Andrew
George: My point is about something that might be a detail
within the Government amendments. The Minister refers to the role of
the Duchy of Cornwall and the Duchy of Lancaster. Their interest, as I
understand it, applies only to the foreshore. In Cornwall and the Isles
of Scilly, the foreshore is owned by the Duchy of Cornwall separately
from the Crown—I do not know which bits are owned by the Duchy
of Lancaster. Therefore, presumably all that the Minister has just
explained in relation to the Crown estate cannot apply in the same way
to the duchies, and certainly not to the Duchy of Cornwall, which is
not as answerable to Parliament and does not operate with the intention
of producing a surplus for the Treasury. It is, in that sense, a
different operation to the one that the IFCAs and the MMO will be
negotiating.
Huw
Irranca-Davies: Although the duchies perform much the same
function as the Crown estate, and their land is affected by the
creation of a shellfish order, it is not possible to express their
rights clearly in primary legislation. I am assured that even though
the duchies do not have an Act of their own that sets out their duties,
as the Crown estate does, the amendments apply equally to them and the
Crown estate. Therefore, the measure would equally apply to the duchies
and to shellfisheries on those estates, and that has to be good
news. Mr.
Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con): There is a perception that
the Minister has bowled us a fast ball. I am grateful to him and his
officials for providing me
with background information, which I received relatively recently, and I
have been endeavouring to understand what we are trying to achieve. The
Minister makes a laudable effort to resolve a long-standing problem.
However, strong concerns remain among shellfish fishermen and owners of
shellfish rights around UK waters. We need to put their concerns on
record, and the Minister needs to address them and, if it is his
belief, point out that their perceptions are
unfounded. Those
involved in the Menai strait case have made an impassioned plea that
the matter not be dealt with at this stage, because they believe that
that would “undermine the foundations” of their business.
They believe that such an approach would be a laudable attempt to deal
with the disease, but that doing so would kill the patient. We need a
careful explanation of what the Minister is seeking by trying to solve
the impasse between the Crown Estate Commissioners and DEFRA.
Some involved
have for years defended their businesses against the proposals to build
a marina within the Menai strait fishery. The proposal, in their view,
would have crippled the UK’s biggest mussel-producing area,
which produces £5 million of mussels a year. They have just
celebrated a Court of Appeal ruling, but now feel that it is being
reversed by the Minister at the eleventh hour. I hear what the Minister
says about the length of time that he has been in negotiations, but the
Bill has seemingly been going through Parliament for an interminable
time, and it is strange that we have reached this clause and are keen
to tackle other elements of the Bill, but we are suddenly faced with
Government amendments that are causing great
concern.
Huw
Irranca-Davies: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. It
is worth reflecting on the fact that we originally did not conceive of
addressing the matter in the Bill. However, in the other place,
Baroness Wilcox and Baroness Miller identified a valid concern that we
in the Department and others had been wrestling with for some time and
wanted the opportunity to address. Such opportunities are rare, and now
we have one, even though it was not originally conceived that we could
do anything about the matter in the Bill. The hon. Gentleman is right
that this is the eleventh hour, but the other 10 hours and
59 minutes have been spent in some very detailed
discussions.
Mr.
Benyon: I know that the Minister has consulted Baroness
Wilcox among others. I confess that I have not, but I must do so before
long because she has a great understanding of the matter. She might be
broadly happy with what the Minister is doing, and she speaks for a
sizeable group of people in the industry, but others are concerned. It
has been put to us that if
“the Committee
makes the amendments, it will be paving the way for the
destruction” of
legitimate businesses,
“hastening the
demise of a sustainable marine cultivation industry worth £22M a
year to the UK
economy.” I
should like to talk about the concerns of the Shellfish Association of
Great Britain.
Huw
Irranca-Davies: I just want to make it clear to the hon.
Gentleman and the Committee that I have not spoken recently to either
Baroness. As far as I know,
they are as exercised about the measure as some in the Shellfish
Association of Great Britain, as some in the association want the
measures.
Mr.
Benyon: I am sure that that is the case. The more I get
involved in coastal Britain, the more I know that one can never give an
authentic voice for any particular industry, only for aspects of
it.
The Shellfish
Association is keen to put across the fact that the Government did not
inform the industry’s national trade association of the wording
of the proposed amendments until after the Committee had begun. It
strongly believes that the proposed amendments to the Sea Fisheries
(Shellfish) Act 1967 will severely undermine the legal protection that
it and its successor provide to shellfish farmers, which they have done
for a great length of time.
The
association would like the Minister to address three things: the
criteria for any consideration by Ministers, the scope for any
compensation payments, and the need for greater consultation. In the
short time that I have had the information from the association, I have
not been able to assess the amendments that it would propose or to put
them to the Minister. I am asking for breathing space and for us to
return to the matter on Report. He and I can work together
constructively to ensure that the problem is solved quickly. However,
at this stage, with the main industry body having very serious
concerns, it would be wrong to make the
amendments.
Andrew
George: I rise to support the hon. Gentleman and his plea
for the Minister to give the issue a further rethink. It was as a
result of my coming into possession of the Government amendments at the
weekend and, shortly thereafter, learning of the complaints and strong
expressions of concern from the Shellfish Association of Great Britain,
that I tabled a measure relating to the Government’s proposals,
which of course could not be selected because of the time factor. That
further underscores the difficulty of our eleventh-hour
debate.
I appreciate
the pressures under which the Department has been operating, and I do
not doubt that there have been lengthy and complex negotiations. Like
the hon. Member for Newbury, I find that trying to get my head around
the confluence of different legislation about the Crown estate and
shell fisheries, as well as trying to bolt that on to the Bill, is a
significant challenge. I appreciate the Minister’s argument
about the industry not necessarily having one concerted and harmonious
voice on this or any other issue—such a claim is a matter for
debate and can perhaps be tested outside the Committee—but I
believe that we are being asked to consider the issue rather
quickly.
The industry
has seen the Minister’s amendments and it has proposed
alternatives. The right and proper thing to do is what several members
of the Committee have done so far: table amendments, listen to the
debate and then consider the consequences of rushing things through
when we might have the opportunity to resolve issues on Report. The
honourable course for the Minister in such circumstances is to accept
that although important progress has been made in recent weeks, it is
not sufficient to make me comfortable with the Government’s
present position. I would support the Minister more if he were to
reflect on the concerns that have been expressed,
withdraw the amendments and return with well worked-up amendments on
Report, following further negotiations with the
industry. Huw
Irranca-Davies: We have had a useful discussion. My hon.
Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland and I have probably
shown ourselves to be willing to listen to and engage with the
Committee, as well as to adjust, when necessary, and reflect on what
has been said.
Let me
address the impasse and the challenge of getting any agreement between
the parties that had been to the High Court on the matter of
shellfisheries. We were able to engage with them properly only after
14 May, when the action concluded. However, prior and
subsequent to that, we have been fully engaged on a way forward. I can
honestly say that if we were to take time to reflect over the summer
and return on Report, the amendments before hon. Members would be no
different. The detail is fresh to many of us, including me, but the
amendments have come to fruition over a long time, and the fundamentals
of this issue will not vary over the
summer. 4.30
pm I
will tell the Committee, quite honestly, what my concern is. Despite
the fact that, as I have said, we are usually quite sympathetic to the
idea of going away and reflecting on matters, my concern is that we
will get to the end of the summer and one or other of the parties will
walk away from the position where we are now. We have taken this long
to get to a point where we have something that is broadly acceptable,
even if some people are completely up in arms about it—we have
to acknowledge that.
However,
there are sections of the shellfish industry that currently do not have
several and regulating orders. There are companies now that are
struggling to make business and to take commercial decisions; there are
companies that are faced with taking decisions about whether or not to
continue investing in shellfisheries.
Let me turn
directly to two of the points that were raised about the Menai strait
case. [Interruption.] I will just deal with those
points and then I will come back to other points, because I have a
little more detail to flesh out here.
In respect of
the Menai strait, which is where this proposal effectively came to
fruition from, a question has been asked. If these amendments were
accepted, would the marina on the Menai strait have been built? Could
that have gone ahead? It is true that there is a chance that the marina
would have been built, but I must say that it is far from certain.
First, the developers would have had to apply for permission relating
to the development under the new regime that is set out in the Bill, to
request that the order be varied, and it is unclear whether that
permission would have been granted. If the developers received
permission, Welsh Ministers would still have to consider the request to
vary the order. What is clear, however, is that the new variation
process would have provided the grantees of the Menai strait order with
a means of obtaining adequate compensation and the opportunity to vary
the order, potentially to provide them with a new area to cultivate
shellfish in. So I understand the concerns about the
Menai strait, but I want to make it clear that we are not talking only
about the Menai strait. We are talking about a very important, highly
sustainable UK industry, which at the moment has no certainty to
invest. Mr.
Benyon: I entirely accept what the Minister says. However,
the fact remains that, given that the industry has these very serious
concerns, even if we were to approve these amendments today in
Committee, that would not speed up the ability of shellfisheries
elsewhere in the country to get those several rights. That will happen
at Royal Assent. Consequently, we can sort this matter out on Report,
everybody can feel that they have been consulted and unless I am
missing something—I admit that I am relatively a new boy to this
House—it can be resolved in exactly the same time scale as it
would be if we accepted these amendments
today.
Huw
Irranca-Davies: Let me return to that issue in a moment,
because there is a job to be done on working with the industry, the
Crown estate and others who are potentially affected by this change;
that is the job that needs to be done. Having said that, I maintain my
position that what we have in front of us here are well crafted
amendments that will do the job that many people have been asking us to
do so for so long.
I will come
back in a moment to how I think we should take that matter forward.
Before I do so, let me address one of the other issues that was raised
by the hon. Gentleman, about how compensation would be worked out. We
see two possible ways in which compensation can be worked out. First,
in commercial agreements between the landowner and the grantee of an
order, the variation order can refer back to those agreements, which
will either set the amount of compensation or how it is to be
determined. Secondly, when considering a variation the Secretary of
State can appoint an independent inspector to assess the appropriate
level of compensation. That process would look at the value of
shellfish that are landed and at any moneys paid to the grantee for the
right to fish on the landowner’s land.
I want to
address the crux of the matter and the potential way forward. I
recognise that our amendments are detailed and, moreover, that they
have caused some concern; I also must say that they have gained some
support out there from parts of the shellfish industry and others. In
fact, we are pleased to note that we have the acceptance of the clauses
by the Crown estate and the duchies, and a potential applicant for a
major order in Morecambe bay supports these amendments. We note that
the recent briefing note from the Shellfish Association of Great
Britain to the Committee focuses on the technical detail of the
amendment and states that while accepting the thrust and aim of the
proposed amendment and that it does serve as an effective mechanism to
break the current logjam, it is suggested that the following amendments
be made to the
amendment. Our
amendment is written in such a way as to allow more detailed
discussions about the criteria that Ministers would use before an order
was varied and about how compensation would be calculated. We do not
believe that it would be helpful now to limit those issues in the Bill.
We need to consult and engage with the industry in detail on them. It
is possible that a lot of what is being sought and what the hon. Member
for Newbury raised
can be achieved. I am more than willing to work with the hon. Gentleman,
as I will work with the Shellfish Association of Great Britain and
others—there are disparate interests within the shellfish
industry—to bring forward the notes and guidance, which we need
to draw up in full consultation with the industry, the Crown estates
and the duchies. We have the summer to get on with it. In consulting
with the industry, we will also ensure that individual grantees of
orders, in addition to the Shellfish Association of Great Britain, are
allowed the opportunity to comment and provide input. I am more than
happy to get on and continue that dialogue to flesh out with hon.
Members how this will work, to identify where we can improve the
operation of the new processes for varying orders and to bring forward
the notes and guidance. That is what we need to get on with in the
summer, because ever since I have been in this Department this issue
has been a roadblock to investment in shellfisheries. We now have in
front of us—here, now, today—a way forward. Over the
summer, we can engage in constructive dialogue, which I invite hon.
Members to get involved in, to flesh out where we
are.
| 
