Clause 184
Marine and Coastal Access Bill [Lords]
11:45 am
Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 2—Duty on Welsh Ministers in relation to management of inshore fisheries
‘(1) In exercising their powers under this Act or other Sea Fisheries Acts, Welsh Ministers shall seek to ensure that the exploitation of sea fisheries resources in Wales and the Welsh Zone is carried out in a sustainable way.
(2) At intervals of no more than four calendar years, Welsh Ministers shall make a report to the National Assembly for Wales on how they have discharged their powers in accordance with subsection (1).
(3) The first report of this kind shall be made within four calendar years of the enactment of this Act.
(4) A report made under this section must include—
(a) an assessment of the extent to which the exploitation of sea fisheries resources in the Welsh Zone is carried out in a sustainable way;
(b) actions the Minister has taken in order to seek to ensure that the conservation objectives of marine conservation zones are furthered, insofar as these actions relate to fisheries management;
(c) actions the Minister will take in the light of the assessment provided in the report, in pursuance of the objective in subsection (1);
(d) any other matter relating to the management of sea fisheries resources that the Minister considers appropriate.’.
New clause 3—Transfers of powers in relation to fisheries
‘In Part 1 of Schedule 5 to the Government of Wales Act 2006 (c. 32) (Assembly Measures), in field 1 (agriculture, fisheries, forestry and rural development) insert—
“Matter 1.1A
Provision to confer a statutory duty upon Welsh Ministers in relation to the management of fisheries.”’.
New clause 4—Duties of the Welsh Ministers in relation to fisheries in Wales
‘(1) At regular intervals the Welsh Ministers shall report to the National Assembly for Wales on the way in which their powers pertaining to the management of sea fisheries resources have been discharged in accordance with the scheme produced under section 79 of the Government of Wales Act 2006 (c.32), insofar as this applies to the management of the exploitation of sea fisheries resources.
(2) A report made under this section shall include—
(a) an assessment of the extent to which the exploitation of sea fisheries resources in Welsh waters is carried out in a sustainable way;
(b) particulars of actions the Welsh Ministers have taken in order to seek to ensure that the conservation objectives of Marine Conservation Zones are furthered; insofar as these actions relate to fisheries management;
(c) particulars of actions the Welsh Ministers will take in the light of the assessment provided in the report;
(d) any other matter relating to the management of sea fisheries resources that the Welsh Ministers consider appropriate.
(3) In this section “regular intervals” means intervals of no longer than four years, with the first interval being measured from the date of enactment of this Act.’.
Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire, Liberal Democrat)
Thank you, Mr. Gale. I seek your guidance on whether to start with issues arising from the clause stand part debate and then move on to the new clauses.
Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)
It is the same debate, because the stand part debate embraces the new clauses. I called the hon. Gentleman first because his is the first name on the first new clause tabled. I am sure that he would wish to address both issues.
Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire, Liberal Democrat)
Thank you for that guidance, Mr. Gale. I would like to speak to a number of issues relating to clause 184 and the powers given to Welsh Ministers with regard to fisheries in Wales. They have, quite rightly, decided to form the IFCA in Wales. When we look at provisions in preceding clauses, it is not entirely clear whether they apply equally to Wales. Although Welsh Ministers have the power to introduce and confirm byelaws relating to fisheries, as I understand it they do not have the same powers as the Secretary of State regarding emergency byelaws. In clause 157, an IFCA has the power to impose an emergency byelaw if it believes that some element of the fishery system is exploiting a particular species, or a particular juvenile stage of that species. However, it is not clear whether that power falls to the Welsh IFCA, and therefore to the Welsh Ministers.
Under clause 157, an IFCA has the power to extend an emergency byelaw with the permission of the Secretary of State. My understanding is that the Secretary of State would not have any power to extend an emergency byelaw in Wales and, therefore, the power does not extend to Wales. I would like some clarification of that matter.
In the preceding clauses, definitions of particular issues are set out very clearly, but it is not entirely clear whether those definitions relate to Wales as well. For example, sea fisheries resources, exploitation, fishing communities, marine environmental matters and the marine environment are all defined, and that extends to those issues the power that an IFCA may have. It is not clear whether those definitions relate to the powers in Wales, so I should like some clarification of that as well.
In preceding clauses, a duty is placed on the Secretary of State to report on the sustainability of fisheries, on a four-yearly basis, as set out in the Bill. The hon. Member for Newbury has said that IFCAs have to report on an annual basis as well. There is, I accept, regular updating on the work of these very important bodies. However, there is no duty set out in the Bill for Welsh Ministers to report to the Welsh Assembly in a similar way. Elin Jones, the relevant Minister in the Welsh Assembly, has said that the Bill does not need to set out a duty for Welsh Ministers in that regard. They would do it naturally, because of their concern and their interest in these matters. However, I have tabled new clauses 2 and 3 to tease out the issues. They differ slightly because of the sensitivities and technicalities of the devolved settlement and the Government of Wales Acts 1998 and 2006.
New clause 2 imposes a duty on Welsh Ministers to report back to the Welsh Assembly. From my point of view, and that of my party, imposing duties from Westminster on a devolved Assembly is not within the spirit of the devolution settlement. We would prefer to give Welsh Ministers the power to determine how to carry out what we believe the responsibilities should be.
New clause 3 seeks to amend the Government of Wales Act 2006, which sets out which matters are devolved and reserved. It does that by listing fields that are subject to devolution, and matters that are specific elements in those fields. The new clause sets out a new matter within the field that includes agriculture, fisheries, forestry and rural development:
“Provision to confer a statutory duty upon Welsh Ministers in relation to the management of fisheries.’”
Nick Ainger (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire, Labour)
The hon. Gentleman mentioned Elin Jones, and I am sure that he has received the same letter as me, in which she states:
“Following a recent meeting with the Countryside Council for Wales I have considered reporting requirements further and I will be making a commitment to report annually to the Assembly on the exercise of fisheries functions. I will be setting this out in a statement shortly.”
Does that not mean that she accepts the regular reporting on the performance of the Welsh IFCA—for want of a better description—that the hon. Gentleman and I, would like to see? Does that letter not confirm that everything the hon. Gentleman wants will be delivered by the Assembly Minister?
Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire, Liberal Democrat)
I believe, as does the hon. Gentleman, that it would be within the spirit of the devolution settlement for the Minister to be able to take that forward. All we do in new clause 3 is set out a matter within the field, which gives the Minister an opportunity not only to report, but to carry out the functions that might be associated with her work, or that of future Ministers, as far as the IFCA is concerned. The new clause would make only a minor amendment to the 2006 Act, and would ensure that there was capacity in the Assembly, and in the Minister’s powers, for the work to be carried out as well and as fully as possible.
David Jones (Shadow Minister, Wales; Clwyd West, Conservative)
The hon. Gentleman says that new clause 3 would amount only to a minor amendment, but my reading of it is that it would confer primary legislative competence upon the Assembly. Does he suggest therefore that, notwithstanding what the hon. Member for Carmarthen, West and South Pembrokeshire has to say, the Minister does not have that power to create a duty upon herself?
Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire, Liberal Democrat)
The hon. Gentleman takes a great interest in these matters, and I have listened to views that he has expressed in the Welsh Affairs Committee. The amendment to the Act attempts to ensure that the Welsh Minister has sufficient powers to carry out what the Secretary of State carries out in relation to the IFCAs in England. I am sure the hon. Gentleman agree that the Welsh Minister should have those powers to ensure that the capacity for sustainable fisheries in Wales is equivalent to that in England.
David Jones (Shadow Minister, Wales; Clwyd West, Conservative)
I am not sure whether I want Welsh Ministers to have the powers. I and, I imagine, most members of the Committee, would like to see a positive duty imposed upon those Ministers. To return to my point, is the hon. Gentleman saying that in the absence of new clause 3, it would not be possible for the Welsh Minister to impose upon herself the duty that the hon. Member for Carmarthen, West and South Pembrokeshire has said that she intends to impose?
Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire, Liberal Democrat)
The hon. Gentleman is straining at a gnat. The issue is that in taking up the IFCA powers in Wales, the Welsh Minister should have equivalent responsibilities to those of the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in England. New clause 3 intends to tease from the Minister whether Welsh Ministers have the capacity and the competence to carry out in Wales functions that are equivalent to those that the Secretary of State has in England.
Although I have tabled two new clauses, new clause 3 is my preferred way forward. Will the Minister indicate whether the Government intend to go down that route on Report? That would enable the Welsh Minister to carry out her duties to the fullest degree to ensure that sustainable fisheries in Wales are as well supported as those in England.
Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)
Before we proceed, may I remind the Committee that the issues under discussion are being taken together? I have no indication at this stage whether any of the new clauses will be moved formally when the time arrives. If any hon. Member wishes to move any of the new clauses, the Chair will need to know in good time.
David Jones (Shadow Minister, Wales; Clwyd West, Conservative)
Thank you, Mr. Gale. I rise to speak to new clause 4, which I tabled with other members of the Committee, and to new clauses 2 and 3, which were tabled by the hon. Members for Brecon and Radnorshire and for St. Ives.
The inshore fishing industry is of particular importance in Wales. According to some estimates, it accounts for some 60 per cent. of landings in Welsh ports. As we have heard, the Welsh Assembly Government have decided that they do not wish to follow the IFCA model that will prevail in England; they would rather follow a more centralised, in-house route that is of a pattern with their general approach to the Welsh tourism industry, for example, and to the Welsh Development Agency.
Clause 184 provides that Welsh Ministers shall have powers to make byelaws equivalent to the authority for an IFCA district, which possibly answers one of the points raised by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire.
Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire, Liberal Democrat)
My point was not about byelaws, but about emergency byelaws, which can be implemented by IFCAs in special circumstances. It is not clear whether that power appertains to Wales.
David Jones (Shadow Minister, Wales; Clwyd West, Conservative)
Doubtless, the Minister will respond to that point. The principal concern is that no corresponding duties are imposed upon Welsh Ministers in connection with the execution of their powers. That has been the subject of criticism from a number of bodies, including the Countryside Council for Wales, which is the Welsh Assembly Government’s own adviser, the World Wide Fund for Nature, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the Wales Coastal and Maritime Partnership.
The Countryside Council For Wales takes the view—I think that it is right—that the proposed Welsh regime fails to provide a sufficiently clear, transparent and robust inshore fisheries structure that gives the marine environment in Wales protection equivalent to that in England. It has advised of the need for the Bill to impose on Welsh Ministers further duties that are equivalent to those on IFCAs.
In particular, the council takes the view—I think that it is the right view—that it is necessary to impose on Welsh Ministers a reporting duty equivalent to that in clause 178, under which the Secretary of State must lay a report about the conduct and operation of IFCAs at the end of every four-year period. The absence of such a duty was the subject of criticism by the Welsh Assembly’s Sustainability Committee, which recommended that such a duty be imposed on Welsh Ministers.
As we have heard, the Welsh Minister for Rural Affairs says that she plans not to delegate fisheries responsibility to a third-party organisation, but to manage it in-house. She has said that there is no need for specific duties to be prescribed on issues for which Welsh Ministers are already ultimately responsible. She takes the view that mechanisms for reporting to the Assembly are already in place in normal Assembly business and standing orders. She therefore feels that having an additional requirement for Welsh Ministers with responsibility for fisheries to report to the Assembly annually or at other regular intervals would be unnecessary because that process already exists.
Nick Ainger (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire, Labour)
I remind the hon. Gentleman of the quote that I gave to the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire, in which the Welsh Minister clearly does accept the need to report annually to the Assembly. Did the hon. Gentleman actually receive the letter that I received? It makes it quite clear that she wants to report annually, and she will be making a statement to that effect.
David Jones (Shadow Minister, Wales; Clwyd West, Conservative)
I have no doubt that that is the case. Nevertheless, I take the view—this view is shared by others, including such persuasive bodies as the Countryside Council for Wales—that such a duty should be included in the Bill. I remind the Committee that, notwithstanding new clause 3, primary legislative competence in respect of fisheries is not devolved to the Welsh Assembly, nor is it intended to be so devolved.
I find it hard to see why the Government consider it appropriate to impose reporting duties on the Secretary of State in the English context, while imposing no such duties on Welsh Ministers in the Welsh context. I find it equally hard to understand why the Welsh Minister should resist such a duty being included in the Bill when she intends to pursue it in any event.
Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire, Liberal Democrat)
The present Welsh Minister may well report regularly, but that places no duty on any Minister who takes up her post in the future.
David Jones (Shadow Minister, Wales; Clwyd West, Conservative)
And that, of course, is the nub of the issue. The current Welsh Minister no doubt has admirable intentions, but that does not mean that she can determine the actions of any of her successors.
It is important that a duty be included in the Bill, and that view is shared by the Countryside Council for Wales, Wildlife Trusts Wales and similar bodies. Like us, they take the view that Welsh Ministers should report regularly to the Welsh Assembly. That would ensure that the Assembly scrutinised Welsh Ministers’ exercise of their powers in the same way as Parliament scrutinised Ministers’ exercise of their powers in the English context.
New clause 4, which I have drafted, is similar in spirit to new clause 2, which was drafted by the hon. Members for Brecon and Radnorshire and for St. Ives. Its purpose is similar, save that new clause 4 relates to the Government of Wales Act 2006. Section 79 of that Act imposes general sustainability duties on the Welsh Assembly and Welsh Ministers. The obligation is that Welsh Ministers should create and keep under review a sustainable development scheme setting out how they propose, in the exercise of their functions, to promote sustainable development. It appears to be a neat solution to the issue by relating the sustainability obligations under the Bill to the obligations that are already in place as a matter of statute under the 2006 Act.
I should like to speak briefly on new clause 3 to which the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire has referred. It proposes to confer on the Welsh Assembly primary legislative competence in respect of the management of fisheries. The hon. Gentleman described it as minor amendment. With due respect, to confer primary responsibilities on a devolved body is a fairly significant step. Interestingly, the Welsh Minister who, as a member of Plaid Cymru, one would expect to welcome primary competence, has refused such a measure. In a letter dated 31 March to the chairman of the Assembly’s Sustainability Committee she said:
“The process of developing the Marine and Coastal Access Bill began in autumn 2005 which coincided with the development of the Better Governance for Wales White Paper.”
That White Paper preceded the Government of Wales Act 2006. She continued:
“The advice at the time to Ministers was that the existing devolved powers, together with the new powers to be created under the Bill for fisheries, were sufficiently comprehensive for Welsh Ministers to effectively manage Welsh fisheries and that specific Welsh clauses would be pursued, as required, in the Bill.”
That is what has happened. The Minister continued:
“It was not, therefore, felt necessary to seek legislative competence in this area.
I am content that my existing powers, plus the additional powers which the Marine and Coastal Access Bill provides, are sufficient for Welsh Ministers to effectively manage and enforce Welsh fisheries, in line with the Assembly Government’s Fisheries Strategy,”
I do not think that it is any business of this Committee on behalf of this Parliament to inflict primary legislative competence upon an unwilling devolved body. I would certainly resist that, but I would press most strongly that the duty to which I have referred should be placed in the Bill to balance the powers that are already created.
Huw Irranca-Davies (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Marine and Natural Environment), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Ogmore, Labour)
This has been a good debate. It has taken me back to my time as Under-Secretary of State for Wales, a role which my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen, West and South Pembrokeshire also filled admirably in his time in the Wales Office. In fact he took the Government of Wales Act 2006 through the House and got that balance right between the devolved interests and our reserved and retained interests. Curiously, the new clauses try to tease out the same sort of aspirations, but approach it from different angles. Let me deal with them in some detail.
New clause 2 would place a duty on Welsh Ministers to ensure that the exploitation of sea fisheries resources, which is more than merely managing fish, is carried out in a sustainable way. It would apply both in Wales and the new Welsh zone. New clauses 2 and 4 would place duties on Welsh Ministers to report to the National Assembly for Wales on their management of sea fisheries resources. That includes an assessment of the extent to which fisheries are carried out in a sustainable way and actions the Minister has taken to seek to ensure that the conservation objectives of MCZs are furthered and the actions the Minister takes in light of the assessment.
We are aware that the Welsh Fisheries Minister, Elin Jones, has written to Members because of the concerns expressed in the other place and in the Commons on Second Reading. As she sets out in her letter, mechanisms and arrangements for reporting to the Assembly are already in place, as has been mentioned. I shall expand on that a little. Those mechanisms are in place through normal Assembly business and standing orders. An additional requirement for Welsh Ministers with portfolio responsibilities for fisheries to report annually to the Assembly is unnecessary, as that process already exists. Welsh Ministers can already be held to account by fellow Assembly Members in the exercise of fisheries functions, either through Assembly questions, in correspondence, or in Committee and other meetings. In fact, Welsh Ministers are regularly questioned on the exercise of their fisheries functions.
David Jones (Shadow Minister, Wales; Clwyd West, Conservative)
Do not the same arrangements also prevail in this Parliament? Why is it necessary for positive duties to be included in the Bill for England but not for Wales?
Huw Irranca-Davies (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Marine and Natural Environment), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Ogmore, Labour)
I shall come to that in a moment, because Welsh Ministers currently have quite a package of accountability, on which I shall expand, and I think that will deal with some of the concerns expressed by the hon. Gentleman and others. One issue is that there is a marked difference between Welsh Ministers’ accountability to the Assembly and the proposed accountability for IFCAs. Those are local authority committees, so to ensure accountability they will have to provide the Secretary of State with annual plans and reports, as we remarked earlier. In addition, the Secretary of State will have to produce a report for Parliament once every four years, on the conduct and operation of IFCAs. That will allow the Government to ensure that IFCAs are held fully accountable for carrying out their new duties.
The accountability for fisheries that already exists in the National Assembly will be extended to cover the additional responsibility with respect to inshore fisheries from April 2010. Therefore, an additional reporting duty is considered unnecessary for Welsh Ministers. Although I hesitate to keep using this phrase, as part of the project to deliver the new fisheries management system in Wales, a stakeholder advisory group—which I mention at the risk of annoying the hon. Member for Clwyd, West—has been set up, comprising fisheries managers, local authorities, environmental interests and the NGOs. The advisory group has the task of providing advice to the project, and of designing a model for the delivery of local and national input into fisheries management. Welsh Ministers have asked the advisory group to design reporting requirements to seek to maintain transparency through that management; they have already asked it to take on that role.
I understand that the Wales Environment Link and, in particular, its constituent member the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds Cymru, believe that there are not sufficient requirements on Welsh Ministers to act sustainably in the exercise of their fisheries functions, nor sufficient mechanisms for the relevant Welsh Minister to be held to account. However, as has been described already in the other place, here in Committee today and in the letter from the Welsh Fisheries Minister Elin Jones, that is not so
The Countryside Council for Wales has also provided a briefing note, which I am sure hon. Members have seen; I understand that since it was issued, CCW has met Elin Jones, who explained her position, as set out in the letter to hon. Members. I understand that it was in effect at that meeting that she made a commitment to report annually to the Assembly on the Welsh Ministers’ exercise of fisheries functions. Both CCW and WEL are fully involved in the project that I have described to deliver a new fisheries management and marine enforcement regime in Wales.
Last month, the Assembly Government launched their latest sustainable development scheme, which again confirmed that sustainability is part and parcel of their work. Fisheries are of course included in the scheme and, in line with the Wales fisheries strategy, which was launched last year, it commits to an ecosystem approach to fisheries management in Wales, with sustainability at its heart.
The success of devolution means that the management of sea fisheries and wider governance arrangements in Wales are different from those in England. I hope I have explained to the satisfaction of Opposition Members why their proposals are unnecessary in the Welsh context. Elin Jones says in her letter:
“This Bill provides the framework powers for future fisheries management in Wales. Therefore, I now believe it is for the Welsh Assembly Government to work with its partners to determine how Welsh Ministers should exercise these new powers.”
I concur fully with that, and she is getting on with it now—not waiting for the Bill to pass.
David Jones (Shadow Minister, Wales; Clwyd West, Conservative)
No one doubts Welsh Ministers’ intentions, as I said earlier, but how does the Minister deal with the point made by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire? Despite the best intentions of Elin Jones, she cannot bind her successors’ actions.
Huw Irranca-Davies (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Marine and Natural Environment), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Ogmore, Labour)
In fact, in response to the pertinent issues raised by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire, not least on definitions, I can clarify that the definitions referred to in the Bill are equally applicable to Welsh Ministers when making legislation under clause 184, as they are to IFCAs when making byelaws under clause 155. The hon. Gentleman has my assurance that that is correct.
Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire, Liberal Democrat)
My point was that clause 157, as I understand it, specifically gives IFCAs in England the right to make emergency byelaws, which can be extended up to 12 months—even longer with the written permission of the Secretary of State. Obviously, we would not want the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to write little notes to the Welsh Assembly about emergency byelaws.
Huw Irranca-Davies (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Marine and Natural Environment), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Ogmore, Labour)
I was coming to that point and I can clarify the matter. The Welsh Assembly Government will not be able to make emergency byelaws as IFCAs can; the hon. Gentleman is right in his interpretation. However, through their own powers, Welsh Ministers can create emergency orders that can be enacted just as quickly as emergency byelaws, so we have explored the matter already. In addition, we envisage very few examples of an emergency byelaw needing to be employed, the key being that the matter could not have been reasonably foreseen. The vast majority of fisheries issues requiring byelaws do not fall into that category. Just to reiterate, while Welsh Ministers do not have the power to make emergency byelaws as IFCAs can, they have the power to make emergency orders, which can be created as fast as emergency byelaws.
Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire, Liberal Democrat)
To tease out the detail on this, as I understand it, the Welsh Assembly’s powers can be negatived in the Assembly, and can only be put in place for 40 days.
Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire, Liberal Democrat)
Yes, whereas the powers of English IFCAs can be in place for 12 months. It is justified to look at the issue again to see whether that power should be applicable to the Welsh Assembly.
Huw Irranca-Davies (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Marine and Natural Environment), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Ogmore, Labour)
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point but the Welsh Assembly Government Ministers are able, within their current powers, to deal with a genuine emergency situation that would require an urgent and rapid response. If there was a willingness to extend or renew the order, and take it further than the 40 days, that is within their power. The nature of some of these eventualities means that, first, measures are immediate, given their necessity, and secondly, they could be temporary to stop something that is happening right at that moment. The powers exist, but in a different form from the measures in the Bill.
David Jones (Shadow Minister, Wales; Clwyd West, Conservative)
The problem that the Countryside Council for Wales identified is that although there is a power to make an order, it is subject to annulment within 40 days of being laid. The council makes the fair point that although it is possible in Wales to put in place an order instantly—one that comes into force from the day on which it is laid—it can be subsequently annulled within 40 days, that is not what prevails in England.
Huw Irranca-Davies (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Marine and Natural Environment), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Ogmore, Labour)
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The approach is different, but it can have the same effect. Even though the order can be annulled after it is laid, if it is laid in response to a genuine emergency—such a thing would be dealt with through a byelaw for an English IFCA—whether in Cardigan bay or elsewhere, the effect is the same: it stops the activity and defers the impact of the damage. However, I fully understand that the mechanism is different. We are not trying to force on Welsh Assembly Government Ministers an identikit version of how to deal with those eventualities, but those Ministers will have the power to deal with them.
David Jones (Shadow Minister, Wales; Clwyd West, Conservative)
The difficulty is that we are effectively dealing with the problem for up to 12 months in the English context but, in the Welsh context, a measure is potentially subject to annulment within 40 days. The Minister must agree that that situation is less satisfactory.
Huw Irranca-Davies (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Marine and Natural Environment), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Ogmore, Labour)
The Secretary of State also has the ability to remove an emergency byelaw, so even though such a measure can be laid for up to 12 months, the Secretary of State may decide that it is no longer required. I think that we might be dancing around this subject when both approaches—emergency byelaws under the IFCAs, and the laying of an order in the Welsh Assembly Government—can achieve the same purpose. We are trying to reach a point at which the same effect can be achieved when we face immediate potential damage either within a marine conservation area or a wider sea area, and a point at which the approach in the Bill, following consultation and agreement with the Welsh Assembly Government, respects both where we are on devolution and the wishes of the Welsh Assembly Government, which it does. Although the hon. Gentleman makes a valid point about annulment, the Secretary of State can decide to revoke an emergency byelaw.
David Jones (Shadow Minister, Wales; Clwyd West, Conservative)
I hope that the Minister will forgive me, but he is not respecting the will of the Welsh Assembly. He is respecting the wishes of Welsh Ministers, who are an Executive body.
Huw Irranca-Davies (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Marine and Natural Environment), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Ogmore, Labour)
Yes, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not want to undermine either the power of the great democratic institution that is the Welsh Assembly Government, or the intent of the Welsh Assembly Government Minister, seriously to deliver on what is in the Bill and to strike the right balance between the framework powers that we can give the Welsh Assembly Government to get on with this, in consultation with all the organisations, agencies and individuals on the ground, and bringing forward things that are fit for purpose in Wales.
Mr. Williamsrose—
Huw Irranca-Davies (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Marine and Natural Environment), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Ogmore, Labour)
I want to make some progress on new clause 3, but I will give way.
Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire, Liberal Democrat)
The Minister is very kind. We raised the point that the current Minister in the Welsh Assembly has committed herself to reporting annually, but she is unable to commit other Ministers in that post in the future. Is the Minister aware that it lies within the competence of the Welsh Assembly to put that commitment in either its standing orders or some other legislative process?
Huw Irranca-Davies (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Marine and Natural Environment), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Ogmore, Labour)
Yes indeed. The hon. Gentleman goes to the heart of an aspect of our debate. It is completely within the competence of the Welsh Assembly Government Minister to introduce a set of standing orders on the way in which this should be carried forward ad infinitum, in the same way that any future Government in this place can decide, should they want to, to change how they deal with the situation. They would do so in the full glare of transparency and publicity. In the same way, Welsh Assembly Government Ministers, who are held democratically accountable, can introduce their own long-term decisions on how they would deal with this. We therefore come to the essence of the question: do we trust the Welsh Assembly Government to get on with this and deliver on the aspects that are within their power? The current Minister’s intent is clear. Elin Jones will undoubtedly read our debate with some interest. She will want to reflect on how to take some of the matters forward, but she is not waiting for the Bill to come out of Committee, because she is already working on the transition towards her own powers.
Turing to new clause 3—[Interruption.] I feel as if I have entered the TARDIS and flown back to my days in the Wales Office to re-do the Government of Wales Bill. The new clause would amend schedule 5 to the Government of Wales Act 2006 by inserting a matter in field 1 in respect of fisheries. The measure would enable the National Assembly for Wales to legislate to impose statutory duties on Welsh Ministers in relation to the management of fisheries in Wales.
If I have not done so already, I wish to make it clear that the Government are fully committed to devolution in Wales and to enhancing the legislative competence of the National Assembly in ways that are consistent with our current settlement. I am sure that hon. Members agree that our track record proves just that. We have made provision in part 2 of the Bill to meet the Assembly Government’s request for a Welsh fisheries zone in the offshore area, thus giving Wales parity with Scotland and Northern Ireland. We have taken account throughout the Bill of the need to ensure that provisions are applicable in the Welsh context and that Welsh Ministers will become the marine planning authority and the licensing authority for the waters around Wales.
I cannot agree to the new clause. Conferring full law-making powers on the Assembly is not an exercise that we should do lightly, as the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire knows, and certainly not at this late stage in the passage of the Bill. It would be a major step, not a tinkering. It should be considered carefully in a broader context of fisheries management as a whole, rather through amendment at this late stage. I hope that I have explained that there is a robust framework in place prescribing how Welsh Ministers should exercise their fisheries functions, and that framework is being enhanced by the Bill. Welsh Ministers are already fully accountable for their actions to the democratically elected Assembly. There is therefore no reason for the proposed new clause and I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it.
Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)
Order. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire looks as though he is about to rise to his feet. He cannot withdraw the new clause because it has not been moved. The Question before the Committee is on clause stand part. If the hon. Gentleman has further things he wishes to say, I will call him, should he catch my eye. I have had no indication that any of the proposed new clauses are to be put to a vote, and I want to be absolutely clear what we are doing.