Clause 168

Marine and Coastal Access Bill [Lords] – in a Public Bill Committee at 11:15 am on 7 July 2009.

Alert me about debates like this

Provision of services by IFC authorities

Photo of Martin Salter Martin Salter Labour, Reading West

I beg to move amendment 51, in clause 168, page 112, line 16, at end insert—

‘(4) In relation to its area or to a specified part or parts of its area, an IFC authority may enter into an agreement with an eligible body authorising the eligible body to perform any function of the authority.

(5) In this subsection “specified” means specified in the agreement.

(6) In this subsection “eligible body” means the Environment Agency or the Marine Management Organisation.

(7) The Secretary of State may by order amend subsection (4)(c) so as to add any body or description of body to the list, or remove any body or description of body from it.’.

The purpose of this amendment is to provide that the IFC Authorities are able to delegate powers to the Environment Agency to manage all fish species in upper estuaries.

Issues regarding the exact terms of reference and the boundaries which will apply to the new IFCAs came up extensively in the Joint Committee. There have been strong representations from environmental groups, recreational anglers and the Environment Agency suggesting that the original draft of the Bill got it wrong. It would be difficult to describe something more perverse than the notion of a sea fisheries committee—albeit a revised sea fisheries committee given a new name, a new budget and strengthened with greater representation, but still a sea fisheries authority—having jurisdiction on the River Thames from outside the window of this Committee Room up to the tidal limit at Teddington weir. There are no commercial sea fishing interests in Twickenham, Isleworth and Brentford—at least none that I know of,  and certainly not when compared with the value of the freshwater fishery, or the millions of pounds generated in the sale of freshwater rod licences. Thousands of recreational anglers, in particular, enjoy fishing the tidal Thames, irrespective of the fact that Thames Water has just committed another act of pollution at Mogden sewage treatment works, which I am sure is something to which we will return.

One can look at other river catchments in the country—for example, the River Severn in Gloucestershire. The tidal limit of the River Severn goes up to Gloucester. What sea fisheries interest is there in Gloucester? More ridiculously—perhaps this is something to do with the fact that I am told the country is tilting gradually into the sea towards the east—the tidal limit of the Trent runs up to Cromwell weir, just outside Nottingham. Do we seriously want our new sea fisheries committees to be primarily worrying about freshwater fisheries miles and miles inland? Of course not. There was clearly an error in the way in which the Bill was put together, and the amendment seeks to address that.

May I read for the record a recommendation from the Joint Committee? As I said in my introductory remarks at the start of the Committee stage, for many of us, that informs our approach to many of the issues in the Bill, which has been well scrutinised. The Joint Committee process was successful and I am surprised that its recommendations did not find their way into the Government’s thinking. Recommendation 63 stated:

“We believe there is a strong case for the Environment Agency to manage the majority of fisheries in estuaries but we would, in addition, support the establishment of working boundaries between the Environment Agency and IFCAs on a case by case basis in consultation with the relevant estuary or coastal partnership where they exist. In general these boundaries should be based on the upstream limit of commercial fishing interest,”—

that is an important point—

“with the Environment Agency managing all fisheries upstream of this boundary (set out in secondary legislation) and migratory fisheries interest below out to six nautical miles. However, the Bill should allow the Environment Agency to retain management of the whole of estuaries where they are already acting as the Sea Fisheries Committee (under cross-warranting procedures) if this is the optimal local arrangement.”

Photo of Roger Williams Roger Williams Opposition Whip (Commons), Shadow Secretary of State for Wales, Shadow Minister (Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) 11:30, 7 July 2009

Many of us are concerned about the migratory salmonids, such as salmon and trout. It is often said that the reduction in numbers is to do with commercial fishing outside the estuary as well. If we are to ensure that those populations do not decrease further, there has to be good co-ordination between the IFCAs and the Environment Agency. Will the hon. Gentleman indicate how that will occur?

Photo of Martin Salter Martin Salter Labour, Reading West

Sadly, I am not the Minister, but I can give my view on that important point. The Committee will be aware that fish do not read maps. We can designate IFCAs and boundaries between the Environment Agency and the enhanced sea fisheries committees, but at the end of the day, a migratory fish species will move from saline water up through the estuaries, hopefully, if not over-exploited or poached, into the hon. Gentleman’s wonderful constituency of Brecon and Radnorshire. The Environment Agency is already the sea fisheries power out to the 6 nautical mile-limit, and its important  role is recognised in the current arrangements, as it has been in previous legislation, as the prime agency with responsibility for migratory fish. Committee members should make no mistake: the economic value of salmon in particular is immense, and is considerably more valuable than commercial fishing interests in many regions of the country.

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

I am intrigued by the hon. Gentleman’s amendment and am inclined to support it. Will he clarify it a bit more? I like the idea of a degree of flexibility, and that is precisely what would be required, because some estuarial areas are immense and some are very fine and under intensive management already. What we want to avoid is a turf war, or perhaps a surf war—[Laughter.] I apologise, it just came into my head. We want to avoid a turf war between two organisations, which could be to the detriment of the management of fisheries. I agree with the hon. Gentleman on flexibility, but that should not result in conflict between two organisations.

Photo of Martin Salter Martin Salter Labour, Reading West

May I put on the record that that was probably the worst pun of the parliamentary Session?

Photo of Roger Gale Roger Gale Conservative, North Thanet

Order. No, it was rather good.

Photo of Martin Salter Martin Salter Labour, Reading West

Let us get back to fish, rather than surfing. I thank the hon. Member for Newbury for his support for the principle of the amendment. He is absolutely right. Estuaries do not easily conform to conveniently drawn lines on maps, nor do the fisheries’ interests. For example, in the Humber estuary, the commercial interest comes a considerable way inland and therefore it would not be, as I initially thought when I looked at the proposal, convenient simply to draw a line parallel with the coast where the estuary meets the sea. That would not work. The way to proceed is on a case-by-case basis, and the amendment seeks to achieve that.

As to how we avoid turf wars, hon. Members should bear in mind that deliberations in Committee effectively inform future judgments. If there is a dispute, counsel and advisers will often go back to our debates to ascertain what Parliament intended. Clearly, what Parliament would wish in this case is to pre-empt any unnecessary turf wars. There will be enough for IFCAs to do without treading on the toes of the Environment Agency, which, by and large, does not do a bad job. It could do with more resources, but with the increase from the sales of fishing rod licences its resources are expanding. It does not do a bad job of managing our freshwater fisheries. I certainly do not want its powers, its influence or, more importantly, its expertise to be limited.

In conclusion, the amendment makes good environmental sense. It also makes good logistical sense. It certainly makes good sense in terms of using the current experience and expertise at our disposal, and it makes eminent sense as regards the management of those fisheries, which are important to both the commercial and the recreational sector.

Photo of Charles Walker Charles Walker Conservative, Broxbourne

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Reading, West. He is a great champion of fishing and fishermen. I spend many evenings on riverbanks  with him and many days catching the beautiful freshwater fish that swim in our rivers. I share his concern. It would be quite ridiculous for me to fish at Teddington for chub and roach, not bass and mullet, and to see an IFCA fishery officer cruising past me in his boat. Although it is clearly in the tidal reach, Teddington is not a sea fishery. There are lots of pike, carp and exciting fish, but they are not sea fish.

There are issues of overlap that we need to be concerned about, particularly where we have migratory fish runs, but the Environment Agency is responsible for recruitment and breeding in the rivers. It will take a close interest in what is happening to migratory fish stocks in freshwater fisheries, namely rivers. It will know what spawning numbers are required, and what catch rates and release rates are being achieved. It would be mad for the EA to hand over responsibility for the estuary to IFCAs; commercial sea fishermen could net out the salmon and sea trout as they nose into the freshwater, thereby denuding that river of its native stock that leads to sustainable recreational fisheries in the river.

It is not just fishermen who benefit from stocks of salmon and sea trout. It is also local hoteliers, the local tourist trade and, dare I say it, those lovely animals that people like to see in our rivers, otters. Like the hon. Member for Reading, West, I have no time for mink, but I have a lot of time for otters, and sustainable fisheries support healthy otter populations.

Photo of Martin Salter Martin Salter Labour, Reading West

May I counsel the hon. Gentleman? We all enjoy seeing otters in the natural environment, but some of the wildlife trusts that have reintroduced otters into our rivers have done so without regard to the available food source. That is an important issue. There needs to be some balance to ensure that that apex predator does not do untold damage to fisheries.

Photo of Charles Walker Charles Walker Conservative, Broxbourne

The hon. Gentleman makes my point perfectly. The Environment Agency has responsibility, in the main, for our freshwater fisheries. It should be consulted and included in important decisions, and it should have the final say on what happens. If we are to have viable fish populations, we need to ensure that the interests of fish are balanced against the interests of otters. That will always be the case.

I spend a lot time fishing on the Bure in Norwich. I shall be in Norwich in the coming weeks, but not to fish, unfortunately. The Bure is tidal up to Horning, and the idea of IFCA officers patrolling Horning among the pike fishermen is ridiculous. The amendment is good and sensible. We discussed it a year ago in the Joint Committee on the Bill, when we got frightfully excited about it, and now we are frightfully excited about it again. The issue matters to fishermen on both sides of the House. Fishing transcends party politics. It is not quite a religion, but it is very close to being so. I therefore hope that the Minister will accept the amendment in good grace, and ensure that the Government implement the necessary changes so that common sense prevails.

Photo of Alan Whitehead Alan Whitehead Labour, Southampton, Test

I want briefly to add my support for what is an eminently sensible amendment. Outside the window, in front of  the Houses of Parliament, there is a stretch of estuary upon which, as the hon. Member for Broxbourne has intimated, an inshore fisheries vessel could potentially sail back and forth, which would clearly be inappropriate in terms of estuarial fish management. We do not have such long tidal runs in my Southampton constituency, but the Eling Tide Mill and the Wood Mill tidal reaches represent the end of an estuary that would also be inappropriate for inshore fisheries management. A permissive regime that allows negotiations on how management is best undertaken seems a straightforward way to proceed.

Photo of Martin Salter Martin Salter Labour, Reading West

I was remiss in not mentioning the Southampton estuaries, because the combined value of the migratory fish runs of salmon and sea trout in the Test and the Itchen, which flows through the hon. Gentleman’s fair city, is worth millions—I cannot remember the correct figure—to the local economy. Does he agree that we tamper with the enforcement regime of that valuable resource at our peril?

Photo of Alan Whitehead Alan Whitehead Labour, Southampton, Test

I agree. I am slightly concerned that I have encouraged my hon. Friend to expatiate further on the joys of fishing and of estuarial fish stocks. While I share hon. Members’ enthusiasm for inshore fisheries and the management of inshore fish stocks, I must say that the idea of spending seven hours on a riverbank catching nothing whatever does not inspire me to the same degree as others on the Committee.

Photo of Charles Walker Charles Walker Conservative, Broxbourne

The hon. Gentleman has clearly not been fishing with us, because we never spend seven hours on the riverbank not catching anything.

Photo of Alan Whitehead Alan Whitehead Labour, Southampton, Test

As I feared, we are going to get into fish-catching stories.

Photo of Roger Gale Roger Gale Conservative, North Thanet

No, we are not; we are going to curtail the “Wind in the Willows” tendency.

Photo of Alan Whitehead Alan Whitehead Labour, Southampton, Test

I will rapidly proceed to my conclusion. We looked at the matter in some detail during pre-legislative scrutiny, and we came to a straightforward and logical conclusion about how the issues should be managed. The amendment reflects that, and it is important that we move substantially along that route in the final form of the Bill.

Photo of Nick Ainger Nick Ainger Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire 11:45, 7 July 2009

I will not comment on the sadness of people who get excited about this issue.

My constituency has some of the finest fishing areas in the UK—the Tywi, the Teifi, the Taf and so on—and I am appreciative of the huge income that that generates for the local economy. However, rather than talking about migratory sea fish, I want to return to something that the Minister and I discussed earlier. The Dee estuary is an example of where the sea fisheries committee covering an area has delegated its responsibility to the Environment agency. The amendment would confirm that such a working arrangement may operate.

Although hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have made the case well for the importance of migratory fish and the inter-relationship between the Environment  Agency, which looks after our rivers and parts of our estuaries, and the role of IFCAs, I am concerned that if the amendment or something similar is not in the Bill, there might be difficulties in managing certain fisheries, such as the cockle fishery in the Dee estuary. I support the principle of the amendment and am interested to hear what the Minister has to say.

Photo of Russell Brown Russell Brown Labour, Dumfries and Galloway

I should declare at the outset that I am neither a fisherman nor a golfer. I believe that the skills required for both of those sports are far more than I can handle. Apart from anything else, I do not have the patience for them.

I apologise for this, Mr. Gale, but I probably should have spoken to my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West before he moved the amendment. While I am minded to support it, I am not sure whether it is a probing amendment. Having working relationships and arrangements in place to ensure that we do not end up with inshore fishery vessels up and down stretches of rivers where they are not required is paramount. As I said, I am unsure whether my hon. Friend wishes to do anything more than probe the Minister.

Photo of Martin Salter Martin Salter Labour, Reading West

To reassure my hon. Friend, I will press the amendment to a Division if the Minister’s response is not as robust as the Committee hopes that it will be.

Photo of Russell Brown Russell Brown Labour, Dumfries and Galloway

On the basis of that robust statement, I will say nothing further. We will all listen more than a little attentively to what the Minister has to say.

Photo of Andrew George Andrew George Liberal Democrat, St Ives

I have attached my name to the amendment and I wish to give the sentiments that underlie it a fair wind. It is clear from the contributions so far that it would be likely that the amendment would be supported if the Committee were to divide. All that I want now is advice on the technical drafting, which I am sure that the Minister will give in any case. I hope that the drafting will pass muster. Certainly, at least allowing an IFCA, if it desired, to delegate in certain circumstances, particularly with regard to estuaries, is a good principle and common sense. The absurdity of the scenarios that the hon. Member for Reading, West outlined in his opening address was very well expressed.

Photo of Martin Salter Martin Salter Labour, Reading West

The hon. Gentleman inspires me—it is not often that I am inspired by anyone. Has he given any thought to what would happen if an IFCA decided not to use its delegation, but there was an overpowering environmental case to change the management arrangements and use that delegation? Who would hold the ring in those circumstances?

Photo of Andrew George Andrew George Liberal Democrat, St Ives

I am inspired to respond—it is not often that I am—to the hon. Gentleman. There are sometimes circumstances, particularly at the mouth of an estuary, in which the interests of a sea fisheries committee and those of the Environment Agency are in conflict, or certainly where the bodies do not see eye to eye. There is, in fact, a cross-border issue. I cannot envisage circumstances of the kind that the hon. Gentleman described a long way upstream in an estuary, where an IFCA might not wish to delegate its authority. Having  drafted the amendment and served on the Joint Committee, he will perhaps have considered the issues more deeply than I have, but I am aware that there are circumstances in which there has been a possible contradiction, certainly an overlap, and a possible conflict between the objectives of the current sea fisheries committees and what the Environment Agency is trying to do at the mouth of an estuary.

Photo of Martin Salter Martin Salter Labour, Reading West

This might be a “get out of jail free” card for the Minister, but it occurs to me that there might be a case for redrafting the amendment for consideration on Report to resolve the question of how to deal with a conflict, which I am not sure the amendment as drafted would do as strongly as we would like. My hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen, West and South Pembrokeshire put forward a good arrangement that would operate by consent, but people are not always reasonable and we do not want to leave the door open for unreasonableness further down the road.

Photo of Andrew George Andrew George Liberal Democrat, St Ives

The hon. Gentleman demonstrates his reasonableness by being prepared to bring back an amendment on Report after ensuring that it is technically proficient and capable of achieving what I think we all wish to achieve: a common-sense outcome.

Under proposed new subsection (6) in amendment 51, there would be the option of not only a delegation to the Environment Agency, but of a delegation to the MMO, but I cannot envisage the circumstances, particularly in the context of an estuary, in which the MMO, rather than the Environment Agency, would be the preferred body. I perhaps should have intervened on the hon. Gentleman when he was discussing that, but he might wish to respond to that point. Perhaps I have not foreseen the circumstances in which such a scenario might occur. Other than that, I simply want to say that the sentiment behind the amendment is absolutely right. We look forward to the Minister’s response, and particularly to clarification about the amendment’s technical ability to achieve what I think the majority of the Committee wish to occur.

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

The only thing I can add to this debate, which has been good, is to tell the Minister that running through the Bill is a thread of localism, or the potential to encourage a more local approach to the management of fisheries. I think that the amendment is in that spirit, so I hope that the Minister will respond to it favourably.

Photo of Ann McKechin Ann McKechin The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland

Good morning, Mr. Gale.

This debate has seen many passions rise, and clearly we have several keen anglers in the Committee, including my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West. I was struck by some of his comments, particularly the fact that fish do not read maps—presumably they do not have satnavs either. I also noted his comments about the need for flexibility and localism, which were backed up by the hon. Member for Newbury, and the need to look at things on a case-by-case basis. A number of strong arguments have been presented.

The Bill provides clear rules for IFCAs, the Environment Agency and the MMO in relation to fisheries management. Clear rules aid the aims of transparency and responsibility,  which have to be key components of the Bill. The Environment Agency will maintain lead responsibility for the management of freshwater and migratory species, while IFCAs will lead on marine species management and the MMO will carry out the fisheries management activity currently carried out by the Marine and Fisheries Agency, including enforcement of the common fisheries policy. That arrangement provides a clear division of responsibilities among the organisations, but we recognise the need to ensure that there is close co-operation at an operational level, which was very much supported by hon. Members. I was particularly interested in the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen, West and South Pembrokeshire about the existing operation in the Dee estuary. Both the MMO and the Environment Agency will have a statutory seat on each IFCA, and I know the agency is keen to be actively involved in committees.

The Bill also provides for cross-warranting of enforcement activity among the three organisations, building on existing successful cross-warranting arrangements. The Bill places a duty on IFCAs to co-operate with other relevant public authorities, which will include the MMO and the Environment Agency. Government guidance will also set out the need for IFCAs, the agency and the MMO to work closely together and that is likely to include memorandums of understanding. The model set out in the Bill will provide effective inshore fisheries management. However, some very constructive points have been made during the debate on the merit of providing additional flexibility. I recognise the value of providing such flexibility in terms of better regulation and more effective joined-up working.

We are not able to accept the amendment as worded. Arrangements for delegation need to be set out in much more detail than they are in the amendment and in a way that is consistent with the MMO delegation clauses. The hon. Member for St. Ives raised a good point about conflict. We would not agree to a delegation without the Secretary of State’s approval. As proposed new subsection (7) under the amendment currently stands, the Secretary of State would have the right to “remove any body”, but not to intervene in the delegation. The issue of conflict needs to be dealt with at the time of appointment, rather than when there is a review of any problem that may arise after that.

I accept that such a change could be useful in strengthening the future-proofing of part 6 of the Bill. I would like to reflect on the issues that have been raised and to consider whether we could make a change that takes into account the considerations of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. On that basis, I urge my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West to withdraw the amendment.

Photo of Martin Salter Martin Salter Labour, Reading West

This excellent debate has been an example of us doing what we came to Parliament to do: improving legislation. We started off with a fundamentally good Bill and we are trying to make it better. If I am receiving an indication from the Minister that this matter will definitely be brought back on Report—words such as “consider” are not enough—to reflect the points made by hon. Members, particularly the issue teased out by the hon. Member for St. Ives about enforcing a  delegation where one is needed for conservation reasons, I accept that the amendment as currently drafted is deficient, and therefore—

Photo of Roger Gale Roger Gale Conservative, North Thanet

Order. It is not my position, place or desire to editorialise but, before the hon. Gentleman does what I think he is going to, I warn the Committee that Hansard cannot record a Minister nodding.

Photo of Ann McKechin Ann McKechin The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland

I am grateful for your clarification, Mr. Gale. I am happy to confirm that we will consider the matter on Report.

Photo of Martin Salter Martin Salter Labour, Reading West

I think that that is a stronger “consider”. I am taking that as meaning that the matter will be brought back on Report. Would the Minister like to intervene on me to confirm?

Photo of Martin Salter Martin Salter Labour, Reading West

I visited the dentist earlier this week, and sometimes this is like pulling teeth. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 168 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 169 to 179 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 14 agreed to.

Clauses 180 to 183 ordered to stand part of the Bill.