Mr.
Jones: No one doubts Welsh Ministers’ intentions,
as I said earlier, but how does the Minister deal with the point made
by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire? Despite the best
intentions of Elin Jones, she cannot bind her successors’
actions.
Huw
Irranca-Davies: In fact, in response to the pertinent
issues raised by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire, not least
on definitions, I can clarify that the definitions referred to in the
Bill are equally applicable to Welsh Ministers when making legislation
under clause 184, as they are to IFCAs when making byelaws
under clause 155. The hon. Gentleman has my assurance that that is
correct.
Mr.
Williams: My point was that clause 157, as I understand
it, specifically gives IFCAs in England the right to make emergency
byelaws, which can be extended up to 12 months—even longer with
the written permission of the Secretary of State. Obviously, we would
not want the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
to write little notes to the Welsh Assembly about emergency
byelaws.
Huw
Irranca-Davies: I was coming to that point and I can
clarify the matter. The Welsh Assembly Government will not be able to
make emergency byelaws as IFCAs can; the hon. Gentleman is right in his
interpretation. However, through their own powers, Welsh Ministers can
create emergency orders that can be enacted just as quickly as
emergency byelaws, so we have explored the matter already. In addition,
we envisage very few examples of an emergency byelaw needing to be
employed, the key being that the matter could not have been reasonably
foreseen. The vast majority of fisheries issues requiring byelaws do
not fall into that category. Just to reiterate, while Welsh Ministers
do not have the power to make
emergency byelaws as IFCAs can, they have the power to make emergency
orders, which can be created as fast as emergency
byelaws.
Mr.
Williams: To tease out the detail on this, as I understand
it, the Welsh Assembly’s powers can be negatived in the
Assembly, and can only be put in place for 40
days.
Mr.
Jones: Subject to
renewal.
Mr.
Williams: Yes, whereas the powers of English IFCAs can be
in place for 12 months. It is justified to look at the issue again to
see whether that power should be applicable to the Welsh
Assembly.
Huw
Irranca-Davies: I understand the hon. Gentleman’s
point but the Welsh Assembly Government Ministers are able, within
their current powers, to deal with a genuine emergency situation that
would require an urgent and rapid response. If there was a willingness
to extend or renew the order, and take it further than the 40 days,
that is within their power. The nature of some of these eventualities
means that, first, measures are immediate, given their necessity, and
secondly, they could be temporary to stop something that is happening
right at that moment. The powers exist, but in a different form from
the measures in the
Bill.
Mr.
Jones: The problem that the Countryside Council for Wales
identified is that although there is a power to make an order, it is
subject to annulment within 40 days of being laid. The council makes
the fair point that although it is possible in Wales to put in place an
order instantly—one that comes into force from the day on which
it is laid—it can be subsequently annulled within 40 days, that
is not what prevails in England.
Huw
Irranca-Davies: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right.
The approach is different, but it can have the same effect. Even though
the order can be annulled after it is laid, if it is laid in response
to a genuine emergency—such a thing would be dealt with through
a byelaw for an English IFCA—whether in Cardigan bay or
elsewhere, the effect is the same: it stops the activity and defers the
impact of the damage. However, I fully understand that the mechanism is
different. We are not trying to force on Welsh Assembly Government
Ministers an identikit version of how to deal with those eventualities,
but those Ministers will have the power to deal with
them.
Mr.
Jones: The difficulty is that we are effectively dealing
with the problem for up to 12 months in the English context but, in the
Welsh context, a measure is potentially subject to annulment within 40
days. The Minister must agree that that situation is less
satisfactory.
Huw
Irranca-Davies: The Secretary of State also has the
ability to remove an emergency byelaw, so even though such a measure
can be laid for up to 12 months, the Secretary of State may decide that
it is no longer required. I think that we might be dancing around this
subject when both approaches—emergency byelaws under the IFCAs,
and the laying of an order in the Welsh
Assembly Government—can achieve the same purpose. We are trying
to reach a point at which the same effect can be achieved when we face
immediate potential damage either within a marine conservation area or
a wider sea area, and a point at which the approach in the Bill,
following consultation and agreement with the Welsh Assembly
Government, respects both where we are on devolution and the wishes of
the Welsh Assembly Government, which it does. Although the hon.
Gentleman makes a valid point about annulment, the Secretary of State
can decide to revoke an emergency
byelaw.
Mr.
Jones: I hope that the Minister will forgive me, but he is
not respecting the will of the Welsh Assembly. He is respecting the
wishes of Welsh Ministers, who are an Executive
body.
Huw
Irranca-Davies: Yes, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman
would not want to undermine either the power of the great democratic
institution that is the Welsh Assembly Government, or the intent of the
Welsh Assembly Government Minister, seriously to deliver on what is in
the Bill and to strike the right balance between the framework powers
that we can give the Welsh Assembly Government to get on with this, in
consultation with all the organisations, agencies and individuals on
the ground, and bringing forward things that are fit for purpose in
Wales.
Huw
Irranca-Davies: I want to make some progress on new clause
3, but I will give
way.
Mr.
Williams: The Minister is very kind. We raised the point
that the current Minister in the Welsh Assembly has committed herself
to reporting annually, but she is unable to commit other Ministers in
that post in the future. Is the Minister aware that it lies within the
competence of the Welsh Assembly to put that commitment in either its
standing orders or some other legislative
process?
Huw
Irranca-Davies: Yes indeed. The hon. Gentleman goes to the
heart of an aspect of our debate. It is completely within the
competence of the Welsh Assembly Government Minister to introduce a set
of standing orders on the way in which this should be carried forward
ad infinitum, in the same way that any future Government in this place
can decide, should they want to, to change how they deal with the
situation. They would do so in the full glare of transparency and
publicity. In the same way, Welsh Assembly Government Ministers, who
are held democratically accountable, can introduce their own long-term
decisions on how they would deal with this. We therefore come to the
essence of the question: do we trust the Welsh Assembly Government to
get on with this and deliver on the aspects that are within their
power? The current Minister’s intent is clear. Elin Jones will
undoubtedly read our debate with some interest. She will want to
reflect on how to take some of the matters forward, but she is not
waiting for the Bill to come out of Committee, because she is already
working on the transition towards her own powers.
Turing to new
clause 3—[Interruption.] I feel as if I
have entered the TARDIS and flown back to my days in the Wales Office
to re-do the Government of Wales Bill. The new clause would amend
schedule 5 to the Government of Wales Act 2006 by inserting a matter in
field 1 in respect of fisheries. The measure would enable the National
Assembly for Wales to legislate to impose statutory duties on Welsh
Ministers in relation to the management of fisheries in
Wales. If
I have not done so already, I wish to make it clear that the Government
are fully committed to devolution in Wales and to enhancing the
legislative competence of the National Assembly in ways that are
consistent with our current settlement. I am sure that hon. Members
agree that our track record proves just that. We have made provision in
part 2 of the Bill to meet the Assembly Government’s request for
a Welsh fisheries zone in the offshore area, thus giving Wales parity
with Scotland and Northern Ireland. We have taken account throughout
the Bill of the need to ensure that provisions are applicable in the
Welsh context and that Welsh Ministers will become the marine planning
authority and the licensing authority for the waters around
Wales. I
cannot agree to the new clause. Conferring full law-making powers on
the Assembly is not an exercise that we should do lightly, as the hon.
Member for Brecon and Radnorshire knows, and certainly not at this late
stage in the passage of the Bill. It would be a major step, not a
tinkering. It should be considered carefully in a broader context of
fisheries management as a whole, rather through amendment at this late
stage. I hope that I have explained that there is a robust framework in
place prescribing how Welsh Ministers should exercise their fisheries
functions, and that framework is being enhanced by the Bill. Welsh
Ministers are already fully accountable for their actions to the
democratically elected Assembly. There is therefore no reason for the
proposed new clause and I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw
it.
The
Chairman: Order. The hon. Member for Brecon and
Radnorshire looks as though he is about to rise to his feet. He cannot
withdraw the new clause because it has not been moved. The Question
before the Committee is on clause stand part. If the hon. Gentleman has
further things he wishes to say, I will call him, should he catch my
eye. I have had no indication that any of the proposed new clauses are
to be put to a vote, and I want to be absolutely clear what we are
doing. Question
put and agreed
to. Clause
184 accordingly ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Clauses
185 to 188 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
189Size
limits for sea
fish Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Martin
Salter: I apologise to the Minister for not giving him
direct notice of my point. The clause addresses sea fish size limits,
and it would be remiss of me if I did
not make a comment. It is a shame that the hon. Member for Broxbourne is
not here—or perhaps not—as he gets similarly agitated
about
this. I
want to press the Minister on the promised review of his
predecessor’s quite disgraceful decision not to implement the
bass minimum landing size limit. The purpose of the Bill is to improve
the environment for all species of fish and life forms around our
coasts. The bass is an extremely valuable recreational fish. The
recreational value of our bass fishery has not been assessed, but is
pretty serious. I know the hon. Member for Newbury is keen to catch
bass on the fly and I am quite happy to stick hooks in them; anyhow,
they are superb fish.
Although the
last Fisheries Minister but one made a solemn promise to implement a
bass management plan, which involved raising the bass minimum landing
size from the current 36 cm—a ridiculous limit given that he
optimum spawning size for bass is around 40 to 42
cm—all 750,000 recreational sea anglers, who are all registered
voters, were disappointed to say the least by the Minister’s
predecessor’s subsequent decision. The Minister is showing
himself to be very flexible and, at my behest, he met interested
parties from the world of recreational sea angling. I am giving him the
opportunity to say when he plans to review his predecessor’s
decision. We were promised a review many months ago. I know that his
officials would like to kick it into the long grass, but I can assure
him that while there is breath in my body, that will not
happen.
Huw
Irranca-Davies: In response to a good and timely reminder
of the obligation that I made when I had a very good meeting with my
hon. Friend and the Angling Trust in Portcullis House, I will make good
on my commitment to review the minimum landing size for bass at the
earliest possible opportunity. I have slightly lost sight of it during
our proceedings in Committee, so I cannot give a date. However, I am
more than happy to discuss the issue further with my hon. Friend to
make a good on my clear statement that I would review the matter at the
earliest opportunity.
Andrew
George: This is an important issue. Will the Minister
confirm my reading of the Bill, which is that IFCAs will have the power
to introduce byelaws to increase the minimum landing size in their own
districts, as many authorities have done in the six-mile zone in the
current districts? That applies to byelaws dealing not only with
minimum landing sizes for a whole range of fish species, but with
various lobsters, and a number of other matters that aid the
conservation of
fisheries. 12.45
pm
Huw
Irranca-Davies: Indeed. The hon. Gentleman’s
interpretation is quite right. There is flexibility in the Bill to do
what he says.
To reiterate,
my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West raised the fundamental
issue of the review of the minimum landing size of bass, and he has
rightly been persistent in pursuing it. I will speak to my
officials and get back to him on the earliest date for a review
of the issue.
Martin
Salter: May I remind the Minister that I shall be standing
down at the next election, so I would appreciate it if the review took
place between now and next
April?
Huw
Irranca-Davies: Indeed. The point is well made and noted.
I really do hope to deliver before my hon. Friend stands
down.
Andrew
George: The issue of the minimum landing size of bass has
been rightly raised, and it affects many inshore fisheries areas.
Indeed, it also affects to offshore areas beyond the 12-mile limit,
although I know that the serious issues raised in that respect are not
part of this debate. We have also mentioned the regulations that IFCAs
will operate within and IFCAs’ ability to introduce not only
their own byelaws to protect the fishing resource, but variations in
landing size, which will, one hopes, increase rather than decrease
landing size.
In my
intervention a moment ago—I know that the Minister was seeking
inspiration from his civil servants and that he may not have heard
me—I said that other important issues are pertinent to the
conservation of fishing stock, and they relate not only to the minimum
landing size, but to the protection of spawning stock.
I have
mentioned berried lobsters, and the Cornwall sea fisheries committee
has been attempting for some time to introduce measures not only to
V-notch lobsters, which should be protected because they are immature,
but to ensure that berried lobsters are equally protected. Where
byelaws are required to protect such lobsters and other sea creatures
that are targeted by the fishing industry, I hope that the Minister
will give the Committee some reassurance that IFCAs will have the power
to introduce measures to protect
stock.
| 
