Huw Irranca-Davies (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Marine and Natural Environment), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Ogmore, Labour)

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’.

Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)

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 (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Marine and Natural Environment), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Ogmore, Labour)

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 (St Ives, Liberal Democrat)

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 (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Marine and Natural Environment), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Ogmore, Labour)

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.

Richard Benyon (Shadow Minister, Environment, Food & Rural Affairs; Newbury, Conservative)

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 (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Marine and Natural Environment), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Ogmore, Labour)

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.