Clause 141
Marine and Coastal Access Bill [Lords]
9:45 am
Richard Benyon (Shadow Minister, Environment, Food & Rural Affairs; Newbury, Conservative)
I beg to move amendment 18, in clause 141, page 96, line 2, at end insert—
‘(3A) It is a defence for a person who is charged with an offence under section 139 to show that that person took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of the offence.’.
It seems at times that we are coming at the Bill from different directions. I do not apologise for that because this is all about getting the balance right. I have been persuaded by many arguments made by some of the organisations lobbying us—both greens and those more concerned with socio-economic factors, which shows the nature of the Bill; we have to ensure that we get the balance right.
In moving the amendment, I hope to debate whether it is appropriate for a breach of a byelaw or order made on an MCZ to be a strict liability offence. Offences of strict liability are those crimes that do not require awareness of one or more elements of the guilty act; therefore, to be convicted, the defendant need not have intended to commit the offence or known that what they were doing was an offence. As the Bill stands, MCZs will clearly have an impact on navigation. They will not necessarily be marked with physical aids, as we discussed earlier this week, so there will not by any buoys or markers on the sea and perhaps not a recording on the relevant navigational charts. In the absence of such demarcation, it seems short-sighted not to include a defence for a person who takes all reasonable precautions and exercises all due diligence to avoid committing the offence. The language reflects that used in clause 104 on marine licensing. Proposed new clause 141(3A) does not need to apply to clause 140 because that relates only to acts committed “intentionally or recklessly”.
The longer I look at the clause, the more concerned I become about the sea-fishing defence in clause 141(4)(a)(i). I know, Mr. Pope, that you do not want me to start a debate that belongs to a later amendment, but this is important. It seems incongruous to whack a yacht or a ship that inadvertently breaks a byelaw in an MCZ with the full force of the law, regardless of it having done all in its power to avoid committing the offence, while those who are fishing and may not have taken reasonable steps to avoid damage, appear to have an instant defence. That is inconsistent. I firmly believe that the majority of fishermen will do all that they can to avoid the offence, but there may be one or two, and they might not be our own fishermen, who come into our waters and damage an MCZ. It is important to look at these matters, and, perhaps in the context of later aspects of the clause, clarify the position when there is no intention to damage an MCZ.