Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL]

I shall speak to most of the amendments in this group which address specifically matters concerning Wales. I am not enjoined to suggest legislation for Wales, because we have an Assembly, but in this Bill the primary powers for Wales reside within the Bill. These amendments include matters which are highly desirable by giving powers to the Assembly to ensure that many of the Bill’s objectives are completed. Amendment A237 relates to the duty of co-operation in Clause 165. It specifically directs Welsh fisheries managers—that is, Ministers—to co-operate with neighbouring fisheries management authorities. This is a highly desirable objective which has already been discussed in some of our debates. Welsh fisheries managers are not directed to co-operate with neighbouring fisheries management authorities, whereas IFCAs are. Such a requirement is crucial to securing the co-ordinated management of border areas, such as the Dee and Severn estuary Clause 165 provides an IFCA with a duty to, ""take such steps as it considers appropriate to co-operate with"" the IFCA adjoining a district, or, ""the Welsh Ministers, in a case where that district adjoins the Welsh inshore region"." Clause 164 also provides IFCAs with the ability to, ""enter into arrangements with any person or body for the provision… of services… in connection with the exercise of… functions"." These provisions do not currently apply to Welsh Ministers, and although an IFCA could use Clause 164 to initiate and enter into an agreement with the Welsh Ministers, in terms of specific fisheries management powers, these are one-sided. The Welsh Ministers do not at present have a duty to co-operate with IFCAs whereas the situation in the Bill is that IFCAs must co-operate with Welsh Ministers. So we are trying to put that right. The duty to take steps to co-operate with neighbouring fisheries managers should help to ensure that more effective, efficient and ecologically meaningful protection is achieved at border areas, such as the Dee and Severn estuary. This amendment should be straightforward as a principle, because comparable duties already exist in the Bill for Welsh Ministers. For example, in the marine planning provisions, Welsh Ministers are under a duty to take all reasonable steps to ensure that their plan is compatible with related neighbouring plans. Amendment A244 is quite detailed. The new clause extends duties to Welsh Ministers which are the same as those imposed in relation to IFCAs. It places sustainability, conservation and enhancement responsibilities on Welsh Ministers. It covers an immense amount of territory. To outline it, it is headed: ""Duties of Welsh Ministers in relation to management of inshore fisheries"." It goes through a series of subsections, with Welsh Ministers managing the exploitation of sea fisheries in Wales, through exploitation of the resources of sea fisheries, conservation enhancement, and the different needs of persons engaged in the exploitation of sea fisheries resources in the district. It refers to animals, plants, and marine flora and fauna. It also refers to duties concerning migratory fish. In subsection (4) there is reference to, ""salmon, trout, eels, lampreys, smelt and shad"." We debated that on Amendment A233 earlier on. So this mirrors that amendment, and imposes these duties on Welsh Ministers, so that we can have seamless responsibilities between the IFCAs and the Welsh Ministers and ensure that the protection measures are carried out to the same standard. In Wales there is now concern that if duties such as these are imposed on the Assembly, and in our view rightly so, there is a huge question of funding. We know, for example, that Defra has set aside £5 million of new money for sea fisheries committees and for IFCA work associated with the creation of the MMO in England. We are very concerned in Wales that the UK Government, if they want a seamless standard between England and Wales, should provide sufficient funding to ensure that this can occur. I know that this is a problem which occupies the members of the current sea fisheries committees. There are a number of duties which come into this; for example, with regard to protection vessels which involve considerable investment. Apparently the two vessels are in need of replacement in the two areas concerned at the moment in Wales. Stakeholder involvement, the transfer of management powers, scientific input, and the participation in EU marine conservation responsibilities are considerable costs which the Welsh Assembly Government will incur. It is hoped that it will get some assistance to do this properly. Amendment A244 covers those responsibilities. Our other amendment is Amendment A245, which would ensure that an annual report is produced by the Welsh Assembly Government so far as fisheries are concerned. At present, Welsh fisheries managers and Welsh Ministers are under no duties in the Bill equivalent to those of IFCAs or the Secretary of State to collect information relating to the exploitation of sea fisheries or formally to report on the discharging of fisheries management functions. Clauses 166, 168 and 169 require IFCAs to collect information and publish annual plans as well as an annual report. Clause 174 requires the Secretary of State to report to Parliament every four years on the conduct and operation of the IFCAs. The result of the lack of equivalent requirements is that fisheries management in Wales will be less automatically accountable and accessible than the regime in England. There are fewer guarantees that adequate information will be available on the exploitation of sea fisheries to inform management and the consideration of marine environmental matters as part of fisheries management. Welsh Ministers are under a duty in Clause 120 to report to the National Assembly on progress in securing a network of marine protected areas, so the Bill already contains precedents for reporting duties on Welsh Ministers. Therefore, our requirement for the responsibilities for producing reports in Wales for the inshore fisheries sector seems reasonable. There are two other amendments in the group that are not ours. If I may comment after they have been spoken to, I would welcome that opportunity. I beg to move.