Clause 197
Marine and Coastal Access Bill [Lords]

Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing 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)

I am glad to return to the Committee to pick up where we left off this morning on shellfisheries. It might be helpful at this juncture to pick up on one point raised about the timeline. A genuine concern was aired about the nature and extent of the discussion and dialogue. Not many of us had a lot of time to see the word-by-word detail of the amendments, but the fundamentals of what is being proposed have been around for some time, and I will sketch them out briefly.

The Shellfish Association of Great Britain was working in 2007 on a memorandum of understanding with the Crown estates that featured most of the elements now contained in these clauses. The association has had a lot of opportunity, with my officials and others, to shape the proposals that have ended up in the Bill. Officials from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs have met on numerous occasions to discuss potential solutions to the Crown estate problem. However, it was only with the resolution of a court action, which concluded on 14 May, that negotiations could commence in earnest and in detail with interested parties, in particular the Crown and the shellfish industry. After that point, we could move from the entrenched positions that had had to be adopted while the court case proceeded.

The solutions proposed in the Bill—I shall turn to them in a moment, as I want to explain in detail how the package works—aim to put the relationship between the shellfish industry and landowners on a more commercial footing that is based on agreements, with mechanisms for developments to take place, but with compensation and the removal of consent, which everybody has wanted.  Those proposals all come from the industry. If the Committee will bear with me, I will sketch exactly how the process will work in practice.

Government amendments 56, 57 and 62 will 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 on their land can be granted. Removing that requirement will give the Secretary of State the power to grant shellfish orders without Crown consent, removing a potential obstacle to granting new orders. Such a measure is sought by all parties, and I hope that it will be welcomed by all parties.

The removal of that procedure, which all parties consider to be outdated, will thus allow us to overcome the current impasse, in which a number of several and regulating orders are not being given. At the moment, shellfisheries cannot obtain certainty for long-term investment, despite the best efforts and good will of all parties. The amendments will allow us to overcome the impasse and start granting new several and regulating orders. Both the Crown estate and the shellfish industry support the proposal.

As the amendments all link together and come as a package, I will turn to amendment 58, which requires the appropriate Minister, when considering an application for a several and regulating order, to have regard to the powers and duties of the Crown Estate Commissioners. That is important because those powers and duties come from the Crown Estate Act 1961. The Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Act 1967 already contains a statutory duty to consult the commissioners as land owners when considering an application for an order that will affect Crown land.

It is important that we recognise that the Crown Estate Commissioners have specific powers and duties that require them to act in a particular way. I must make it clear that the amendment does not grant the commissioners any extra powers, nor does it give them anything with regard to shellfish orders that they do not currently have. Having regard to the Crown estate’s powers and duties simply means that we must take account of them when arriving at a decision on whether to grant an order. We are not bound to accept any objection that they raise, just as we are not bound to accept any objection from any other landowner. The commissioners are constrained in what they can do with regard to the Crown estate in a way that other landowners are not. Our proposal merely acknowledges that difference.

David Jones (Shadow Minister, Wales; Clwyd West, Conservative)

Before I put my question, I declare an interest: by an extraordinary coincidence, the legal firm of which I am a director represents one of the parties in the Menai strait action to which the Minister referred. I understand the thrust of his proposed solution to this difficulty, but the amendment states that Ministers should

“have regard to the powers and duties”.

Will he expand on that? To which powers and duties should they have regard, and how will they have regard to them? What will they do when they have regard to them?

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

I shall return to that very pertinent question in a moment, but first I want to flesh out the other parts of the proposal.

New clause 5 will insert powers to vary shellfish orders, which is important because it acknowledges the fact that landowners cannot always foresee what development opportunities might arise over the lifetime of an order, which is potentially 60 years. The new clause will allow an order to be varied when landowners, including the duchies and the Crown estate, want to develop land on which an order is in place and when that development would make it impossible, or impracticable, to exercise the right conferred on the fishery. The power to vary an order reflects our desire to put the relationship between the grantee and the landowner on a more commercial footing, with the use of commercial contracts or memorandums of understanding clearly to define the relationship and the system for dealing with future developments. In earlier discussions with the Government, both the Shellfish Association of Great Britain and the Crown estate supported such a measure.

Clause 69 sets out the issues to which the licensing authority must have regard in determining applications for marine licences. Under subsection 1(c), those issues include

“the need to prevent interference with legitimate uses of the sea”,

which in turn include fishing and shellfisheries. Thus the licensing authority is well able to have regard to fisheries’ interests and to reach a balanced view on the merits of an application.

We do not intend to interfere with this marine planning process by insisting that fishing interests should automatically override all other needs or uses of the sea. If the order is varied, the landowner could be liable to pay compensation to the grantee of a several order for the loss of part, or all, of the order. It will be open for the grantees and landowners to agree a level of compensation, either when the order is varied or right from the outset. We believe that the ability to consider such outcomes at the outset of the making of an order will help to put the relationship between the two parties on a much more commercial footing. It will also make the agreements more transparent. That idea was previously supported by the shellfish industry as well as the Crown estate. The new clause will provide certainty to grantees of shellfish orders and landowners and signal a new relationship allowing the industry to develop and move forward.

The hon. Member for Clwyd, West asked about Crown powers. Those powers will be as set out in the Crown Estates Act, section 1(3) of which states that the commissioners will have a duty “to maintain and enhance” the value of the estate

“but with due regard to...good management.”

A letter from DEFRA to the Shellfish Association of Great Britain dated 26 June stated:

“Having regard to the CE’s powers and duties simply means that we must take account of them in arriving at a decision as to whether to grant an Order. It does not mean that if the CE object to the creation of an Order that we are bound to accept their objection as valid and reject any applications to grant an Order in these circumstances. But it would be open to the CE to challenge the SoS as to how their view has been taken account of in our decision making process.”

It is important that I read this next part into the record:

“Similarly, we would be bound to explain to any consultee how their view has been taken account of in our decision making processes; the difference is that the CE have explicit statutory  powers and duties and our proposal reflects that point. If as you hinted you have legal or other advice which contradicts this view, I would be grateful if you could share it or summarise it”.

We concur with that view.

Andrew George (St Ives, Liberal Democrat)

So that I can better understand the background, I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify that the Crown estate is answerable to the Treasury and to Parliament and that, under the 1961 Act, one of its primary objectives is to produce a surplus for the Treasury. Does that not create a potential conflict between two separate Government Departments, one of which is there to create financial surpluses for the Government, while the other surely seeks to maintain the responsible management of the marine resource? There is a clear conflict between two Government Departments, and I do not understand how the Minister’s proposals are going to resolve it.

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

As I pointed out, the amendments have been subject to long discussions. They have been supported by the Shellfish Association of Great Britain and the Crown estate, and they resolve that situation. There will always be a question of the need to resolve different interests across Whitehall. There needs to be close dialogue, whether one is thinking of the Infrastructure Planning Commission, marine planning or most aspects of Government.

It might be worth explaining how the Crown estate works. As the hon. Gentleman rightly points out, the Crown estate manages Crown land on behalf of the Government, and the surplus revenue goes to the Treasury. In return, the monarch receives a fixed annual payment—the civil list. The Crown estate is responsible to Parliament, but is run independently of the Government by a board of appointees. Let me give a brief history lesson of why we have got to where we are today. In 1955, a Government committee under the chairmanship of Sir Malcolm Trustram Eve recommended that to avoid confusion between Government property and Crown land, the latter should be renamed—[Interruption.] I am sorry, Mr. Gale, I have been slightly distracted by the hon. Member for Broxbourne bringing what seems to be a weapon into the Committee.

To avoid the confusion between Government property and the Crown, the latter was to be renamed the Crown estate and managed by an independent board. Those recommendations were implemented by the Crown Estate Acts 1956 and 1961. Under the 1961 Act, the estate is managed by a board, which has a duty to maintain and enhance the value of the estate and the return obtained from it, but with due regard, as I pointed out earlier, to the requirements of good management. The Crown estate must report to Parliament once a year, providing accounts and information about Crown estate activities for the year, including future activities.

In England and Wales, the legal presumption is that the sea bed and the foreshore are owned by the Crown, and that presumption extends to the bed of all tidal rivers and to all islands in tidal rivers and coastal waters. The presumption also applies in the absence of any evidence of a grant by the Crown to any private individual. It is estimated that the Crown estate owns about 50 per cent. of the UK foreshore.

We cannot use the Marine and Coastal Access Bill to ride roughshod over the Crown estate’s rights as set out in the Crown Estate Acts. To say that shellfisheries, for example, are more important than the Crown estate’s duty is not an argument that would make the running, and it would be very hard to get cross-Government agreement to amend either the Crown Estate Acts or this Bill in a way that would limit its rights.

Does the group of amendments deliver emphatically what everybody wants? The amendments contain the fundamentals of the discussions that have gone on for a long time to resolve problems, especially those between the Shellfish Association of Great Britain and the Crown estate. We have taken the fundamental areas of agreement in principle with those parties and incorporated them into five amendments that work together—not separately. As was debated to some extent in the other place, by considering the amendments today as a package—not one by one—we have a golden opportunity to have several and regulating orders back up and running, to give certainty to the shellfisheries industry, to recognise the rightful regard that we must also have to the Crown estate, to recognise variance where it is needed in long contracts, and to recognise that in some situations there might also be a need for compensation.

The amendments do all those things, and although I appreciate that their details have not been seen for long by many people, their fundamentals have been discussed ad nauseam in meetings with my officials, with me, and with many other people, including representatives of the Shellfish Association of Great Britain and the Crown estate. There is good will to make this happen, and I urge Committee members to take the opportunity.

Andrew George (St Ives, Liberal Democrat)

My point is about something that might be a detail within the Government amendments. The Minister refers to the role of the Duchy of Cornwall and the Duchy of Lancaster. Their interest, as I understand it, applies only to the foreshore. In Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, the foreshore is owned by the Duchy of Cornwall separately from the Crown—I do not know which bits are owned by the Duchy of Lancaster. Therefore, presumably all that the Minister has just explained in relation to the Crown estate cannot apply in the same way to the duchies, and certainly not to the Duchy of Cornwall, which is not as answerable to Parliament and does not operate with the intention of producing a surplus for the Treasury. It is, in that sense, a different operation to the one that the IFCAs and the MMO will be negotiating.

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

Although the duchies perform much the same function as the Crown estate, and their land is affected by the creation of a shellfish order, it is not possible to express their rights clearly in primary legislation. I am assured that even though the duchies do not have an Act of their own that sets out their duties, as the Crown estate does, the amendments apply equally to them and the Crown estate. Therefore, the measure would equally apply to the duchies and to shellfisheries on those estates, and that has to be good news.

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

There is a perception that the Minister has bowled us a fast ball. I am grateful to him and his officials for providing me  with background information, which I received relatively recently, and I have been endeavouring to understand what we are trying to achieve. The Minister makes a laudable effort to resolve a long-standing problem. However, strong concerns remain among shellfish fishermen and owners of shellfish rights around UK waters. We need to put their concerns on record, and the Minister needs to address them and, if it is his belief, point out that their perceptions are unfounded.

Those involved in the Menai strait case have made an impassioned plea that the matter not be dealt with at this stage, because they believe that that would “undermine the foundations” of their business. They believe that such an approach would be a laudable attempt to deal with the disease, but that doing so would kill the patient. We need a careful explanation of what the Minister is seeking by trying to solve the impasse between the Crown Estate Commissioners and DEFRA.

Some involved have for years defended their businesses against the proposals to build a marina within the Menai strait fishery. The proposal, in their view, would have crippled the UK’s biggest mussel-producing area, which produces £5 million of mussels a year. They have just celebrated a Court of Appeal ruling, but now feel that it is being reversed by the Minister at the eleventh hour. I hear what the Minister says about the length of time that he has been in negotiations, but the Bill has seemingly been going through Parliament for an interminable time, and it is strange that we have reached this clause and are keen to tackle other elements of the Bill, but we are suddenly faced with Government amendments that are causing great concern.

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

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. It is worth reflecting on the fact that we originally did not conceive of addressing the matter in the Bill. However, in the other place, Baroness Wilcox and Baroness Miller identified a valid concern that we in the Department and others had been wrestling with for some time and wanted the opportunity to address. Such opportunities are rare, and now we have one, even though it was not originally conceived that we could do anything about the matter in the Bill. The hon. Gentleman is right that this is the eleventh hour, but the other 10 hours and 59 minutes have been spent in some very detailed discussions.

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

I know that the Minister has consulted Baroness Wilcox among others. I confess that I have not, but I must do so before long because she has a great understanding of the matter. She might be broadly happy with what the Minister is doing, and she speaks for a sizeable group of people in the industry, but others are concerned. It has been put to us that if

“the Committee makes the amendments, it will be paving the way for the destruction”

of legitimate businesses,

“hastening the demise of a sustainable marine cultivation industry worth £22M a year to the UK economy.”

I should like to talk about the concerns of the Shellfish Association of Great Britain.

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

I just want to make it clear to the hon. Gentleman and the Committee that I have not spoken recently to either Baroness. As far as I know,  they are as exercised about the measure as some in the Shellfish Association of Great Britain, as some in the association want the measures.

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

I am sure that that is the case. The more I get involved in coastal Britain, the more I know that one can never give an authentic voice for any particular industry, only for aspects of it.

The Shellfish Association is keen to put across the fact that the Government did not inform the industry’s national trade association of the wording of the proposed amendments until after the Committee had begun. It strongly believes that the proposed amendments to the Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Act 1967 will severely undermine the legal protection that it and its successor provide to shellfish farmers, which they have done for a great length of time.

The association would like the Minister to address three things: the criteria for any consideration by Ministers, the scope for any compensation payments, and the need for greater consultation. In the short time that I have had the information from the association, I have not been able to assess the amendments that it would propose or to put them to the Minister. I am asking for breathing space and for us to return to the matter on Report. He and I can work together constructively to ensure that the problem is solved quickly. However, at this stage, with the main industry body having very serious concerns, it would be wrong to make the amendments.

Andrew George (St Ives, Liberal Democrat)

I rise to support the hon. Gentleman and his plea for the Minister to give the issue a further rethink. It was as a result of my coming into possession of the Government amendments at the weekend and, shortly thereafter, learning of the complaints and strong expressions of concern from the Shellfish Association of Great Britain, that I tabled a measure relating to the Government’s proposals, which of course could not be selected because of the time factor. That further underscores the difficulty of our eleventh-hour debate.

I appreciate the pressures under which the Department has been operating, and I do not doubt that there have been lengthy and complex negotiations. Like the hon. Member for Newbury, I find that trying to get my head around the confluence of different legislation about the Crown estate and shell fisheries, as well as trying to bolt that on to the Bill, is a significant challenge. I appreciate the Minister’s argument about the industry not necessarily having one concerted and harmonious voice on this or any other issue—such a claim is a matter for debate and can perhaps be tested outside the Committee—but I believe that we are being asked to consider the issue rather quickly.

The industry has seen the Minister’s amendments and it has proposed alternatives. The right and proper thing to do is what several members of the Committee have done so far: table amendments, listen to the debate and then consider the consequences of rushing things through when we might have the opportunity to resolve issues on Report. The honourable course for the Minister in such circumstances is to accept that although important progress has been made in recent weeks, it is not sufficient to make me comfortable with the Government’s present position. I would support the Minister more if he were to reflect on the concerns that have been expressed,  withdraw the amendments and return with well worked-up amendments on Report, following further negotiations with the industry.

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

We have had a useful discussion. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland and I have probably shown ourselves to be willing to listen to and engage with the Committee, as well as to adjust, when necessary, and reflect on what has been said.

Let me address the impasse and the challenge of getting any agreement between the parties that had been to the High Court on the matter of shellfisheries. We were able to engage with them properly only after 14 May, when the action concluded. However, prior and subsequent to that, we have been fully engaged on a way forward. I can honestly say that if we were to take time to reflect over the summer and return on Report, the amendments before hon. Members would be no different. The detail is fresh to many of us, including me, but the amendments have come to fruition over a long time, and the fundamentals of this issue will not vary over the summer.

I will tell the Committee, quite honestly, what my concern is. Despite the fact that, as I have said, we are usually quite sympathetic to the idea of going away and reflecting on matters, my concern is that we will get to the end of the summer and one or other of the parties will walk away from the position where we are now. We have taken this long to get to a point where we have something that is broadly acceptable, even if some people are completely up in arms about it—we have to acknowledge that.

However, there are sections of the shellfish industry that currently do not have several and regulating orders. There are companies now that are struggling to make business and to take commercial decisions; there are companies that are faced with taking decisions about whether or not to continue investing in shellfisheries.

Let me turn directly to two of the points that were raised about the Menai strait case. [Interruption.] I will just deal with those points and then I will come back to other points, because I have a little more detail to flesh out here.

In respect of the Menai strait, which is where this proposal effectively came to fruition from, a question has been asked. If these amendments were accepted, would the marina on the Menai strait have been built? Could that have gone ahead? It is true that there is a chance that the marina would have been built, but I must say that it is far from certain. First, the developers would have had to apply for permission relating to the development under the new regime that is set out in the Bill, to request that the order be varied, and it is unclear whether that permission would have been granted. If the developers received permission, Welsh Ministers would still have to consider the request to vary the order. What is clear, however, is that the new variation process would have provided the grantees of the Menai strait order with a means of obtaining adequate compensation and the opportunity to vary the order, potentially to provide them with a new area to cultivate shellfish in. So I understand the concerns about the  Menai strait, but I want to make it clear that we are not talking only about the Menai strait. We are talking about a very important, highly sustainable UK industry, which at the moment has no certainty to invest.

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

I entirely accept what the Minister says. However, the fact remains that, given that the industry has these very serious concerns, even if we were to approve these amendments today in Committee, that would not speed up the ability of shellfisheries elsewhere in the country to get those several rights. That will happen at Royal Assent. Consequently, we can sort this matter out on Report, everybody can feel that they have been consulted and unless I am missing something—I admit that I am relatively a new boy to this House—it can be resolved in exactly the same time scale as it would be if we accepted these amendments today.

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

Let me return to that issue in a moment, because there is a job to be done on working with the industry, the Crown estate and others who are potentially affected by this change; that is the job that needs to be done. Having said that, I maintain my position that what we have in front of us here are well crafted amendments that will do the job that many people have been asking us to do so for so long.

I will come back in a moment to how I think we should take that matter forward. Before I do so, let me address one of the other issues that was raised by the hon. Gentleman, about how compensation would be worked out. We see two possible ways in which compensation can be worked out. First, in commercial agreements between the landowner and the grantee of an order, the variation order can refer back to those agreements, which will either set the amount of compensation or how it is to be determined. Secondly, when considering a variation the Secretary of State can appoint an independent inspector to assess the appropriate level of compensation. That process would look at the value of shellfish that are landed and at any moneys paid to the grantee for the right to fish on the landowner’s land.

I want to address the crux of the matter and the potential way forward. I recognise that our amendments are detailed and, moreover, that they have caused some concern; I also must say that they have gained some support out there from parts of the shellfish industry and others. In fact, we are pleased to note that we have the acceptance of the clauses by the Crown estate and the duchies, and a potential applicant for a major order in Morecambe bay supports these amendments. We note that the recent briefing note from the Shellfish Association of Great Britain to the Committee focuses on the technical detail of the amendment and states that while accepting the thrust and aim of the proposed amendment and that it does serve as an effective mechanism to break the current logjam, it is suggested that the following amendments be made to the amendment.

Our amendment is written in such a way as to allow more detailed discussions about the criteria that Ministers would use before an order was varied and about how compensation would be calculated. We do not believe that it would be helpful now to limit those issues in the Bill. We need to consult and engage with the industry in detail on them. It is possible that a lot of what is being sought and what the hon. Member for Newbury raised  can be achieved. I am more than willing to work with the hon. Gentleman, as I will work with the Shellfish Association of Great Britain and others—there are disparate interests within the shellfish industry—to bring forward the notes and guidance, which we need to draw up in full consultation with the industry, the Crown estates and the duchies. We have the summer to get on with it.

In consulting with the industry, we will also ensure that individual grantees of orders, in addition to the Shellfish Association of Great Britain, are allowed the opportunity to comment and provide input. I am more than happy to get on and continue that dialogue to flesh out with hon. Members how this will work, to identify where we can improve the operation of the new processes for varying orders and to bring forward the notes and guidance. That is what we need to get on with in the summer, because ever since I have been in this Department this issue has been a roadblock to investment in shellfisheries. We now have in front of us—here, now, today—a way forward. Over the summer, we can engage in constructive dialogue, which I invite hon. Members to get involved in, to flesh out where we are.

Andrew George (St Ives, Liberal Democrat)

The Minister’s arguments are becoming inconsistent. Earlier he told us that by making a decision here today and not waiting for Report to make the amendments, the industry could make commercial and investment decisions over the summer that would not be possible if we waited and withdrew the current amendments. Now he is saying that it will take all summer to negotiate a lot of the other conditions attached to the orders that back up the amendments. Surely these things can be negotiated simultaneously over the summer. Given the clear concern in the industry at present, surely the Minister must accept that his argument about making commercial and investment decisions over the summer does not stand. We can come back and consider everything together in a co-ordinated fashion on Report.

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

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, but he might have misunderstood me, which might be my fault. We have the opportunity to send a clear signal based on the long and arduous discussions that we have had over quite some time. Over the summer, we should get on with fleshing out the detail of how we put the process into practice, not looking at revisiting amendments. Frankly, what is in front of us is based on the principles that many of those involved have been calling for. This is a very good set of amendments. We can delay and see if we can come back with something else, but I say to the hon. Gentleman seriously, if we substantially alter the amendments, one or other grouping will walk away from the table. I appreciate the lateness of seeing the detail, but the amendments are on areas where there has been consistent agreement on what needs to be done. We have the opportunity to signal today that we are now minded to deliver on this issue and to get on with the notes and guidance.

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

While I respect the Minister’s desire to proceed, I still have not got an answer on the time scale and why it is different. If he can give an assurance that the industry’s concerns will be listened to this summer,  and that, if those concerns are valid, he will introduce amendments on Report, I will go quietly. I do not think that this is a good way of doing business. There has been fantastic consultation on the Bill with a range of organisations, none of which will be entirely happy, but most of which will be content. The issue under discussion is an exception, because a key coastal industry feels left out. If the Minister gives an assurance that, if the amendments are made, a proper consultation will take place, and that valid concerns that can be accommodated on Report will be listened to, I will go along with him.

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

That is a good suggestion. The whole thrust of the Committee has been to listen solidly to opinions. I can honestly say that the provisions, even if they are analysed over the summer, will be shown to be right. I hear what the hon. Members for Newbury and for St. Ives have said; we need to discuss how we will implement the provisions with the industry. I do not think that we will get a set of amendments that will satisfy everybody—that is the history of the issue—but if, during the summer, the amendments are suddenly shown to be defective, I will not close my mind to revisiting them. However, I am 99.99 per cent. certain that they are right.

We all need to engage with the industry and implement the solution to the impasse that is on offer. We will then consult properly over the summer. I hope that the hon. Member for Newbury will engage with that and recognise that we are balancing the issues of a highly viable future for shellfisheries—although, without the several and regulating orders, their future is terribly uncertain at the moment—with the absolute necessity to have due regard to the Crown Estates and their powers.