Mr.
Benyon: The only thing I can add to this debate, which has
been good, is to tell the Minister that running through the Bill is a
thread of localism, or the potential to encourage a more local approach
to the management of fisheries. I think that the amendment is in that
spirit, so I hope that the Minister will respond to it
favourably.
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Ann
McKechin): Good morning, Mr.
Gale. This
debate has seen many passions rise, and clearly we have several keen
anglers in the Committee, including my hon. Friend the Member for
Reading, West. I was struck by some of his comments, particularly the
fact that fish do not read maps—presumably they do not have
satnavs either. I also noted his comments about the need for
flexibility and localism, which were backed up by the hon. Member for
Newbury, and the need to look at things on a case-by-case basis. A
number of strong arguments have been
presented. The
Bill provides clear rules for IFCAs, the Environment Agency and the MMO
in relation to fisheries management. Clear rules aid the aims of
transparency and responsibility,
which have to be key components of the Bill. The Environment Agency will
maintain lead responsibility for the management of freshwater and
migratory species, while IFCAs will lead on marine species management
and the MMO will carry out the fisheries management activity currently
carried out by the Marine and Fisheries Agency, including enforcement
of the common fisheries policy. That arrangement provides a clear
division of responsibilities among the organisations, but we recognise
the need to ensure that there is close co-operation at an operational
level, which was very much supported by hon. Members. I was
particularly interested in the comments made by my hon. Friend the
Member for Carmarthen, West and South Pembrokeshire about the existing
operation in the Dee estuary. Both the MMO and the Environment Agency
will have a statutory seat on each IFCA, and I know the agency is keen
to be actively involved in committees. The Bill also
provides for cross-warranting of enforcement activity among the three
organisations, building on existing successful cross-warranting
arrangements. The Bill places a duty on IFCAs to co-operate with other
relevant public authorities, which will include the MMO and the
Environment Agency. Government guidance will also set out the need for
IFCAs, the agency and the MMO to work closely together and that is
likely to include memorandums of understanding. The model set out in
the Bill will provide effective inshore fisheries management. However,
some very constructive points have been made during the debate on the
merit of providing additional flexibility. I recognise the value of
providing such flexibility in terms of better regulation and more
effective joined-up
working. We
are not able to accept the amendment as worded. Arrangements for
delegation need to be set out in much more detail than they are in the
amendment and in a way that is consistent with the MMO delegation
clauses. The hon. Member for St. Ives raised a good point about
conflict. We would not agree to a delegation without the
Secretary of State’s approval. As proposed new
subsection (7) under the amendment currently stands, the
Secretary of State would have the right to “remove any
body”, but not to intervene in the delegation. The issue of
conflict needs to be dealt with at the time of appointment, rather than
when there is a review of any problem that may arise after
that. I
accept that such a change could be useful in strengthening the
future-proofing of part 6 of the Bill. I would like to reflect on the
issues that have been raised and to consider whether we could make a
change that takes into account the considerations of hon. Members on
both sides of the Committee. On that basis, I urge my hon. Friend the
Member for Reading, West to withdraw the
amendment.
Martin
Salter: This excellent debate has been an example of us
doing what we came to Parliament to do: improving legislation. We
started off with a fundamentally good Bill and we are trying to make it
better. If I am receiving an indication from the Minister that this
matter will definitely be brought back on Report—words such as
“consider” are not enough—to reflect the points
made by hon. Members, particularly the issue teased out by the hon.
Member for St. Ives about enforcing a
delegation where one is needed for conservation reasons, I accept that
the amendment as currently drafted is deficient, and
therefore—
The
Chairman: Order. It is not my position, place or desire to
editorialise but, before the hon. Gentleman does what I think he is
going to, I warn the Committee that Hansard cannot record a
Minister
nodding.
Martin
Salter: Thank you, Mr.
Gale.
Ann
McKechin: I am grateful for your clarification,
Mr. Gale. I am happy to confirm that we will consider the
matter on
Report.
Martin
Salter: I think that that is a stronger
“consider”. I am taking that as meaning that the matter
will be brought back on Report. Would the Minister like to intervene on
me to
confirm?
Ann
McKechin: I am happy to
confirm.
Martin
Salter: I visited the dentist earlier this week, and
sometimes this is like pulling teeth. On that basis, I beg to ask leave
to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 168
ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Clauses
169 to 179 ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Schedule
14 agreed
to. Clauses
180 to 183 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
184Power
of Welsh Ministers in relation to fisheries in
Wales 12
noon Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss new
clause 2— Duty on Welsh Ministers in relation to management of
inshore fisheries ‘(1) In
exercising their powers under this Act or other Sea Fisheries Acts,
Welsh Ministers shall seek to ensure that the exploitation of sea
fisheries resources in Wales and the Welsh Zone is carried out in a
sustainable way. (2) At
intervals of no more than four calendar years, Welsh Ministers shall
make a report to the National Assembly for Wales on how they have
discharged their powers in accordance with subsection
(1). (3) The first report of
this kind shall be made within four calendar years of the enactment of
this Act. (4) A report made
under this section must
include— (a) an
assessment of the extent to which the exploitation of sea fisheries
resources in the Welsh Zone is carried out in a sustainable
way; (b) actions the Minister
has taken in order to seek to ensure that the conservation objectives
of marine conservation zones are furthered, insofar as these actions
relate to fisheries
management; (c) actions the
Minister will take in the light of the assessment provided in the
report, in pursuance of the objective in subsection
(1);
(d) any other matter relating to the management of
sea fisheries resources that the Minister considers
appropriate.’. New
clause 3—Transfers of powers in relation to
fisheries ‘In Part 1 of
Schedule 5 to the Government of Wales Act 2006 (c. 32) (Assembly
Measures), in field 1 (agriculture, fisheries, forestry and rural
development)
insert— “Matter
1.1A Provision to confer a
statutory duty upon Welsh Ministers in relation to the management of
fisheries.”’. New
clause 4—Duties of the Welsh Ministers in relation to
fisheries in Wales ‘(1) At
regular intervals the Welsh Ministers shall report to the National
Assembly for Wales on the way in which their powers pertaining to the
management of sea fisheries resources have been discharged in
accordance with the scheme produced under section 79 of the Government
of Wales Act 2006 (c.32), insofar as this applies to the management of
the exploitation of sea fisheries
resources. (2) A report made
under this section shall
include— (a) an
assessment of the extent to which the exploitation of sea fisheries
resources in Welsh waters is carried out in a sustainable
way; (b) particulars of actions
the Welsh Ministers have taken in order to seek to ensure that the
conservation objectives of Marine Conservation Zones are furthered;
insofar as these actions relate to fisheries
management; (c) particulars of
actions the Welsh Ministers will take in the light of the assessment
provided in the report; (d) any
other matter relating to the management of sea fisheries resources that
the Welsh Ministers consider
appropriate. (3) In this
section “regular intervals” means intervals of no longer
than four years, with the first interval being measured from the date
of enactment of this
Act.’.
Mr.
Williams: Thank you, Mr. Gale. I seek your
guidance on whether to start with issues arising from the clause stand
part debate and then move on to the new
clauses.
The
Chairman: It is the same debate, because the stand part
debate embraces the new clauses. I called the hon. Gentleman first
because his is the first name on the first new clause tabled. I am sure
that he would wish to address both issues.
Mr.
Williams: Thank you for that guidance, Mr.
Gale. I would like to speak to a number of issues relating to clause
184 and the powers given to Welsh Ministers with regard to fisheries in
Wales. They have, quite rightly, decided to form the IFCA in Wales.
When we look at provisions in preceding clauses, it is not entirely
clear whether they apply equally to Wales. Although Welsh Ministers
have the power to introduce and confirm byelaws relating to fisheries,
as I understand it they do not have the same powers as the Secretary of
State regarding emergency byelaws. In clause 157, an IFCA has the power
to impose an emergency byelaw if it believes that some element of the
fishery system is exploiting a particular species, or a particular
juvenile stage of that species. However, it is not clear whether that
power falls to the Welsh IFCA, and therefore to the Welsh
Ministers.
Under clause
157, an IFCA has the power to extend an emergency byelaw with the
permission of the Secretary of State. My understanding is that the
Secretary of State would not have any power to extend an emergency
byelaw in Wales and, therefore, the power does not extend to Wales. I
would like some clarification of that matter.
In the preceding clauses,
definitions of particular issues are set out very clearly, but it is
not entirely clear whether those definitions relate to Wales as well.
For example, sea fisheries resources, exploitation, fishing
communities, marine environmental matters and the marine environment
are all defined, and that extends to those issues the power that an
IFCA may have. It is not clear whether those definitions relate to the
powers in Wales, so I should like some clarification of
that as well.
In preceding
clauses, a duty is placed on the Secretary of State to report on the
sustainability of fisheries, on a four-yearly basis, as set out in the
Bill. The hon. Member for Newbury has said that IFCAs have to report on
an annual basis as well. There is, I accept, regular updating on the
work of these very important bodies. However, there is no duty set out
in the Bill for Welsh Ministers to report to the Welsh Assembly in a
similar way. Elin Jones, the relevant Minister in the Welsh Assembly,
has said that the Bill does not need to set out a duty for Welsh
Ministers in that regard. They would do it naturally, because of their
concern and their interest in these matters. However, I have tabled new
clauses 2 and 3 to tease out the issues. They differ slightly because
of the sensitivities and technicalities of the devolved settlement and
the Government of Wales Acts 1998 and
2006. New clause 2
imposes a duty on Welsh Ministers to report back to the Welsh Assembly.
From my point of view, and that of my party, imposing duties from
Westminster on a devolved Assembly is not within the spirit of the
devolution settlement. We would prefer to give Welsh Ministers the
power to determine how to carry out what we believe the
responsibilities should
be. New
clause 3 seeks to amend the Government of Wales Act 2006, which sets
out which matters are devolved and reserved. It does that by listing
fields that are subject to devolution, and matters that are specific
elements in those fields. The new clause sets out a new matter within
the field that includes agriculture, fisheries, forestry and rural
development: “Provision
to confer a statutory duty upon Welsh Ministers in relation to the
management of
fisheries.’”
Nick
Ainger: The hon. Gentleman mentioned Elin Jones, and I am
sure that he has received the same letter as me, in which she
states: “Following
a recent meeting with the Countryside Council for Wales I have
considered reporting requirements further and I will be making a
commitment to report annually to the Assembly on the exercise of
fisheries functions. I will be setting this out in a statement
shortly.” Does
that not mean that she accepts the regular reporting on the performance
of the Welsh IFCA—for want of a better description—that
the hon. Gentleman and I, would like to see? Does that letter not
confirm that everything the hon. Gentleman wants will be delivered by
the Assembly Minister?
Mr.
Williams: I believe, as does the hon. Gentleman, that it
would be within the spirit of the devolution settlement for the
Minister to be able to take that forward. All we do in new clause 3 is
set out a matter within the field, which gives the Minister an
opportunity not only to report, but to carry out the functions that
might be associated with her work, or that of future Ministers, as far
as the IFCA is concerned. The new clause would make only a minor
amendment to the 2006 Act, and would ensure that there was capacity in
the Assembly, and in the Minister’s powers, for the work to be
carried out as well and as fully as
possible. Mr.
David Jones (Clwyd, West) (Con): The hon. Gentleman says
that new clause 3 would amount only to a minor amendment, but my
reading of it is that it would confer primary legislative competence
upon the Assembly. Does he suggest therefore that, notwithstanding what
the hon. Member for Carmarthen, West and South Pembrokeshire has to
say, the Minister does not have that power to create a duty upon
herself?
| 
