Martin Salter (Reading West, Labour)

I beg to move amendment 52, in schedule 16, page 283, line 22, leave out ‘21’ and insert ‘22’.

My amendment relates to section 22 of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975. The Minister will be aware that I raised the issue briefly on Second Reading. I noticed a bit of a mismatch between the Bill and that Act. Basically, section 22 has been left unrepealed, unlike the provisions relating to proceeds. We have proposed legislation to ban the sale of rod-caught salmon, as the hon. Member for Broxbourne pointed out, but missed the opportunity to ensure that the same provision follows through within the marine Bill. We now have the chance to put that right.

The dates when sale of salmon and trout is prohibited no longer correspond to the close seasons for those species. We are giving the Environment Agency complete flexibility to set close seasons through byelaws. That can only result in confusion on the riverbank. Section 22 is redundant and should be repealed. I know that that is the opinion of the Atlantic Salmon Trust, the Salmon and Trout Association and other fisheries specialists. Therefore, the Minister has the opportunity to accept this minor and technical amendment to ensure consistency across the piece.

Ann McKechin (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Scotland Office; Glasgow North, Labour)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the issue, and he makes a strong case for the  section’s repeal given that one of the key drivers is the repeal of old and obsolete legislation. However, the amendment does not quite do the trick, as the repeal of section 22 also needs to be reflected in part 5(B) of schedule 22 to the Bill. I have also been advised by my officials that that section of the 1975 Act applies to both England and Wales, and also to the Scottish side of the border at the River Esk. Accordingly, as the remit of the Environment Agency covers neither Wales nor Scotland, it would be appropriate for us to consult with the devolved Administrations as to how the section would affect their own domestic legislation.

My hon. Friend’s amendment could leave us in a confusing situation in which it could be unclear whether section 22 is repealed. I am sure that he will want to avoid that situation. Accordingly, I should like him to withdraw his amendment on the basis that we will consult, as appropriate, with the devolved Administrations about the repeal of the section, and come back to the matter on Report.

Martin Salter (Reading West, Labour)

I am not as comforted by the Minister’s assurance as I should like to be. All I am hearing is a commitment to consult. The arguments against accepting the amendment as it appears on the amendment paper will result in technical adjustments to a schedule and the need to consult with devolved Administrations. I am not sure whether I am in order, but I invite the Minister to intervene on me to give me a slightly stronger assurance than a commitment to consult because, frankly, the cats in the streets could commit themselves to consult.

Ann McKechin (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Scotland Office; Glasgow North, Labour)

With respect to my hon. Friend, when we make legislation that affects devolved Administrations it is important that we do not give undertakings in Committee on their behalf, but consult them before making changes. I have made it clear that we will carry out that consultation between now and Report. I am sure that the outcome will be positive, and that we will be able to come back on Report with an appropriate amendment, but the amendment might not be in the exact terms that my hon. Friend has sought, as it might not be appropriate in Scotland or Wales, where the Environment Agency’s remit does not extend.

I also take this opportunity to clarify a statement made in the House on Second Reading by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. He may have implied that part 7 of the Bill would give responsibility for managing marine fisheries to the Environment Agency. He wishes it to be known that the new and more flexible powers given to the agency in that part of the Bill are exercisable only in respect of fisheries for migratory and freshwater fish.

I have been told that the Environment Agency’s remit does in fact cover Wales and the Scottish borders at the River Esk, so I apologise for any confusion, but we have not had the chance to discuss the amendment with the devolved Administrations, so my points about the need to consult them remain. We will consult on the matter and come back to it on Report.

Martin Salter (Reading West, Labour)

I thank the Minister for that magnificently robust response and point out that one purpose of raising such issues on Second Reading and saying clearly on the record that

“We must return to this issue in Committee, but I wanted to put a marker down for the Whips to expect an amendment”—[Official Report, 23 June 2009; Vol. 494, c. 744.]

is precisely to give the ministerial team time to prepare a robust response, and possibly even to trigger the consultation. If the issue is not resolved, I will divide the House on the matter further down the road, but I accept the assurances given. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.