Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL]

This amendment relates to the composition of the inshore fisheries and conservation authorities. At present the authorities would comprise persons who were members of the relevant council, persons appointed by the MMO and other persons. The amendment seeks to include, ""a person representing Natural England … a person representing the Environment Agency"." Both those organisations have very obvious interests in the work of the relevant authority. The amendment would extend the obligation to ensure balance between, ""persons acquainted with the needs and opinions of the fishing communities of the district, and … persons with knowledge of, or expertise in, marine environmental matters"." It is important to achieve that balance, but, as the Bill is drafted, that balance would apply only to persons appointed by the MMO. Indeed, the third category of "other persons" could lead to a considerable imbalance one way or the other. Balance is an important issue. That is why the amendment seeks to include those with a specific interest in and knowledge of marine environmental matters but also seeks to ensure that, overall, there is a balance between the two most important stakeholder interests. Amendment A228B seeks to replace "community" with "communities" and follows on from the intervention in the previous debate by my noble friends Lord Greaves and Lord Tyler, who indicated that Devon has a north and a south coast. It might be very invidious to ask someone to represent one community. Having had experience of representing fishing communities, I know that getting a consensus view can be difficult. Therefore, the amendment seeks to provide for the diverse interests that may arise in fishing communities. I beg to move.