Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL]

I support the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, in her amendment tonight. I declare my interests: I am the patron of the National Lobster Hatchery at Newlyn in Cornwall, I am a member of the Fishmongers’ Company which is home to the Shellfish Association of Great Britain, and I am vice president of the Fishermen’s Mission. I will try not to repeat what the noble Baroness has said, but this is very important to a particular group of people. The shellfish industry, as noble Lords have heard, has a good sales value: 80 per cent of what we catch goes abroad, which does well for our people and for the Treasury. The Shellfish Association of Great Britain is responsible for the shellfish industry development strategy, which is a whole-industry, Defra-supported project towards managed, sustainable shellfish production with a target to double molluscan culture. The only route to achieve this is through the several and regulating orders. These orders are vital to the shellfish industry throughout the United Kingdom. There are currently 11 regulated fisheries and 30 several orders operating round the coast of England, Scotland and Wales. This shellfish industry, based on fishery orders, was worth £26 million in the year to March 2006, and provided approximately 200 jobs. It is worth noting that there have been year-on-year increases in production from fishery orders, so that production in 2006 was more than double that of 2002. The reason for this growth is that fishery orders have been recognised as an effective management measure. Orders provide security for operators cultivating shellfish, and thereby encourage long-term investment in the sustainable development of the shellfish beds. Orders also ensure that shellfish beds are protected from overexploitation, from pollution or damage from disease, or other development activities. They provide the regulatory authority with the powers to manage fisheries sustainably, protect nature conservation interests, limit exploitation to named licence holders, set catch limits, ensure the fishery is exploited safely, and, most importantly, to recover the costs of management. The establishment of new several and regulating orders is a prerequisite to achieving targeted growth in molluscan shellfish culture. The Marine and Coastal Access Bill now before Parliament represents an opportunity, which may not recur for several generations, to legislate for the effective management and nurture of our marine environment and those who rely on it to earn their livelihood. The production and gathering of seafood should be high on the list. We need therefore to cater for all the issues that we can now identify which have a material impact on the objective. We have a threat to orders which has been well described by the noble Baroness, and at this late time I will not go through the many pages that I had listed to explain to everybody exactly what this all means. But in 2006, the Crown Estate mounted a legal challenge to a several order in the Menai Strait in north Wales, where it wished to promote the construction of a marina on the area of a mussel fishery which was already protected by an order. If this legal challenge had succeeded, all several and regulating orders in the United Kingdom would have been lost. Many of the orders could immediately be ruled to be ultra vires, and all would lose their protection from external development on fisheries. Pending the outcome of that legal action, the Crown Estate refused to grant adequate consent for renewal of expiring orders or new applications for orders. In the past, fishery orders have generally been granted for periods ranging from 10 to 60 years. A lot of time and effort has been invested, and a lot of families have invested themselves, in this work. However, as orders usually take several years to set up, the fact that the Crown Estate is now willing to give consent for only two years makes it virtually impossible to see this as a long-term way of running businesses in areas where other forms of employment do not so easily come about. We hear that orders are not a viable option and will not provide the long-term security required for investment in fisheries. The outcome of the legal action was that the fishermen won, but of course the Crown Estate will appeal. It will appeal to your Lordships' House. While that continues, it will prevent anything happening. I am anxious to ensure that the Crown Estate will revert to its previous routine practice of granting long-term consent for fishery orders around the United Kingdom’s coastline. It may simply refuse in future to accept any application, which would result in the loss of all the fishery orders, all the jobs, and all those investments in all those boats over the next 10 to 20 years as one by one the orders fail to be renewed. The Bill is the ideal opportunity to address those threats and put the security of fishery orders and the shellfish industry beyond doubt. The continuing legal action shows that both the role of fishery orders and the rights and responsibilities of landowners on whose land orders are made require clarification. The Bill as drafted will not do that. Fishery orders have been in existence for over 150 years, with little change and minimal impact from other activities at sea. However, new pressures on the marine environment mean that we have to make the best possible use of the space available. The shellfish industry recognises that orders should provide for the interests of landowners and other users of the sea, but we also consider that shell-fisheries should be encouraged and protected in the national interest so that they continue to provide a vital contribution to the nation’s food supplies. The secure operation of several and regulating orders can be achieved by the removal of the Crown Estate’s unique status of having the power of veto over applications for orders. Under the current system, the consent of the Crown Estate is the only landowner consent that must be obtained before an application can be submitted. The Crown Estate would become a statutory consultee in common with all other landowners. The industry would accept that landowners be given a financial return on their land under fishery orders. There needs to be clarification of the rights and responsibilities of mariculture operators, landowners and other sea users within the areas of several and regulating orders to ensure security of tenure. Amendment of orders following the full consenting process should also be compensated where a conflicting development proposal is deemed to be of overarching national importance. Those matters could be dealt with administratively at a later stage. The critical issue is the Crown Estate veto on Defra-issued orders. The Marine Management Organisation is designed to be a one-stop shop for wind farms, aggregate dredging, exploration or sea storage following broad consultation. There is absolutely no reason why relatively environmentally benign shellfish cultivation should not be similarly managed by the MMO and not subject to that veto. The Crown Estate has gone from Queen to quango. The Crown Estate Act 1961 made it possible to have a non-elected board. We can see how it has changed. Kings and queens have loved and supported our fishermen over hundreds of years. Two of our monarchs have died from a surfeit of fish—how much they enjoyed to eat it. If the Government make an effort and remove the veto, remove the decision, take it back to Defra and leave the management to the MMO they will make our industry happy.