Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL]

I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken on the issue. I declare an interest as I am inordinately fond of shellfish. I appreciate the way in which this relatively short debate has been conducted. I owe particular gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, who has saved me the problems of describing a great deal about the industry and about the nature of the judgment and the problem that confronts us. Of course I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, who has drawn attention to this difficult problem. I do not think that any of us can underestimate the problems that we face in dealing with the issue and the attendant problems for the industry of which both noble Baronesses made us fully aware. The noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, also had some pertinent points to make. It is certainly the case that the Shellfish Act does not allow a several or regulating order to be granted on any part of the foreshore owned by the Crown without the Crown Estate commissioners giving their consent. Nor does it permit such orders to be granted without the consent of the Duchy of Lancaster or the Duke of Cornwall in relation to parts of the foreshore owned by them. The amendment removes the necessity for those consents. Would that the world was that straightforward. Of course, I recognise the intent behind the amendment—the attempt to overcome the delays in progressing some several and regulating order applications in England and Wales caused by the recent court case relating to the Menai Straits, which the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, described so accurately. Judgment, pronounced on appeal last month, found in favour of the shellfish cultivators, as she indicated, and the Sea Fisheries Committee, upholding the judgment at first instance. We are asked what the Government are doing about the matter. We are holding discussions with both the shellfish industry and the Crown Estate commissioners to assess the implications of the decision to try to find a way of resolving the current impasse in agreeing new orders for the benefits of all parties. Careful consideration is being given to the possibility of finding a way to resolve the issue by amending the Shellfish Act. Shellfish orders are important tools for the sustainable and safe exploitation of shell fisheries and we have restated our commitment to them by introducing an amendment in this Bill to the Shellfish Act aimed at ensuring that shellfish orders can be used effectively. The Bill is predicated on that assumption. Of course we are concerned by the potential implications for the progressing of any future orders arising out of this consent issue, but we do not believe that the issue can be resolved by the amendment. The amendment is too blunt an instrument in a difficult situation. The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, mentioned the two-year consent issue proposed by the Crown Estate, which recognised that that is an interim solution for the very reasons that she identified. Two years is scarcely a basis on which to establish and continue an industry and for investment to be made in it. That was an interim solution pending resolution of the ongoing court action. Once the court case is settled, we expect the Crown Estate to review this policy. We shall press it on this matter because we agree with the noble Baroness that a two-year consent is merely an interim period. I might add that a further potential appeal on this case can be made until 20 March. Therefore, the Government are in a particularly difficult position in responding to this amendment at this point and it will be recognised why we have to proceed with care. The problem with the amendment is that it does not balance properly the rights of the owners of the foreshore against those of the shellfish cultivators, and so it does not provide a long-term solution to the current problems. If the requirement to obtain consent were removed, it would, I am sure, be open to the Crown Estate commissioners to challenge the order, most likely using the public inquiry procedures under the shellfish Act, and at the cost of the applicant for an order. I cannot see how that would be a satisfactory solution for the industry. We believe that the only sensible way forward is through continued negotiation and discussion between the parties concerned. We believe that there is a genuine desire by all parties to address this issue, but there is the complication of the court case and I do not underestimate the significance of all that. I am not sure that I totally agree with the figure that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, put forward for the value of the industry. We estimate the value of landings from several and regulating orders in England to be about £10.5 million—a substantial sum. This is an industry to take seriously. We know that, as the noble Baroness identified, it represents an extremely efficient way of providing a protein-rich, as well as a hugely enjoyable, food. I hope that the Committee recognises that we are grateful that the issue has been raised. It would have been neglectful had it not been raised in the context of the industry’s current difficulties. However, we are in very difficult circumstances at present and I hope that the noble Baroness will be satisfied that she has pressed the Government about as far as we can go this evening. There will be developments in the immediate future. We fully recognise our responsibility to the industry and are greatly concerned about the position in which we find ourselves. However, there is no simple solution to this issue. Certainly, the amendment would be a blunt instrument which would provoke a blunt, and probably effective, riposte, but that would not help the cause that the noble Baroness is seeking to advance with her amendment. Therefore, I hope that she will feel able to withdraw it.