Clause 149

Marine and Coastal Access Bill [Lords] – in a Public Bill Committee at 10:30 am on 7 July 2009.

Alert me about debates like this

Establishment of inshore fisheries and conservation districts

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Photo of Huw Irranca-Davies Huw Irranca-Davies Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) (Marine and Natural Environment)

Part 6 will replace the sea fisheries committees with new bodies in England called inshore fisheries and conservation authorities, which will have a duty to manage sea fisheries sustainably, balancing socio-economic benefits with protection of the marine environment. They will have more money and strengthened powers, but will keep local involvement in decision making. IFCAs will be very different organisations from the sea fisheries committees that they replace. Significantly, IFCAs will have a new duty to protect the marine environment and to promote its recovery from the effects of sea fisheries exploitation. In view of discussion in the other place, we have added a duty in clause 153, which states that IFCAs must take the steps that they consider necessary to contribute to achieving sustainable development.

Photo of Charles Walker Charles Walker Conservative, Broxbourne

I do not mean to catch the Minister out, but is he suggesting that our inshore waters are currently subject to unsustainable and damaging levels of exploitation?

Photo of Huw Irranca-Davies Huw Irranca-Davies Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) (Marine and Natural Environment)

No. That is a generalised and blanket statement that is sometimes heard, but it is inaccurate and wrong. The transition from sea fisheries committees to IFCAs will strengthen the role of those authorities to take account of sustainable exploitation. All hon. Members want to see the sustainable exploitation of our seas. That is what the IFCAs are designed to achieve and that is the purpose of my introductory remarks.

Photo of Martin Salter Martin Salter Labour, Reading West

The Minister will recall that on Second Reading other hon. Members and I raised the concerns of recreational sea anglers regarding the composition of the current sea fisheries committees, which were heavily biased towards the commercial sector. What assurances can he give the Committee that recreational sea angling, and environmental interests in general, will have stronger representation on the new IFCAs?

Photo of Huw Irranca-Davies Huw Irranca-Davies Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) (Marine and Natural Environment)

I confirm that it would be appropriate in many, if not all, instances to have sea fisheries interests represented on IFCAs because of the way in which they are integral to the management of the marine and fisheries environment in their areas. The Bill certainly allows for that, so I am very pleased to give my hon. Friend that assurance.

Photo of Martin Salter Martin Salter Labour, Reading West

Can I invite the Minister to correct himself? Did he not mean that it would be appropriate to have recreational sea anglers represented on IFCAs?

Photo of Huw Irranca-Davies Huw Irranca-Davies Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) (Marine and Natural Environment)

The correction is absolutely right; my apologies for that.

In terms of membership, there will be statutory seats on each IFCA for the Environment Agency, Natural England and the MMO. Around a third of seats will be allocated to single and upper-tier local authority members. The balance will be appointed by the MMO, and members with fisheries and marine environmental expertise will make up the balance. The MMO will be given guidance on appointments to ensure that the membership of IFCAs fully enables them to deliver their new duties. Funding arrangements will be strengthened.

Photo of Andrew George Andrew George Liberal Democrat, St Ives

The Minister has just touched on the question of membership. He will be well aware that that is an issue of great sensitivity and potential controversy, because even within the fishing industry there is not a single view or single interest. Therefore, the MMO will have to discharge its duties in regard to the selection of those representatives from the industry with a great deal of care to ensure that those conflicting interests are properly reflected. He must acknowledge that that is going to be extremely difficult to achieve in many areas.

Photo of Huw Irranca-Davies Huw Irranca-Davies Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) (Marine and Natural Environment)

Many aspects of the Bill, including the composition of the IFCA committees, are predicated on the idea of bringing together people whose interests are sometimes compatible and sometimes conflicting. That is always going to be challenging; I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it will be a challenge and that the MMO has to take great care to make sure that things are right. The make-up of the IFCA committees and how they carry out their duties has a lot to do—I will come on to this in a moment—with local accountability and making sure that wide interests are represented, as well as the interests of local authorities.

Photo of Martin Salter Martin Salter Labour, Reading West

Another issue that has been raised by environmental groups and, again, by recreational sea anglers is the presence on IFCAs of local authority representatives who also have an interest in commercial sea fishing activity. Where local authority reps or other representatives on IFCAs have other interests that may  be pertinent, will they be declared? We do not want to end up with an imbalance as a result of people wearing two hats.

Photo of Huw Irranca-Davies Huw Irranca-Davies Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) (Marine and Natural Environment) 10:45, 7 July 2009

My hon. Friend has made an important point. Those who are appointed to, or find themselves on, an IFCA will have to subscribe to the overarching purposes and duties enshrined in the Bill. Although they will represent the sector and interests that they come from, they will also have to comply with duties such as ensuring sustainable exploitation of fisheries and not jeopardising or compromising, for example, the remits of marine conservation zones in their area. Future supplementary guidance will make it clear that interests that would normally be declared in debate are declared in such circumstances. I confirm that in constructing that guidance now, we are clear that they will have to declare those interests.

Photo of Richard Benyon Richard Benyon Shadow Minister (Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)

Some sea fisheries committees have been more successful than others, which is an understatement in certain cases. Where an IFCA is deemed to be failing in its duties—that possibly draws in points raised by hon. Members earlier about the constitution of those committees, but, more importantly, it relates to the delivery of functions—what power will the Secretary of State have to intervene?

Photo of Huw Irranca-Davies Huw Irranca-Davies Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) (Marine and Natural Environment)

The hon. Gentleman is right that SFCs come in all shapes and sizes and, at least anecdotally, achieve different levels of performance There is a duty on IFCAs to report on their performance to the Secretary of State, which is a great step forward in accountability. I will return in a moment to the point that the hon. Gentleman raised about what action could be taken in response to an underperforming IFCA that is not complying properly with the duties set out here.

I have discussed funding arrangements, which will be strengthened by ensuring that all single and upper-tier local authorities with a coastline contribute to the funding of their local IFCA. Constituent local authorities will receive an additional £5 million a year to support IFCA funding to account for the new financial burden. IFCA boundaries will be set in secondary legislation. Our clear policy intent is to set the IFCAs’ seaward boundaries at six nautical miles, as SFC boundaries are now. That is because between six to 12 nautical miles there are access rights for certain member states, which are set out in the common fisheries policy. These rights reflect historic fishing activity in the six-to-12 nautical miles zones of individual member states. In clause 149(2)(b), however, the wording “the English inshore region”, which is defined in clause 316 as the English territorial sea, means that it is possible to extend IFCAs’ seaward jurisdiction to a maximum of 12 nautical miles. That future-proofing in the Bill provides the flexibility to take into account changes that may occur from reform of the CFP. In Wales, Welsh Ministers will be responsible for inshore sea fisheries management.

Photo of Andrew George Andrew George Liberal Democrat, St Ives

To be clear on boundaries and the future-proofing of the legislation, is the Minister saying that that will be at the Secretary of State’s  discretion, or will it require secondary legislation or further regulation to extend the boundary from six to 12 nautical miles?

Photo of Huw Irranca-Davies Huw Irranca-Davies Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) (Marine and Natural Environment)

We have put the power in the Bill. Should we, as part of CFP reform, for example, decide to define more extensively what we mean by the inshore fisheries region in relation to IFCAs, their duties and enforcement, the power exists for the Secretary of State to make that decision in compliance with what we are discussing with European member states at the moment.

Before I turn to the meat of the issue under discussion, I want to clarify that the duty on each IFCA to produce a report on its performance to the Secretary of State, as well as a four-yearly report to Parliament, is a significant step forward. Performance monitoring on that basis is designed to ensure that issues such as that referred to by the hon. Gentleman will be addressed at the earliest possible opportunity. If an IFCA does not do that, we have the option of a judicial review, but the function of reporting to Parliament is now available for the first time, so issues of performance can be challenged and addressed at the earliest possible opportunity.

Photo of Roger Williams Roger Williams Opposition Whip (Commons), Shadow Secretary of State for Wales, Shadow Minister (Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)

The interval of four years between reports seems excessive. Will it be within the Secretary of State’s discretion for reports to be made on a more regular basis? The state of the fisheries will vary and become endangered in a period of less than four years, so it seems a long time from that perspective.

Photo of Huw Irranca-Davies Huw Irranca-Davies Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) (Marine and Natural Environment)

The hon. Gentleman has made a good point. The duty is to report at least every four years. It would certainly be possible to require that reporting to happen sooner, not least if something were felt to be amiss in the performance or if there were a failure to carry out duties.

Photo of Nick Ainger Nick Ainger Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire

The Minister referred earlier to the funding arrangements for IFCAs, and indicated that there will be a levy from local authorities from which IFCAs will receive an additional £5 million. My experience of sea fisheries committees in Wales was that they were insufficiently funded to do what they were required to do or what they would have liked to have done. Are the current funding arrangements sufficient to ensure that IFCAs are able effectively to undertake the same role as sea fisheries committees? Also, is the £5 million sufficient to take care of IFCAs’ additional responsibilities compared with the sea fisheries committees?

Photo of Huw Irranca-Davies Huw Irranca-Davies Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) (Marine and Natural Environment)

Yes. To clarify, the funding is sufficient, but the issue will be kept under review. We have a duty to keep any new burdens on local authorities under review. We think that the amount of funding is right and have made an assessment, along with our chief economic adviser, to ensure that the funding accurately reflects the costs. The provision also includes an element that I believe to be around £1.6 million—I will correct myself if I am wrong—to ensure that the transition is done correctly.

The IFCAs will be augmented—they are not simply the old sea fisheries committees—in terms of membership and expertise, which is reflected in the additional £5 million. However, we cannot discard the fact that £6 million comes from the funding of constituent local authorities. The primary difference is that all coastal local authorities in England—I will come to Wales later—will now be required to contribute. Previously, some—for example, Liverpool—chose to opt out of contributing, but all local authorities will now be required to pay a proportionate share towards the funding.

In Wales, as my hon. Friend knows, the powers relating to the funding that is currently generated for sea fisheries committees will be taken on by the Welsh Assembly Government, as desired by their Ministers. The funding that currently goes to local authorities to be transferred to sea fisheries committees will go to the Welsh Assembly Government.

We will keep the issue under review, particularly in relation to any new burdens that might arise, but we are confident that the sums of money that central Government are providing, the transition money and the money being provided by local authorities will be sufficient.

Photo of Richard Benyon Richard Benyon Shadow Minister (Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)

In his reply to the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire, the Minister omitted to point out that IFCAs will be required to produce an annual plan and an annual report, as outlined in clause 173. That report must be made available to the Secretary of State who, if he is worth his weight, will make it available to hon. Members in the usual way. I suspect that if an IFCA is doing its job properly, it will consult a wide variety of interested parties, which should satisfy any concerns about its interim progress between the four-yearly reporting requirement.

Photo of Huw Irranca-Davies Huw Irranca-Davies Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) (Marine and Natural Environment)

The provisions in the Bill undoubtedly strengthen significantly the necessity for a reporting function, so there is the ability to intervene early. Let me return to the decision about the IFCA district boundaries. As the Committee will be aware, we launched a consultation and an impact assessment in January on future options for IFCA district boundaries. That consultation included a number of local authorities that will fall within the proposed districts. The consultation set out two key options: a 10-district model, which would involve relatively minimal change from the current SFC model; and a six-district model, which would involve consolidation and larger districts. The consultation ended on 22 April.

Members of this Committee, as well as stakeholders, are understandably interested to hear my decision on future districts, and I intend to make a formal announcement very soon. At this stage, I can say that I have considered the advice put to me and am minded to go with the 10-district option. However, I would be grateful to hear the views of Committee members before I make a formal announcement.

It will be vital that IFCAs, as the marine fisheries managers in inshore and estuarine waters, play a full role in supporting the implementation of both the water framework directive and the marine strategy framework directive, and they will be bound by the requirements of those directives. Guidance to IFCAs will set out in detail how they will be expected to deliver their new  roles. There will be guidance on a range of issues, including how they will be expected to meet their new duties, how they will contribute to the achievement of sustainable development and what role they will play in the implementation of the water framework directive and the marine strategy framework directive. There will be full public consultation on all such guidance, and key stakeholder groups will be involved in the production of guidance at the early stages through their role in IFCA implementation work.

Photo of Andrew George Andrew George Liberal Democrat, St Ives

I warmly welcome the announcement that the Minister has just made, particularly about the six-district model. My constituency contains two sea fisheries committees—Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly. It is important to keep the integrity of both those sea fisheries separate for good reasons, and they work together very well in any case. Can the Minister reassure me that the 10-district model will maintain not only the integrity and separateness of the Isles of Scilly and Cornwall, but their joint working?

Photo of Huw Irranca-Davies Huw Irranca-Davies Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) (Marine and Natural Environment)

I can give the hon. Gentleman that reassurance and welcome his feedback on my announcement. I shall be happy to hear the views of other members of the Committee either now or separately. As I have said, I am minded to maintain the 10-option model, but I will make an announcement on it soon. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we also have to make sure that these work together very effectively.

Photo of Nick Ainger Nick Ainger Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire 11:00, 7 July 2009

One of the current sea fisheries committee areas is North Western and Wales, which runs from Cardigan in the south right up to north of Fleetwood. How will that be changed? When the Bill comes into force, Welsh Ministers will obviously have responsibility for the Welsh zone. Therefore, the IFCA for the north-west will not cover down to Cardigan, although the current body does. Will the Minister explain what will happen? The current sea fisheries boundary in south Wales touches the north coast of Devon and possibly Somerset. How will the boundaries be agreed?

Photo of Huw Irranca-Davies Huw Irranca-Davies Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) (Marine and Natural Environment)

I can reassure my hon. Friend. Discussions with ministerial colleagues and the Welsh Assembly Government, as well as those at an official level, have confirmed that the necessity for the IFCAs to work together effectively is understood, not least in the area that he described off the north Wales coast where there is a partnership bringing together the sea fisheries. That work includes the options of memorandums of understanding to ensure that the sea fisheries and IFCAs work together, and the same applies in the Bristol channel and elsewhere. The need for close collaboration and for the IFCAs to work together in all areas is imperative, and that is in the Bill.

Photo of Nick Ainger Nick Ainger Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire

One of the most contentious issues in recent years has been the management of the cockle fishery on the Dee estuary. Obviously, a single sea fisheries committee has covered both sides of the boundary, so that in itself was not a problem, but other incredibly complex issues have arisen. I am concerned that a boundary between the Welsh zone and the north-western  zone that runs through the middle of the Dee estuary will make proper management and regulation very difficult. Are there plans to reach an agreement, for example that the IFCA covering the north-west may include the whole of the Dee estuary, rather than it being split in half?

Photo of Huw Irranca-Davies Huw Irranca-Davies Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) (Marine and Natural Environment)

I am pleased to say that that issue is currently the subject of live and constructive work with the Welsh Assembly Government, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and others. My hon. Friend will know that the Dee is managed by the Environment Agency acting as a sea fisheries committee. The agency also acts under a regulating order. The England and Wales boards split the Dee, so we are actively engaged on working with the WAG, DEFRA and others to ensure that fisheries management in the Dee is carried out in a joined-up way. We have not yet worked through all the details of how the Dee will be managed after the Bill has been passed, but that is being addressed with the Welsh Assembly Government as part of detailed implementation planning. We take on board my hon. Friend’s point and we want to ensure that the new regime works.

Photo of Roger Williams Roger Williams Opposition Whip (Commons), Shadow Secretary of State for Wales, Shadow Minister (Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)

It looks as though the solution whereby Welsh Ministers become the IFCA for Wales will sort out the problem of scallop dredging in Cardigan bay. At one time, that area was part of the North Western and North Wales sea fisheries committee and it was felt that the influence of the north-west was detrimental to the status of Cardigan bay. I am sure that the Minister agrees that the solution being put forward now will, in some ways, solve that difficult problem.

Photo of Huw Irranca-Davies Huw Irranca-Davies Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) (Marine and Natural Environment)

I agree entirely. We have the way forward. I want to repeat to the Committee that the issue around fisheries and border areas between England and Wales, much like those between England and Scotland, requires a number of organisations to work together effectively to manage fisheries. Clearly, Welsh Ministers will have to work closely with all the cross-border and relevant neighbouring agencies including the IFCAs, so such an arrangement will continue under the Welsh Assembly Government’s proposed revised fisheries management regime. In fact, my counterpart in the Welsh Assembly Government, Elin Jones, has already made an announcement that signals the clear intention to create memorandums of understanding with the IFCAs that border Wales, the MMO and any other relevant bodies to ensure that fisheries are managed in a joined-up and sustainable way. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman. We will build on current practice, but what is in the Bill gives the potential to make that better.

Mr. Gale, may I turn to clause 153, which sets out that IFCAs must carry out their duty in a way that is consistent—

Photo of Roger Gale Roger Gale Conservative, North Thanet

Order. The answer to the Minister’s question is no. Even if I stretch my imagination as leniently as possible, we cannot go past clause 152 because an amendment to clause 153 has been selected, but how the Minister chooses to handle affairs is up to him.

Photo of Huw Irranca-Davies Huw Irranca-Davies Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) (Marine and Natural Environment)

Assuming that that was our stand part debate, I am content, at your discretion, Mr. Gale, to move to clause 153 and the amendment.

Photo of Roger Gale Roger Gale Conservative, North Thanet

Order. There are one or two things that we have to do first.

Photo of Andrew George Andrew George Liberal Democrat, St Ives

I want to take the opportunity to welcome the Minister’s statement. In an intervention I said that I welcomed the fact that he will make an announcement in a few days’ time giving detail on the numbers and the designated boundaries of the districts for the IFCAs. That development is welcome, as is this morning’s clarification, particularly as it will have a significant impact on our debate on the rest of this part of the Bill. However, he needs to reflect a little more on the interventions made by both me and the hon. Member for Reading, West about IFCA membership. The appointment of representatives by the MMO needs to be handled sensitively. They will not only be local authority representatives, as the hon. Member for Reading, West indicated. They could be enthusiastic recreational sea anglers, for example. Such people would need to declare their interests. They might be members of the local wildlife trust or of a local fishing community. They could be engaged in the fishing industry, or have family members engaged in it. Such interests need to be declarable at the time of appointment to the IFCA.

What has also come out of our debate is that there appear to be conflicts of interest in Wales, not only between fishing activities such as scallop dredging and the interests of the marine environment in Cardigan bay, but within the industry itself. There are often conflicts between fishing activities, such as between powerful boats that can drag heavy fishing tackle over the sea bed—in scallop dredging or beam trawling for example—and other inshore fishing industry activities, such as coastal potting. There are also conflicts between those who set static gear around the inshore areas and those who then cannot trawl either in the mid-water or on the sea bed because of how that static gear has been laid.

All those conflicting interests in the industry, let alone the potential conflicts within the IFCAs themselves, need to be carefully and sensitively handled, and the Minister—and the Secretary of State as well as the MMO in the future—might need to consider allowing the IFCAs to have a sufficiently large membership to ensure that all those representative interests are properly balanced in the authority.

I am grateful to you, Mr. Gale, for allowing me to respond to an important introduction to a debate on the future of what will be extremely welcome bodies.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 149 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 150 to 152 ordered to stand part of the Bill.