Huw
Irranca-Davies: This has been another good discussion
about the Bill and what is happening outside it too. My hon. Friend is
right to point out that currently fish theft carries a maximum penalty
of £200 during the day and £1,000 at night, and,
potentially, imprisonment for three months. Clause 222 amends paragraph
2 of schedule 1 of the Theft Act 1968, raising the penalty for
committing the offence of taking or destroying fish to level 5 on the
standard scale—£5,000. Some such fish, not least carp,
change hands on the black fish market for £1,000 a piece and
more. My
hon. Friend referred to the consultation recently launched by the
Environment Agency. I am pleased that the Angling Trust and others are
fully engaged in the consultation, on how many fish, if any, might be
taken from fisheries and rivers. The byelaws will be drafted based on
the public response to the consultation, using the powers in the Bill.
Those byelaws will deal with fish theft, and the EA has been
constrained to act before the amendments give it the power, once the
Bill has received Royal Assent. I also draw my hon. Friend’s
attention to powers that we have given the EA, under clause 218, to
make byelaws to set maximum size limits on fish that may be removed
from a fishery.
Finally,
schedule 16(8) would remove the current exemption for owners of certain
private fisheries to permit anglers to remove freshwater fish during
the close season, as that would undermines any catch and release
byelaws that the agency may introduce to address fish theft. My hon.
Friend’s points are well
made.
Martin
Salter: I thank the Minister. I am sure that the Committee
will be grateful to him for addressing a number of issues in subsequent
clauses, which will save me from seeking further stand part debates.
Can I push him on the broader powers of the Environment Agency? He will
be aware that I recently convened a meeting of recreational anglers to
find out what they were looking for in a marine Bill. Concern was
expressed over whether the Environment Agency’s current duty to
improve, develop and maintain fisheries, and enhance the social and
economic contribution of fisheries, would continue. I see no sign that
it will not, but I invite the Minister to put that on the record
because reassurance would be much appreciated by Britain’s 3
million
anglers.
Huw
Irranca-Davies: Indeed, I can give my hon. Friend that
assurance on the record
today. Question
put and agreed
to. Clause
222 accordingly ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Clauses
223 to 227 ordered to stand part of the
Bill. 5
pm
Schedule
16Migratory
and freshwater fish: consequential and supplementary
amendments
Martin
Salter: I beg to move amendment 52, in
schedule 16, page 283, line 22, leave
out ‘21’ and insert
‘22’. My
amendment relates to section 22 of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries
Act 1975. The Minister will be aware that I raised the issue briefly on
Second Reading. I noticed a bit of a mismatch between the Bill and that
Act. Basically, section 22 has been left unrepealed, unlike the
provisions relating to proceeds. We have proposed legislation to ban
the sale of rod-caught salmon, as the hon. Member for Broxbourne
pointed out, but missed the opportunity to ensure that the same
provision follows through within the marine Bill. We now have the
chance to put that right.
The dates
when sale of salmon and trout is prohibited no longer correspond to the
close seasons for those species. We are giving the Environment Agency
complete flexibility to set close seasons through byelaws. That can
only result in confusion on the riverbank. Section 22 is
redundant and should be repealed. I know that that is the opinion of
the Atlantic Salmon Trust, the Salmon and Trout Association and other
fisheries specialists. Therefore, the Minister has the opportunity to
accept this minor and technical amendment to ensure consistency across
the piece.
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Ann
McKechin): I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the
issue, and he makes a strong case for the
section’s repeal given that one of the key drivers is the repeal
of old and obsolete legislation. However, the amendment does not quite
do the trick, as the repeal of section 22 also needs to be reflected in
part 5(B) of schedule 22 to the Bill. I have also been advised by my
officials that that section of the 1975 Act applies to both England and
Wales, and also to the Scottish side of the border at the River Esk.
Accordingly, as the remit of the Environment Agency covers neither
Wales nor Scotland, it would be appropriate for us to consult with the
devolved Administrations as to how the section would affect their own
domestic legislation.
My hon.
Friend’s amendment could leave us in a confusing situation in
which it could be unclear whether section 22 is repealed. I am sure
that he will want to avoid that situation. Accordingly, I should like
him to withdraw his amendment on the basis that we will consult, as
appropriate, with the devolved Administrations about the repeal of the
section, and come back to the matter on
Report.
Martin
Salter: I am not as comforted by the Minister’s
assurance as I should like to be. All I am hearing is a commitment to
consult. The arguments against accepting the amendment as it appears on
the amendment paper will result in technical adjustments to a schedule
and the need to consult with devolved Administrations. I am not sure
whether I am in order, but I invite the Minister to intervene on me to
give me a slightly stronger assurance than a commitment to consult
because, frankly, the cats in the streets could commit themselves
to
consult.
Ann
McKechin: With respect to my hon. Friend, when we make
legislation that affects devolved Administrations it is important that
we do not give undertakings in Committee on their behalf, but consult
them before making changes. I have made it clear that we will carry out
that consultation between now and Report. I am sure that the outcome
will be positive, and that we will be able to come back on Report with
an appropriate amendment, but the amendment might not be in the exact
terms that my hon. Friend has sought, as it might not be appropriate in
Scotland or Wales, where the Environment Agency’s remit does not
extend.
I also take
this opportunity to clarify a statement made in the House on Second
Reading by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. He may have
implied that part 7 of the Bill would give responsibility for managing
marine fisheries to the Environment Agency. He wishes it to be known
that the new and more flexible powers given to the agency in
that part of the Bill are exercisable only in respect of fisheries for
migratory and freshwater fish.
I have been
told that the Environment Agency’s remit does in fact cover
Wales and the Scottish borders at the River Esk, so I apologise for any
confusion, but we have not had the chance to discuss the amendment with
the devolved Administrations, so my points about the need to consult
them remain. We will consult on the matter and come back to it on
Report.
Martin
Salter: I thank the Minister for that magnificently robust
response and point out that one purpose of raising such issues on
Second Reading and saying clearly on the record that
“We
must return to this issue in Committee, but I wanted to put a marker
down for the Whips to expect an amendment”—[Official
Report, 23 June 2009; Vol. 494, c. 744.]
is precisely to give the
ministerial team time to prepare a robust response, and possibly even
to trigger the consultation. If the issue is not resolved, I will
divide the House on the matter further down the road, but I accept the
assurances given. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn. Schedule
16 agreed to.
New Clause
5Variation
etc of orders as a result of
development ‘In section 1 of
the Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Act 1967 (c. 83) (power to make orders as
to fisheries for shellfish), for subsection (6)
substitute— “(6)
Any order made under this section may be varied or revoked by a
subsequent order made under this
section. (7) Subject to
subsection (8) below, subsections (1) to (5) above shall apply in
relation to any such subsequent order and to an application for such an
order as they apply in relation to an original order made under this
section and to an application for such an
order. (8) Subsection (7) above
does not apply in the case of any order made by virtue of subsection
(10) below. (9) Subsection (10)
applies in any case where it appears to the appropriate Minister
that— (a) permission has
been granted for the carrying out of any development in, on or over any
portion of the sea shore to which an order made under this section
relates (the “affected area”),
and (b) as a result of the
development, it will be impossible or impracticable to exercise any
right of several fishery or of regulating a fishery conferred by the
order in the affected
area. (10) In any such case,
the appropriate Minister
may— (a) vary the order
so that the area to which the order relates no longer includes the
affected area, or (b) if the
affected area comprises the whole or the greater part of the area to
which the order relates, revoke the
order. (11) The provision that
may be made by an order made by virtue of subsection (10) above
includes— (a) provision
requiring the owners of the affected area to pay compensation to any
persons who, at the time of the making of the order, are entitled to a
right of several fishery in any part of the affected area by virtue of
an order under this
section; (b) provision for the
amount of any such compensation to be specified in, or determined in
accordance with provision made by, the order (including provision for
or in connection with the appointment of a person to make such
determination). (12) Before
making an order by virtue of subsection (10) above, the appropriate
Minister must consult—
(a) any persons who are entitled to a right of
several fishery or a right of regulating a fishery in any part of the
affected area by virtue of an order under this section,
and (b) the owners or reputed
owners, lessees or reputed lessees and occupiers, if any, of the
affected area. (13) The
appropriate Minister may require the owners of the affected area to
provide him with such information relating to the development as he may
reasonably require for the purpose of deciding whether to make an order
by virtue of subsection (10)
above. (14) In this section
“development” has the same meaning as in the Town and
Country Planning Act 1990.”’.—(Huw
Irranca-Davies.)
This amendment would provide a new
procedure for varying several or regulating orders where a proposed
development would make it impossible or impracticable to exercise the
rights conferred by the orders. It also makes provision for
compensation to be paid in such cases to holders of rights of several
fishery. Brought
up, read the First and Second time, and added to the
Bill.
Clause
228Repeal
of spent or obsolete
enactments Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Andrew
George: Briefly, the purpose of the clause, as I
understand it, is to repeal what the Department considers to be
obsolete or spent enactments. I agree with the spirit of what is
proposed, which is a clear cross-party commitment to reduce regulatory
burdens on the private, public and voluntary sectors through the
conclusion of the Davidson review, as the explanatory notes supporting
the Bill explain. I could ask Ministers to address each of the
measures, but I will not do so.
I
am particularly interested in the most ancient of the enactments, the
White Herring Fisheries Act 1771. I am told by those engaged in the
industry that the Act was not so much about regulation or control as an
enabling piece of legislation, which I am given to believe has aspects
that are still extant and operational, particularly in Scotland, and
that enable access to the white herring fisheries industry that might
not otherwise apply if the Act is repealed. For that reason, I would
welcome any advice—via any channel of inspiration—that
the Minister can provide in order to furnish the Committee with an
explanation.
Huw
Irranca-Davies: I admit that I am stumped. The hon.
Gentleman has beaten me on the White Herring Fisheries Act 1771. When I
am defeated, I admit defeat. I do not have the information to hand, but
I shall definitely consider the matter and write to the hon. Gentleman
and other Committee members.
Question
put and agreed
to. Clause
228 accordingly ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
229Marine
enforcement
officers Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Andrew
George: I hope that I am not wearing your patience thin,
Mr. Gale.
Will the
Minister explain the interrelationship between the MMO’s
operational area and enforcement officers and the IFCAs? To what extent
can different enforcement officers co-operate with each other?
Currently, sea fisheries committees have their own enforcement
arrangements. Presumably, the purpose behind MCZs is to have internal
integrity even when their boundaries extend beyond the six-mile limit.
A common sense approach would be for enforcement to be seamless across
the six-mile zone. I looked for such an approach in the Bill, but did
not find it.
The six-mile
limit is a contentious issue, especially for those in the inshore
industry. In particular, those who lay static gear in, or around, the
six-mile zone, often find that their gear has been towed away by
foreign vessels fishing up to, and
sometimes—illegally—beyond that zone. Without a very good
understanding and working relationship between enforcement officers,
the six-mile zone will be less well policed than almost anywhere else.
That remains a particularly contentious issue. Many engaged properly
and responsibly in the industry believe that the law is being regularly
flouted. I look forward to the Minister’s
response.
Huw
Irranca-Davies: I am pleased to be able to provide the
hon. Gentleman with some reassurance. We are not reinventing the wheel.
Our approach is based on current best practice. The overlapping
geographic jurisdiction that he has described will be managed as it is
now through close co-operation at an operational level in England and
through the Environment Agency’s and the MMO’s seats on
each English IFCA. There will also be statutory consultation and a duty
on IFCAs to co-operate with the EA. Cross-warranting of enforcement
officers will enable the MMO and EA officers to enforce IFCA byelaws,
and vice versa, thereby making the best use of expensive enforcement
assets.
5.15
pm We
want resources to be used well and people and organisations to work
together. The clause allows marine enforcement officers to be appointed
by the MMO and Welsh Ministers. Such officers could include
commissioned officers of the Royal Navy. In fact, anyone in the Royal
Navy, RAF or Army in charge of an aircraft or hovercraft will
automatically be marine enforcement officers. The clause also allows
for the Secretary of State to appoint marine enforcement officers in
advance of the establishment of the MMO, so that we can get on with
business. It is also worth saying in passing, because it did not have a
lot of debate in the other place, that marine enforcement officers will
also receive training to ensure that they use their powers properly and
safely. We expect that the first MEOs will be existing British sea
fisheries officers who have already received MEO training. He is right
to make that observation. We want to make best use of collaboration and
co-operation and the Bill allows that to happen and to build on
existing best
practice. Question
put and agreed
to. Clause
229 accordingly ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Clauses
230 to 243 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule
17 agreed
to. Clauses
244 to 271 ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Schedule
18 agreed
to. Clauses
272 to 289 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
| 
