The
Chairman: Order. There are one or two things that we have
to do
first.
Andrew
George: I want to take the opportunity to welcome the
Minister’s statement. In an intervention I said that I welcomed
the fact that he will make an announcement in a few days’ time
giving detail on the numbers and the designated boundaries of the
districts for the IFCAs. That development is welcome, as is this
morning’s clarification, particularly as it will have a
significant impact on our debate on the rest of this part of the Bill.
However, he needs to reflect a little more on the interventions made by
both me and the hon. Member for Reading, West about IFCA membership.
The appointment of representatives by the MMO needs to be handled
sensitively. They will not only be local authority representatives, as
the hon. Member for Reading, West indicated. They could be enthusiastic
recreational sea anglers, for example. Such people would need to
declare their interests. They might be members of the local wildlife
trust or of a local fishing community. They could be engaged in the
fishing industry, or have family members engaged in it. Such interests
need to be declarable at the time of appointment to the
IFCA. What
has also come out of our debate is that there appear to be conflicts of
interest in Wales, not only between fishing activities such as scallop
dredging and the interests of the marine environment in Cardigan bay,
but within the industry itself. There are often conflicts between
fishing activities, such as between powerful boats that can drag heavy
fishing tackle over the sea bed—in scallop dredging or beam
trawling for example—and other inshore fishing industry
activities, such as coastal potting. There are also conflicts between
those who set static gear around the inshore areas and those who then
cannot trawl either in the mid-water or on the sea bed because of how
that static gear has been
laid. All
those conflicting interests in the industry, let alone the potential
conflicts within the IFCAs themselves, need to be carefully and
sensitively handled, and the Minister—and the Secretary of State
as well as the MMO in the future—might need to consider allowing
the IFCAs to have a sufficiently large membership to ensure that all
those representative interests are properly balanced in the
authority. I
am grateful to you, Mr. Gale, for allowing me to respond to
an important introduction to a debate on the future of what will be
extremely welcome
bodies. Question
put and agreed
to. Clause
149 accordingly ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Clauses
150 to 152 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
153Management
of inshore
fisheries
Andrew
George: I beg to move amendment 53, in
clause 153, page 103, line 12, at
end insert— ‘(ba) seek to
further the conservation and recovery of marine flora and fauna in the
district,’.
I should like
to take this opportunity to emphasise that furthering the conservation
and recovery of the health of the marine flora and fauna in the
district should be clearly spelled out as an objective of an IFCA.
Clause 154 is about the protection of marine conservation zones, but
not all the inshore waters will be a MCZ, so the purpose of this
amendment is to spell out the importance of protecting, through further
conservation and recovery, the marine flora and fauna outside MCZs,
too. I
have perhaps spoken more than most about the interests of the fishing
industry. Although much of the fish that our fishermen catch and bring
to our coastal communities is sold to other states in Europe, we still
eat a lot of fish in this country and that fish is caught in the sea.
Farming fish is a less satisfactory method of producing fish for the
marketplace than catching wild fish. Fishermen are often unfairly and
inaccurately caricatured as the villains of the sea or the
inconsiderate plunderers of the sea’s resources, and my
amendment might appear to be anathema to them. It could be seen as a
further step contrary to the interests of fishermen who simply want to
help themselves to the marine resource free from any
impediment. On
Second Reading, however, I pointed out that the fishing industry itself
is keen to ensure that the marine resource is protected. It recognises
that it needs sustainable fishing and it has a shared interest in
ensuring that fish stocks can recover and that spawning stocks are
protected. Fishermen, marine conservationists and marine biologists
share an interest in ensuring that these things are properly regulated.
Fishermen recognise how the viability of their own business is
undermined if they are out there doing precisely the same as their
competitors in the sea and going for the last fish in any particular
water. It is therefore in their interest that the marine resource is
protected, so they are often in favour of measures to achieve that. The
closure of the Trevose spring spawning ground on the north coast of
Cornwall is an example of an initiative that was proposed and promoted
by the fishing industry
itself. 11.15
am I hope that the
Minister realises that, rather than having a purely conservationist
perspective, the amendment recognises a shared interest between the
promotion of marine biodiversity and a sustainable fishing
industry.
Huw
Irranca-Davies: May I thank the hon. Gentleman for the way
in which he introduced this part of the debate? I understand the
sentiments behind the amendment, but I hope to be able to explain why
it is unnecessary and why, if we accepted it, it might lead to the very
imbalance that he has talked about. I will give some clarification and
a fair deal of
reassurance. Clause
153 sets out a requirement that IFCAs carry out their key duty in a way
that is consistent with sustainable development. As was discussed in
the other place, the breakdown of duties set out in the clause includes
the pillars of sustainable development, and the need to balance
environmental, social and economic drivers. In broad terms,
IFCAs’ key duty requires them to have regard to all aspects of
sustainable development in carrying out their
functions.
In the other
place, my noble Friend Lord Hunt recognised that an explicit reference
to sustainable development in the clause would aid consistency and
clarity and reinforce the fact that the Government take the sustainable
development duty seriously. As such, clause 153(2)(c) places a
requirement on IFCAs to take the necessary steps to contribute to
sustainable development. We have also made a change to require the
Secretary of State to give IFCAs guidance on how they are to make such
a
contribution. As
my noble Friend Lord Hunt said in the other place, the duty placed on
IFCAs in relation to the recovery of marine flora and fauna includes,
as outlined in clause 153(2)(b), a duty
“to protect the
marine environment from, or promote its recovery
from” the
effects of exploitation when managing sea fisheries resources within
their district. The marine environment is defined in clause 181, and
includes flora and fauna that are dependent on, or associated with, a
marine or coastal environment. As such, the duty already requires IFCAs
to promote the recovery of marine flora and fauna. If a habitat has
been damaged in the past by fishing, but is still able to recover, the
authorities will have to weigh that in the balance when considering
appropriate controls on fishermen. The authorities cannot take as a
baseline the condition of the district from a certain date and ignore
what it was like in the
past. On
the duty to further conservation, it is important to note that IFCAs
have a specific duty in MCZs, as outlined in clause 154, to ensure that
the conservation objectives of MCZs are furthered. That will ensure
that those sensitive areas are protected. Additionally, IFCAs, as
public authorities, are required by clause 125(2) to exercise their
functions in a way that best furthers, or, where that is not possible,
least hinders, the conservation objectives of any MCZs in their
districts. If they fail to do that, the relevant statutory conservation
body can require them to explain why, and could publish that
explanation. Where specific actions of IFCAs fail to meet their duty,
they can be judicially
reviewed. In
other areas, it is fundamental that IFCAs should be required to balance
all the different aspects of sustainable development. A requirement to
further conservation would unbalance that primary duty, so that
conservation would be given undue prominence in relation to sustainable
fisheries management. One motivation for adding a duty to further
conservation to the Bill is to help drive culture change. There has
been a lot of discussion about driving culture change when sea
fisheries committees are replaced by IFCAs. Concerns have been
expressed that SFCs are too influenced by commercial interests. Our
view is that the range of statutory and other changes we are making in
replacing SFCs with IFCAs will mean that environmental protection is
taken very seriously and becomes embedded in the way in which they
operate. I will explain why. Most importantly, IFCAs will have new
duties placed on them to balance the protection of the marine
environment with the sustainable exploitation of sea fisheries
resources. That is a fundamental difference, as SFCs do not have that
duty. The Secretary of State will produce guidance for IFCAs on how
they are to meet the new duties. There will be full public consultation
on that guidance. I know that the hon. Member for Newbury does not like
the word but until we get a better one I am going to use
it—key stakeholder groups will be involved in the production of
that at the early stages through their role in the IFCA implementation
work. There will
also be a range of other means to drive cultural change, most notably
the restructuring of committee membership to include statutory seats
for the Environment Agency, Natural England and the MMO. Other members
will be appointed by the MMO and will include people acquainted with
the needs and opinions of the local fishing community and those with
knowledge of or expertise in marine environmental matters. This
includes representation from a range of sectors such as those with
interests in environmental issues, recreational fishing and commercial
matters. The Secretary of State will produce guidance for the MMO on
the appointments process, which will ensure that IFCA membership
reflects the needs of the districts and enables them to meet their new
duties. Again, there will be full public consultation. Accountability
will be ensured by the statutory requirements for IFCAs to produce
annual plans, as we have heard, under clause 172 and
reports, under clause 173. In addition, the Secretary of State must, as
we discussed earlier, submit a four-yearly report to Parliament, as set
out in clause 178. I believe that the weight of all those requirements
will drive culture change and ensure that IFCAs effectively deliver
their new duties, both in MCZs but also across the wider district that
they cover.
As Lord Hunt
said in the other place, placing an explicit duty on IFCAs to further
the conservation of the marine environment outside MCZs would
fundamentally alter and unbalance the primary duty to manage the
exploitation of sea fisheries resources in a sustainable way. IFCAs are
going to have to balance the social and economic benefits of exploiting
sea fisheries resources with the need to protect the marine
environment. That is consistent with the MMO’s position, and is
in line with Government’s wider commitments to the principles of
sustainable development. In the other place, there was recognition of
the need for IFCAs, in meeting the general duty, to take into account
all aspects of sustainable development. For example, Baroness Carnegy
of Lour spoke of the importance of balance when considering the
interests of local people and conservation of the environment. Another
motivation for change to the clause is to ensure that IFCAs play their
part in delivering the requirements of the water framework directive,
to which I referred earlier. I hope that gives some clarity.
To conclude,
IFCAs’ new duties in MCZs will require them to further the
conservation objectives in those sensitive areas. Elsewhere,
IFCAs’ general duty will ensure the protection of the
environment is properly balanced against social and economic
considerations. The range of statutory and other changes that we are
making in replacing SFCs with IFCAs will ensure they can deliver their
new duties. I hope that, with that extensive reassurance, the hon.
Gentleman will agree to withdraw the
amendment.
Andrew
George: I am grateful to the Minister for that extensive
tour de force on various clauses and his reassurance on the issue.
Clause 153(2)(b) deals with the need to promote
“recovery”
from “the
effects of such exploitation”.
That is clearly recovery
from fisheries exploitation, whereas the IFCAs may well look at the
recovery of marine flora and fauna from impacts other than fishing. On
clause 154, as I said a moment ago, that only applies where a MCZ has
been designated. The Minister quite rightly emphasises the
importance of getting the balance right, perpetually referring to the
requirement to further the cause of sustainable development. Having
said that, may I refer him to the debate that we had last week, as I
remain unhappy about the lack of an adequate definition of
“sustainable development” and the tenets that underlie
it?
The Minister
argued strongly that there is a wide stakeholder interest, which is
welcome and will reassure the hon. Member for Newbury that these people
are, as it were, old fishing stakes—perhaps that is a more
acceptable metaphor to him. In my own area, there is welcome news that
the integrity of both Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly will be retained
and that, unlike Wales, there will be no bleed-over into bits of
England. Unlike the position for the Welsh, the national integrity of
Cornwall will not be affected. With the creation of 10 districts, the
ability to achieve those outcomes will be much enhanced. On that basis
and the reassurances offered by the Minister, I beg to ask leave to
withdraw the amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn. Clause
153 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses
154 to 167 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
168Provision
of services by IFC authorities
Martin
Salter: I beg to move amendment 51, in
clause 168, page 112, line 16, at
end insert— ‘(4) In relation
to its area or to a specified part or parts of its area, an IFC
authority may enter into an agreement with an eligible body authorising
the eligible body to perform any function of the
authority. (5) In this
subsection “specified” means specified in the
agreement. (6) In this
subsection “eligible body” means the Environment Agency
or the Marine Management
Organisation. (7) The Secretary
of State may by order amend subsection (4)(c) so as to add
any body or description of body to the list, or remove any body or
description of body from
it.’. The
purpose of this amendment is to provide that the IFC Authorities are
able to delegate powers to the Environment Agency to manage all fish
species in upper
estuaries. Issues
regarding the exact terms of reference and the boundaries which will
apply to the new IFCAs came up extensively in the Joint Committee.
There have been strong representations from environmental groups,
recreational anglers and the Environment Agency suggesting that the
original draft of the Bill got it wrong. It would be difficult to
describe something more perverse than the notion of a sea fisheries
committee—albeit a revised sea fisheries committee given a new
name, a new budget and strengthened with greater representation, but
still a sea fisheries authority—having jurisdiction on the River
Thames from outside the window of this Committee Room up to the tidal
limit at Teddington weir. There are no commercial sea fishing interests
in Twickenham, Isleworth and Brentford—at least none that I know
of,
and certainly not when compared with the value of the freshwater
fishery, or the millions of pounds generated in the sale of freshwater
rod licences. Thousands of recreational anglers, in particular, enjoy
fishing the tidal Thames, irrespective of the fact that Thames Water
has just committed another act of pollution at Mogden sewage treatment
works, which I am sure is something to which we will return. One can look
at other river catchments in the country—for example, the River
Severn in Gloucestershire. The tidal limit of the River Severn goes up
to Gloucester. What sea fisheries interest is there in Gloucester? More
ridiculously—perhaps this is something to do with the fact that
I am told the country is tilting gradually into the sea towards the
east—the tidal limit of the Trent runs up to Cromwell weir, just
outside Nottingham. Do we seriously want our new sea fisheries
committees to be primarily worrying about freshwater fisheries miles
and miles inland? Of course not. There was clearly an error in the way
in which the Bill was put together, and the amendment seeks to address
that. 11.30
am May
I read for the record a recommendation from the Joint Committee? As I
said in my introductory remarks at the start of the Committee stage,
for many of us, that informs our approach to many of the issues in the
Bill, which has been well scrutinised. The Joint Committee process was
successful and I am surprised that its recommendations did not find
their way into the Government’s thinking. Recommendation 63
stated: “We
believe there is a strong case for the Environment Agency to manage the
majority of fisheries in estuaries but we would, in addition, support
the establishment of working boundaries between the Environment Agency
and IFCAs on a case by case basis in consultation with the relevant
estuary or coastal partnership where they exist. In general these
boundaries should be based on the upstream limit of commercial fishing
interest,”— that
is an important
point— “with
the Environment Agency managing all fisheries upstream of this boundary
(set out in secondary legislation) and migratory fisheries interest
below out to six nautical miles. However, the Bill should allow the
Environment Agency to retain management of the whole of estuaries where
they are already acting as the Sea Fisheries Committee (under
cross-warranting procedures) if this is the optimal local
arrangement.”
| 
