Mr.
Williams: The hon. Gentleman takes a great interest in
these matters, and I have listened to views that he has expressed in
the Welsh Affairs Committee. The amendment to the Act attempts to
ensure that the Welsh Minister has sufficient powers to carry out what
the Secretary of State carries out in relation to the IFCAs in England.
I am sure the hon. Gentleman agree that the Welsh Minister should have
those powers to ensure that the capacity for sustainable fisheries in
Wales is equivalent to that in
England.
Mr.
Jones: I am not sure whether I want Welsh Ministers to
have the powers. I and, I imagine, most members of the Committee, would
like to see a positive duty imposed upon those Ministers. To return to
my point, is the hon. Gentleman saying that in the absence of new
clause 3, it would not be possible for the Welsh Minister to impose
upon herself the duty that the hon. Member for Carmarthen, West and
South Pembrokeshire has said that she intends to
impose?
Mr.
Williams: The hon. Gentleman is straining at a gnat. The
issue is that in taking up the IFCA powers in Wales, the Welsh Minister
should have equivalent responsibilities to those of the Secretary of
State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in England. New clause 3
intends to tease from the Minister whether Welsh Ministers have the
capacity and the competence to carry out in Wales functions that are
equivalent to those that the Secretary of State has in
England.
Although I
have tabled two new clauses, new clause 3 is my preferred way forward.
Will the Minister indicate whether the Government intend to go down
that route on Report? That would enable the Welsh Minister to carry out
her duties to the fullest degree to ensure that sustainable fisheries
in Wales are as well supported as those in
England.
The
Chairman: Before we proceed, may I remind the Committee
that the issues under discussion are being taken together? I have no
indication at this stage whether any of the new clauses will be moved
formally when the
time arrives. If any hon. Member wishes to move any of the new clauses,
the Chair will need to know in good
time.
Mr.
Jones: Thank you, Mr. Gale. I rise to speak to
new clause 4, which I tabled with other members of the Committee, and
to new clauses 2 and 3, which were tabled by the hon. Members for
Brecon and Radnorshire and for St.
Ives. The
inshore fishing industry is of particular importance in Wales.
According to some estimates, it accounts for some 60 per cent. of
landings in Welsh ports. As we have heard, the Welsh Assembly
Government have decided that they do not wish to follow the IFCA model
that will prevail in England; they would rather follow a more
centralised, in-house route that is of a pattern with their general
approach to the Welsh tourism industry, for example, and to the Welsh
Development Agency.
Clause 184
provides that Welsh Ministers shall have powers to make byelaws
equivalent to the authority for an IFCA district, which possibly
answers one of the points raised by the hon. Member for Brecon and
Radnorshire.
Mr.
Williams: My point was not about byelaws, but about
emergency byelaws, which can be implemented by IFCAs in special
circumstances. It is not clear whether that power appertains to
Wales.
Mr.
Jones: Doubtless, the Minister will respond to that point.
The principal concern is that no corresponding duties are imposed upon
Welsh Ministers in connection with the execution of their powers. That
has been the subject of criticism from a number of bodies, including
the Countryside Council for Wales, which is the Welsh Assembly
Government’s own adviser, the World Wide Fund for Nature, the
Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the Wales Coastal and
Maritime
Partnership. 12.15
pm The
Countryside Council For Wales takes the view—I think that it is
right—that the proposed Welsh regime fails to provide a
sufficiently clear, transparent and robust inshore fisheries structure
that gives the marine environment in Wales protection equivalent to
that in England. It has advised of the need for the Bill to impose on
Welsh Ministers further duties that are equivalent to those on
IFCAs.
In
particular, the council takes the view—I think that it is the
right view—that it is necessary to impose on Welsh Ministers a
reporting duty equivalent to that in clause 178, under which the
Secretary of State must lay a report about the conduct and operation of
IFCAs at the end of every four-year period. The absence of such a duty
was the subject of criticism by the Welsh Assembly’s
Sustainability Committee, which recommended that such a duty be imposed
on Welsh Ministers.
As we have
heard, the Welsh Minister for Rural Affairs says that she plans not to
delegate fisheries responsibility to a third-party organisation, but to
manage it in-house. She has said that there is no need for specific
duties to be prescribed on issues for which Welsh Ministers are already
ultimately responsible. She takes the view that mechanisms for
reporting to the Assembly are already in place in normal Assembly
business and standing
orders. She therefore feels that having an additional requirement for
Welsh Ministers with responsibility for fisheries to report to the
Assembly annually or at other regular intervals would be unnecessary
because that process already exists. Nick
Ainger: I remind the hon. Gentleman of the quote that I
gave to the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire, in which the Welsh
Minister clearly does accept the need to report annually to the
Assembly. Did the hon. Gentleman actually receive the letter that I
received? It makes it quite clear that she wants to report annually,
and she will be making a statement to that
effect.
Mr.
Jones: I have no doubt that that is the case.
Nevertheless, I take the view—this view is shared by others,
including such persuasive bodies as the Countryside Council for
Wales—that such a duty should be included in the Bill. I remind
the Committee that, notwithstanding new clause 3, primary legislative
competence in respect of fisheries is not devolved to the Welsh
Assembly, nor is it intended to be so devolved.
I find it
hard to see why the Government consider it appropriate to impose
reporting duties on the Secretary of State in the English context,
while imposing no such duties on Welsh Ministers in the Welsh context.
I find it equally hard to understand why the Welsh Minister should
resist such a duty being included in the Bill when she intends to
pursue it in any event.
Mr.
Williams: The present Welsh Minister may well report
regularly, but that places no duty on any Minister who takes up her
post in the future.
Mr.
Jones: And that, of course, is the nub of the issue. The
current Welsh Minister no doubt has admirable intentions, but that does
not mean that she can determine the actions of any of her
successors.
It is
important that a duty be included in the Bill, and that view is shared
by the Countryside Council for Wales, Wildlife Trusts Wales and similar
bodies. Like us, they take the view that Welsh Ministers should report
regularly to the Welsh Assembly. That would ensure that the Assembly
scrutinised Welsh Ministers’ exercise of their powers in the
same way as Parliament scrutinised Ministers’ exercise of their
powers in the English context.
New clause 4,
which I have drafted, is similar in spirit to new clause 2, which was
drafted by the hon. Members for Brecon and Radnorshire and for St.
Ives. Its purpose is similar, save that new clause 4 relates to the
Government of Wales Act 2006. Section 79 of that Act imposes general
sustainability duties on the Welsh Assembly and Welsh Ministers. The
obligation is that Welsh Ministers should create and keep under review
a sustainable development scheme setting out how they propose, in the
exercise of their functions, to promote sustainable development. It
appears to be a neat solution to the issue by relating the
sustainability obligations under the Bill to the obligations that are
already in place as a matter of statute under the 2006
Act. I
should like to speak briefly on new clause 3 to which the hon. Member
for Brecon and Radnorshire has referred. It proposes to confer on the
Welsh Assembly
primary legislative competence in respect of the management of
fisheries. The hon. Gentleman described it as minor amendment. With due
respect, to confer primary responsibilities on a devolved body is a
fairly significant step. Interestingly, the Welsh Minister who, as a
member of Plaid Cymru, one would expect to welcome primary competence,
has refused such a measure. In a letter dated 31 March to the chairman
of the Assembly’s Sustainability Committee she
said: “The
process of developing the Marine and Coastal Access Bill began in
autumn 2005 which coincided with the development of the Better
Governance for Wales White
Paper.” That
White Paper preceded the Government of Wales Act 2006. She
continued:
“The
advice at the time to Ministers was that the existing devolved powers,
together with the new powers to be created under the Bill for
fisheries, were sufficiently comprehensive for Welsh Ministers to
effectively manage Welsh fisheries and that specific Welsh clauses
would be pursued, as required, in the
Bill.” That
is what has happened. The Minister continued:
“It
was not, therefore, felt necessary to seek legislative competence in
this
area. I
am content that my existing powers, plus the additional powers which
the Marine and Coastal Access Bill provides, are sufficient for Welsh
Ministers to effectively manage and enforce Welsh fisheries, in line
with the Assembly Government’s Fisheries
Strategy,” I
do not think that it is any business of this Committee on behalf of
this Parliament to inflict primary legislative competence upon an
unwilling devolved body. I would certainly resist that, but I would
press most strongly that the duty to which I have referred should be
placed in the Bill to balance the powers that are already
created.
Huw
Irranca-Davies: This has been a good debate. It has taken
me back to my time as Under-Secretary of State for Wales, a role which
my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen, West and South Pembrokeshire
also filled admirably in his time in the Wales Office. In fact he took
the Government of Wales Act 2006 through the House and got that balance
right between the devolved interests and our reserved and retained
interests. Curiously, the new clauses try to tease out the same sort of
aspirations, but approach it from different angles. Let me deal with
them in some
detail. New
clause 2 would place a duty on Welsh Ministers to ensure that the
exploitation of sea fisheries resources, which is more than merely
managing fish, is carried out in a sustainable way. It would apply both
in Wales and the new Welsh zone. New clauses 2 and 4 would place duties
on Welsh Ministers to report to the National Assembly for Wales on
their management of sea fisheries resources. That includes an
assessment of the extent to which fisheries are carried out in a
sustainable way and actions the Minister has taken to seek to ensure
that the conservation objectives of MCZs are furthered and the actions
the Minister takes in light of the
assessment. We
are aware that the Welsh Fisheries Minister, Elin Jones, has written to
Members because of the concerns expressed in the other place and in the
Commons on Second Reading. As she sets out in her letter, mechanisms
and arrangements for reporting to the Assembly are already in place, as
has been mentioned. I shall expand on that a little. Those mechanisms
are in place through normal Assembly business and standing orders. An
additional requirement for Welsh Ministers with portfolio
responsibilities for fisheries to report annually to the Assembly is
unnecessary, as that process already exists. Welsh Ministers can
already be held to account by fellow Assembly Members in the exercise
of fisheries functions, either through Assembly questions, in
correspondence, or in Committee and other meetings. In fact, Welsh
Ministers are regularly questioned on the exercise of their fisheries
functions. Mr.
Jones: Do not the same arrangements also prevail in this
Parliament? Why is it necessary for positive duties to be included in
the Bill for England but not for
Wales?
Huw
Irranca-Davies: I shall come to that in a moment, because
Welsh Ministers currently have quite a package of accountability, on
which I shall expand, and I think that will deal with some of the
concerns expressed by the hon. Gentleman and others. One issue is that
there is a marked difference between Welsh Ministers’
accountability to the Assembly and the proposed accountability for
IFCAs. Those are local authority committees, so to ensure
accountability they will have to provide the Secretary of State with
annual plans and reports, as we remarked earlier. In addition, the
Secretary of State will have to produce a report for Parliament once
every four years, on the conduct and operation of IFCAs. That will
allow the Government to ensure that IFCAs are held fully accountable
for carrying out their new duties.
The
accountability for fisheries that already exists in the National
Assembly will be extended to cover the additional responsibility with
respect to inshore fisheries from April 2010. Therefore, an additional
reporting duty is considered unnecessary for Welsh Ministers. Although
I hesitate to keep using this phrase, as part of the project to deliver
the new fisheries management system in Wales, a stakeholder advisory
group—which I mention at the risk of annoying the hon. Member
for Clwyd, West—has been set up, comprising fisheries managers,
local authorities, environmental interests and the NGOs. The advisory
group has the task of providing advice to the project, and of designing
a model for the delivery of local and national input into fisheries
management. Welsh Ministers have asked the advisory group to design
reporting requirements to seek to maintain transparency through that
management; they have already asked it to take on that
role. I
understand that the Wales Environment Link and, in particular, its
constituent member the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds Cymru,
believe that there are not sufficient requirements on Welsh Ministers
to act sustainably in the exercise of their fisheries functions, nor
sufficient mechanisms for the relevant Welsh Minister to be held to
account. However, as has been described already in the other place,
here in Committee today and in the letter from the Welsh Fisheries
Minister Elin Jones, that is not so
The
Countryside Council for Wales has also provided a briefing note, which
I am sure hon. Members have seen; I understand that since it was
issued, CCW has met Elin Jones, who explained her position, as set out
in the letter to hon. Members. I understand that it was in effect at
that meeting that she made a commitment to
report annually to the Assembly on the Welsh Ministers’ exercise
of fisheries functions. Both CCW and WEL are fully involved in the
project that I have described to deliver a new fisheries management and
marine enforcement regime in Wales. Last month,
the Assembly Government launched their latest sustainable development
scheme, which again confirmed that sustainability is part and parcel of
their work. Fisheries are of course included in the scheme and, in line
with the Wales fisheries strategy, which was launched last year, it
commits to an ecosystem approach to fisheries management in Wales, with
sustainability at its heart.
The success
of devolution means that the management of sea fisheries and wider
governance arrangements in Wales are different from those in England. I
hope I have explained to the satisfaction of Opposition Members why
their proposals are unnecessary in the Welsh context. Elin Jones says
in her
letter: “This
Bill provides the framework powers for future fisheries management in
Wales. Therefore, I now believe it is for the Welsh Assembly Government
to work with its partners to determine how Welsh Ministers should
exercise these new
powers.” I
concur fully with that, and she is getting on with it now—not
waiting for the Bill to pass.
12.30
pm
| 
