Clause 141
Marine and Coastal Access Bill [Lords]
1:00 pm
Huw Irranca-Davies (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Marine and Natural Environment), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Ogmore, Labour)
I was saying this morning that the debate goes to the heart of how we manage not only our fisheries but our marine environment. It is undoubtedly true that the Government’s thrust is to stop keeping those two entities in the silos that have held them for so long—one being the common fisheries policy and the other being our marine conservation efforts. Part of the long-term thrust will be achieved through our existing proposals. I led the way in a recent debate in the European Union, and the argument was partly about bringing together the marine environment and fisheries and removing them from those silos. Ultimately, of course, that was the focus of much of this morning’s debate.
Today’s debate was good. As I said, the subject was discussed by several Members on Second Reading and by seven members of the Committee this morning, ably led by my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen, West and South Pembrokeshire. The hon. Member for Newbury, who leads for the Opposition, said that it is right to reflect on the fact that many parts of our fishing fleet operate sustainably and take an increasingly responsible approach, so we should not target them all for fishing recklessly or without due care.
One point touched upon this morning was that we must ensure that the rules apply equally to fishermen from the UK and from elsewhere; and—a point that I shall return to in a moment—to fishermen working in different zones. We do not want rules for those who fish out to 6 or 12 miles and another for those who fish beyond that limit. Let me explain why.
I compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West on his ingenious amendment. It is an attempt to deal with the question of UK fisheries and others, but it produces another complication. The amendment would limit the defence set out in clause 141(4) to those areas of interest to other EU member states. Let me turn that on its head. In effect, we would remove a defence for some of our fishermen, but those fishing on the other side of the line would be treated differently. Vessels from other member states would have a special status; they would always benefit from a defence that many UK fishermen could not.
I firmly believe that we should do all that we can to protect our marine conservation zones, but that is not an equitable way of going about it. As was said this morning, we should not penalise our inshore fleet while larger offshore vessels remain unaffected. Fishermen need clarity about what they can and cannot do right across the boundaries. That is one reason for including the sea fishing defence.
More important, however, the amendment will not achieve what is sought. Through inshore fisheries and conservation authority byelaws, we are able to regulate fishing in the area between 0 and 6 nautical miles when necessary. Similarly, we can introduce fisheries orders under the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967, under which only UK fishermen have fishing rights without reference to Brussels. We intend to use both types of instrument when there is good evidence that it is necessary to protect MCZs. If fishing practices are likely to cause significant harm to MCZs, we will regulate them; and we will be able to prosecute offenders.
The sea fisheries defence does not have to be the complete disaster that many suggest. It is available only to those who can show that damage was done in the course of or in connection with sea fishing—and, as important, that the effect of the fishing could not reasonably have been avoided. That is the key. Why is the condition that the effect of the act, the damage, could not have reasonably been avoided so important? It is important because if the damage could have reasonably been avoided, the defence does not apply.
Let me give an example. A person cannot rely on this defence if he is fishing using illegal gear. We talked earlier about the advances that have been made in the Scottish and English fleets and in other parts of the UK; much better gear is being used to avoid certain stocks and so on. However, if a fisherman was using illegal gear and as a result the damage was greater, he could not rely on this defence.
I understand the motivation behind the argument; we will take into the negotiations on reform of the CFP later this year. We have to make real changes there if we are going to take a step change forward. As I said at the outset, this is to do with integrating marine management with fisheries management. Having them in separate silos with different rules and regulations applying is complete anathema. We have to resolve this, but we need to do so in a way that does not disadvantage one part of the fleet, particularly inshore fishermen.