the sector and interests that
they come from, they will also have to comply with duties such as
ensuring sustainable exploitation of fisheries and not jeopardising or
compromising, for example, the remits of marine conservation zones in
their area. Future supplementary guidance will make it clear that
interests that would normally be declared in debate are declared in
such circumstances. I confirm that in constructing that guidance now,
we are clear that they will have to declare those
interests. Mr.
Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con): Some sea fisheries
committees have been more successful than others, which is an
understatement in certain cases. Where an IFCA is deemed to be failing
in its duties—that possibly draws in points raised by hon.
Members earlier about the constitution of those committees, but, more
importantly, it relates to the delivery of functions—what power
will the Secretary of State have to
intervene?
Huw
Irranca-Davies: The hon. Gentleman is right that SFCs come
in all shapes and sizes and, at least anecdotally, achieve different
levels of performance There is a duty on IFCAs to report on their
performance to the Secretary of State, which is a great step forward in
accountability. I will return in a moment to the point that the hon.
Gentleman raised about what action could be taken in response to an
underperforming IFCA that is not complying properly with the duties set
out here.
I
have discussed funding arrangements, which will be strengthened by
ensuring that all single and upper-tier local authorities with a
coastline contribute to the funding of their local IFCA. Constituent
local authorities will receive an additional £5 million a year
to support IFCA funding to account for the new financial burden. IFCA
boundaries will be set in secondary legislation. Our clear policy
intent is to set the IFCAs’ seaward boundaries at six nautical
miles, as SFC boundaries are now. That is because between six to 12
nautical miles there are access rights for certain member states, which
are set out in the common fisheries policy. These rights reflect
historic fishing activity in the six-to-12 nautical miles zones of
individual member states. In clause 149(2)(b), however, the wording
“the English inshore region”, which is defined in clause
316 as the English territorial sea, means that it is possible to extend
IFCAs’ seaward jurisdiction to a maximum of 12 nautical miles.
That future-proofing in the Bill provides the flexibility to take into
account changes that may occur from reform of the CFP. In Wales, Welsh
Ministers will be responsible for inshore sea fisheries
management.
Andrew
George: To be clear on boundaries and the future-proofing
of the legislation, is the Minister saying that that will be at the
Secretary of State’s
discretion, or will it require secondary legislation or further
regulation to extend the boundary from six to 12 nautical
miles?
Huw
Irranca-Davies: We have put the power in the Bill. Should
we, as part of CFP reform, for example, decide to define more
extensively what we mean by the inshore fisheries region in relation to
IFCAs, their duties and enforcement, the power exists for the Secretary
of State to make that decision in compliance with what we are
discussing with European member states at the moment.
Before I turn
to the meat of the issue under discussion, I want to clarify that the
duty on each IFCA to produce a report on its performance to the
Secretary of State, as well as a four-yearly report to Parliament, is a
significant step forward. Performance monitoring on that basis is
designed to ensure that issues such as that referred to by the hon.
Gentleman will be addressed at the earliest possible opportunity. If an
IFCA does not do that, we have the option of a judicial review, but the
function of reporting to Parliament is now available for the first
time, so issues of performance can be challenged and addressed at the
earliest possible
opportunity. Mr.
Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD): The interval
of four years between reports seems excessive. Will it be within the
Secretary of State’s discretion for reports to be made on a more
regular basis? The state of the fisheries will vary and become
endangered in a period of less than four years, so it seems a long time
from that
perspective.
Huw
Irranca-Davies: The hon. Gentleman has made a good point.
The duty is to report at least every four years. It would certainly be
possible to require that reporting to happen sooner, not least if
something were felt to be amiss in the performance or if there were a
failure to carry out
duties. Nick
Ainger (Carmarthen, West and South Pembrokeshire) (Lab):
The Minister referred earlier to the funding arrangements for IFCAs,
and indicated that there will be a levy from local authorities from
which IFCAs will receive an additional £5 million. My experience
of sea fisheries committees in Wales was that they were insufficiently
funded to do what they were required to do or what they would have
liked to have done. Are the current funding arrangements sufficient to
ensure that IFCAs are able effectively to undertake the same role as
sea fisheries committees? Also, is the £5 million
sufficient to take care of IFCAs’ additional responsibilities
compared with the sea fisheries
committees?
Huw
Irranca-Davies: Yes. To clarify, the funding is
sufficient, but the issue will be kept under review. We have a duty to
keep any new burdens on local authorities under review. We think that
the amount of funding is right and have made an assessment, along with
our chief economic adviser, to ensure that the funding accurately
reflects the costs. The provision also includes an element that I
believe to be around £1.6 million—I will correct myself
if I am wrong—to ensure that the transition is done
correctly.
The IFCAs will
be augmented—they are not simply the old sea fisheries
committees—in terms of membership and expertise, which is
reflected in the additional £5 million. However, we
cannot discard the fact that £6 million comes from the funding
of constituent local authorities. The primary difference is that all
coastal local authorities in England—I will come to Wales
later—will now be required to contribute. Previously,
some—for example, Liverpool—chose to opt out of
contributing, but all local authorities will now be required to pay a
proportionate share towards the
funding. In
Wales, as my hon. Friend knows, the powers relating to the funding that
is currently generated for sea fisheries committees will be taken on by
the Welsh Assembly Government, as desired by their Ministers. The
funding that currently goes to local authorities to be transferred to
sea fisheries committees will go to the Welsh Assembly
Government. We
will keep the issue under review, particularly in relation to any new
burdens that might arise, but we are confident that the sums of money
that central Government are providing, the transition money and the
money being provided by local authorities will be
sufficient.
Mr.
Benyon: In his reply to the hon. Member for Brecon and
Radnorshire, the Minister omitted to point out that IFCAs will be
required to produce an annual plan and an annual report, as outlined in
clause 173. That report must be made available to the Secretary of
State who, if he is worth his weight, will make it available to hon.
Members in the usual way. I suspect that if an IFCA is doing its job
properly, it will consult a wide variety of interested parties, which
should satisfy any concerns about its interim progress between the
four-yearly reporting requirement.
Huw
Irranca-Davies: The provisions in the Bill undoubtedly
strengthen significantly the necessity for a reporting function, so
there is the ability to intervene early. Let me return to the decision
about the IFCA district boundaries. As the Committee will be aware, we
launched a consultation and an impact assessment in January on future
options for IFCA district boundaries. That consultation included a
number of local authorities that will fall within the proposed
districts. The consultation set out two key options: a 10-district
model, which would involve relatively minimal change from the current
SFC model; and a six-district model, which would involve consolidation
and larger districts. The consultation ended on 22 April.
Members of
this Committee, as well as stakeholders, are understandably interested
to hear my decision on future districts, and I intend to make a formal
announcement very soon. At this stage, I can say that I have considered
the advice put to me and am minded to go with the 10-district option.
However, I would be grateful to hear the views of Committee members
before I make a formal
announcement. It
will be vital that IFCAs, as the marine fisheries managers in inshore
and estuarine waters, play a full role in supporting the implementation
of both the water framework directive and the marine strategy framework
directive, and they will be bound by the requirements of those
directives. Guidance to IFCAs will set out in detail how they will be
expected to deliver their new
roles. There will be guidance on a range of issues, including how they
will be expected to meet their new duties, how they will contribute to
the achievement of sustainable development and what role they will play
in the implementation of the water framework directive and the marine
strategy framework directive. There will be full public consultation on
all such guidance, and key stakeholder groups will be involved in the
production of guidance at the early stages through their role in IFCA
implementation
work. Andrew
George: I warmly welcome the announcement that the
Minister has just made, particularly about the six-district model. My
constituency contains two sea fisheries committees—Cornwall and
the Isles of Scilly. It is important to keep the integrity of both
those sea fisheries separate for good reasons, and they work together
very well in any case. Can the Minister reassure me that the
10-district model will maintain not only the integrity and separateness
of the Isles of Scilly and Cornwall, but their joint
working?
Huw
Irranca-Davies: I can give the hon. Gentleman that
reassurance and welcome his feedback on my announcement. I shall be
happy to hear the views of other members of the Committee either now or
separately. As I have said, I am minded to maintain the 10-option
model, but I will make an announcement on it soon. The hon. Gentleman
is right to say that we also have to make sure that these work together
very
effectively. 11
am
Nick
Ainger: One of the current sea fisheries committee areas
is North Western and Wales, which runs from Cardigan in the south right
up to north of Fleetwood. How will that be changed? When the Bill comes
into force, Welsh Ministers will obviously have responsibility for the
Welsh zone. Therefore, the IFCA for the north-west will not cover down
to Cardigan, although the current body does. Will the Minister explain
what will happen? The current sea fisheries boundary in south Wales
touches the north coast of Devon and possibly Somerset. How will the
boundaries be agreed?
Huw
Irranca-Davies: I can reassure my hon. Friend. Discussions
with ministerial colleagues and the Welsh Assembly Government, as well
as those at an official level, have confirmed that the necessity for
the IFCAs to work together effectively is understood, not least in the
area that he described off the north Wales coast where there is a
partnership bringing together the sea fisheries. That work includes the
options of memorandums of understanding to ensure that the sea
fisheries and IFCAs work together, and the same applies in the Bristol
channel and elsewhere. The need for close collaboration and for the
IFCAs to work together in all areas is imperative, and that is in the
Bill.
Nick
Ainger: One of the most contentious issues in recent years
has been the management of the cockle fishery on the Dee estuary.
Obviously, a single sea fisheries committee has covered both sides of
the boundary, so that in itself was not a problem, but other incredibly
complex issues have arisen. I am concerned that a boundary between the
Welsh zone and the north-western
zone that runs through the middle of the Dee estuary will make proper
management and regulation very difficult. Are there plans to reach an
agreement, for example that the IFCA covering the north-west may
include the whole of the Dee estuary, rather than it being split in
half?
Huw
Irranca-Davies: I am pleased to say that that issue is
currently the subject of live and constructive work with the Welsh
Assembly Government, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs and others. My hon. Friend will know that the Dee is managed by
the Environment Agency acting as a sea fisheries committee. The agency
also acts under a regulating order. The England and Wales boards split
the Dee, so we are actively engaged on working with the WAG, DEFRA and
others to ensure that fisheries management in the Dee is carried out in
a joined-up way. We have not yet worked through all the details of how
the Dee will be managed after the Bill has been passed, but that is
being addressed with the Welsh Assembly Government as part of detailed
implementation planning. We take on board my hon. Friend’s point
and we want to ensure that the new regime
works.
Mr.
Williams: It looks as though the solution whereby Welsh
Ministers become the IFCA for Wales will sort out the problem of
scallop dredging in Cardigan bay. At one time, that area was part of
the North Western and North Wales sea fisheries committee and it was
felt that the influence of the north-west was detrimental to the status
of Cardigan bay. I am sure that the Minister agrees that the solution
being put forward now will, in some ways, solve that difficult
problem.
Huw
Irranca-Davies: I agree entirely. We have the way forward.
I want to repeat to the Committee that the issue around fisheries and
border areas between England and Wales, much like those between England
and Scotland, requires a number of organisations to work together
effectively to manage fisheries. Clearly, Welsh Ministers will have to
work closely with all the cross-border and relevant neighbouring
agencies including the IFCAs, so such an arrangement will continue
under the Welsh Assembly Government’s proposed revised fisheries
management regime. In fact, my counterpart in the Welsh Assembly
Government, Elin Jones, has already made an announcement that signals
the clear intention to create memorandums of understanding with the
IFCAs that border Wales, the MMO and any other relevant bodies to
ensure that fisheries are managed in a joined-up and sustainable way. I
hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman. We will build on current
practice, but what is in the Bill gives the potential to make that
better. Mr.
Gale, may I turn to clause 153, which sets out that IFCAs must carry
out their duty in a way that is
consistent—
The
Chairman: Order. The answer to the Minister’s
question is no. Even if I stretch my imagination as leniently as
possible, we cannot go past clause 152 because an amendment to clause
153 has been selected, but how the Minister chooses to handle affairs
is up to him.
Huw
Irranca-Davies: Assuming that that was our stand part
debate, I am content, at your discretion, Mr. Gale, to move
to clause 153 and the
amendment.
| 
