Martin
Salter: I do not disagree with the thrust of what the hon.
Gentleman has said, but does he recognise that there is limited value,
particularly with species such as bass and other highly mobile fish, in
having locally based size limits? Clearly, the stocks will move
around.
Andrew
George: I entirely accept that point, but I am
concentrating primarily on shellfish. I support the criticism that the
hon. Gentleman has been making—hence my comment about ensuring
that there is a reference to regulations that go beyond the six-mile
limit. As far as nationally set minimum landing sizes are concerned, I
certainly hope that future Secretaries of State will err on the side of
increasing those beyond their current size and allowing IFCAs to
introduce their own byelaws to raise further those standards and the
minimum landing sizes beyond the nationally set
limits.
Huw
Irranca-Davies: I clarify that the clause allows for
orders to be made to set a maximum size limit or a size range outside
which no fish may be landed, sold or carried. It updates the
conservation powers currently available to Ministers and provides a
potentially valuable tool to aid the conservation of certain species of
fish. For example, a maximum size limit or a size range could be a more
effective technical conservation tool for some species, such as
elasmobranchii, than a minimum size limit by ensuring that the larger,
more fecund specimens are returned to the sea when caught. IFCAs will
certainly
be able to increase the minimum landing size to suit local
circumstances, a point made by both hon. Gentlemen. I can offer the
assurances the hon. Member for St. Ives is seeking: the provision
allows flexibility and will aid the conservation of certain
species. Question
put and agreed
to. Clause
189 accordingly ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Clauses
190 to 196 ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Schedule
15 agreed
to.
Clause
197Power
to make orders as to fisheries for
shellfish
Huw
Irranca-Davies: I beg to move amendment 56, in
clause 197, page 124, leave out from
beginning of line 11 to ‘subsection’ in line
12 and insert— ‘(1) Section
1 of the Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Act 1967 (c. 83) (power to
make orders as to fisheries for shellfish) is amended as set out in
subsections (1A) and (1B). (1A)
In’. See
Member’s explanatory statement for amendment
57.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following: Government amendments 57 and
58. Government
new clause 5—Variation etc of orders as a result of
development. Government
amendment
62.
Huw
Irranca-Davies: Part 7 makes changes to the Sea Fisheries
(Shellfish) Act 1967, under which applications can be made for several
and regulating orders that allow the cultivation of shellfish and the
regulation of wild shellfisheries. The changes that we hope to make
will reduce the cost and burden of applying for several or regulating
orders and ensure that they can be used effectively. It will achieve
that in part by removing the current criteria under which public
inquiries are triggered during application.
Several
orders essentially grant an exclusive right to develop a private
fishery to the grantee, either an individual or a company. Regulating
orders either impose restrictions or make regulations regarding the
dredging, fishing and taking of shellfish specified in the order.
Regulating orders also allow grantees to introduce quotas for shellfish
stocks and a system of licensing to restrict the number of persons
authorised to exploit the fishery. The orders offer an attractive and
sustainable alternative to the uncertainties of fishing for wild stocks
and provide for the improved management of shellfisheries.
In the other
place, Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer and Baroness Wilcox spoke
passionately about the shellfish industry and the problems that it
faces as a consequence of a long-running court case in the Menai
strait, which hon. Members will be aware of. The Government listened
carefully to their concerns on the Floor of that House and I have met
both Baronesses separately to discuss their concerns. My noble Friend
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath indicated on Report that the Government would
be prepared to bring forward amendments to the Bill in this House, and
we are trying
to make good on that commitment today. Government amendments 56 to 58,
62 and new clause 5 are intended to deliver on that commitment and
resolve the current impasse on the granting of new shellfish orders,
which has resulted from the Menai strait court case. In simple terms,
the Crown is no longer consenting under the present system to any
orders where its land is concerned, and shellfish development
opportunities are being lost. All sides
agree that the present situation simply cannot continue. I pay tribute
to my officials at this point, because they have worked extremely hard
to come up with proposals that offer a balance between the needs of
shellfisheries and the rights of landowners. I genuinely believe that
these amendments and new clause offer the very best solution to
shellfishermen and landowners. The Government are committed to ensuring
that shellfisheries have a viable future and this is our opportunity to
make that commitment a
reality. I
am aware that some aspects of these amendments are technical. With your
permission, Mr. Gale, I shall discuss them at some length,
because they are detailed. As a package, they deliver what the
Government intended to do and what we promised in the other
place.
Andrew
George: Before the Minister goes into the detail of these
amendments, which I of course look forward to hearing, will he confirm
that his Department gave the Shellfish Association of Great Britain
just two hours to comment on these proposals before they were due to be
tabled last week? Clearly, the SAGB is a very important body to be
consulted, because it shared the Government’s concern on this
issue. He is about to go into a lot of detail on these amendments, but
to give an important stakeholder—I hope that the hon. Member for
Newbury does not mind my using that term—only two hours in which
to comment on them was clearly insufficient. I know that the SAGB was
not particularly happy about that.
Huw
Irranca-Davies: No. I can confirm that, as a result of the
debate in the other place and the previous discussions that we in DEFRA
have had over quite some period on the impasse, the first occasion that
this set of proposals was discussed with the shellfisheries was on 15
June. The shellfisheries were not informed of the amendments, but the
principles underpinning our approach were discussed on 15
June. Again,
I pay tribute to the officials who worked very hard to turn those
proposals, through discussion with stakeholders, into the reality of an
amendment. I suspect that that is probably why the SAGB is saying that
it had limited time to look at the detail of the amendments,
and I sympathise with it on that. However, the thrust and the
fundamentals of what we are discussing here have been on the table for
some time. In fact, aspects of this issue were not only debated in the
other place but accepted by their lordships as being a good way to move
forward. Mr.
Benyon: That may be the case but the Minister must
recognise that there is a widespread feeling of growing concern across
shellfisheries that we are about to take decisions today that will have
a fundamental effect on the future of their businesses. A growing
number of shellfisheries are aware that even larger numbers of
shellfisheries are as yet unaware of the implications of these
amendments and they would like the opportunity to consult the
Government and inform Ministers about the effect of these amendments on
their particular shellfisheries.
Huw
Irranca-Davies: I reiterate that this is not a new
problem. The issues that arose out of the Menai strait case have been
articulated loudly and publicly. Furthermore, our Department and the
Welsh Assembly Government have been engaged with all stakeholders for
quite some time. The point that we have come to today in this Committee
is that we have a package of amendments that might not have been
subject to detailed scrutiny by stakeholders during the three-month
consultation period, or whatever, but the fundamentals of what we are
debating today have been aired in many different
contexts. Therefore,
we have the opportunity here—we do not often have a legislative
vehicle that allows us to take such an opportunity—to put
through a package of measures. I will discuss the detail of the
amendments, which may give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he is
looking for that this is the right package that will give the certainty
to shellfisheries as a whole across the UK that there is a way forward,
to get those consents up and running again and to give shellfisheries
the long-term certainty that they can invest in sustainable
shellfishing around the UK. I will explain how the concerns of
shellfisheries will be addressed.
Government
amendments 56, 57 and 62 amend the Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Act 1967
to remove the need for consent of the Crown estate or the duchies to be
given before an order affecting any part of the sea shore that is owned
by them can be granted. Removing that requirement will give the
Secretary of State the power to grant shellfish orders without Crown
consent.
1
pm The
Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put (Standing Order
No.
88). Adjourned
till this day at Four
o’clock.
| 
