Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL]

Behind these amendments is a clear concern about the training of officers involved in enforcement duties. I very much accept the sentiments of the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, and the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, about the importance of training. From the information that has already been made available, it is clear that we will want to ensure that the appropriate officers have the requisite training. I agree with the noble Earl that there needs to be the essential core basic training but, clearly, we would expect that to be developed and improved in the years ahead. Ensuring that we have highly motivated and trained people doing this important job will be part of making sure that the legislation and the work of the MMO are successful. Amendment A254 would limit the MMO to appointing only its own officers as marine enforcement officers. The noble Lord wants to ensure that only appropriately trained officers have access to the powers and that no conflicts of interest arise from the individual officer. I see exactly where he is coming from and entirely agree that officers with access to the enforcement powers in the Bill must be appropriately trained and supervised. Because this very much involves them, the Marine and Fisheries Agency—the current agency—the Association of Sea Fisheries Committees of England and Wales and the EA are already developing a common training package that will be delivered by the MMO, which will provide consistency to marine enforcement and assurance to the public that enforcement is fair and proportionate. We fully accept the point about consistency of approach. That point is very well taken indeed. The problem with the amendment is that it would limit the MMO to appointing only its officers to be marine enforcement officers. That would mean that the MMO could not cross-warrant appropriately trained officers of other organisations. It is important to cross-warrant because that ensures close co-operation and an integration of approach. It is an important tool of enforcement. I also believe, harking back to the final Oral Question this afternoon, that it is a good illustration of what is meant by better regulation. It is seeking to ensure that the regulatory bodies that collectively have a responsibility in these areas actually work together and have a consistency of approach. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, would create an imbalance between England and Wales, which I suspect was unintended, since under his amendment Welsh Ministers could cross-warrant and the MMO could not. I suspect that that is more a drafting point. Amendment A259 is about the assistant and seeks an assurance that an assistant is an appropriate person to help with an inspection and investigation. Of course, I agree that the assistant needs to be appropriately trained to assist in any inspection or investigation. It might help if I inform the Committee of the sort of work that we think an assistant might do. In some cases, the work would involve counting fish boxes onboard a fishing vessel, assisting in the search of premises or assisting with lifting or moving fishing gear. At other times, more specialist help might be required, such as the assistance of a qualified engineer to operate equipment used to test the engine power of a fishing vessel or, as we will debate later, the assistance of a qualified veterinary surgeon. On the first list of categories—counting fish boxes and so forth—we think that the position is safeguarded because the assistant can work only under the supervision of a warranted marine enforcement officer. As an employer, the MMO must be assured that its staff and anyone working on its behalf are working in accordance with the law. That is a fair responsibility to place on the MMO. I fully understand why the noble Earl wants to ensure that officers handling live animals are appropriately trained and qualified. Certainly, it is important that animal welfare issues are taken into consideration in the use of those powers and I fully accept that appropriately skilled people will need to be drafted in where necessary to ensure that animals are handled humanely. We see the power in the Bill to take samples from live animals as having has two main applications. One is for wildlife officers under wildlife legislation—under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, for example. In the enforcement of such legislation, we would normally expect the officer to take a skilled assistant with them, such as a vet, using their power of assistance under Clause 250. Another, more specific application of the power enables officers to mark egg-carrying lobsters to ensure they are not landed and so protect stocks. The clauses are drafted to ensure that appropriately skilled people can assist enforcement officers in carrying out their functions where necessary, but they are not overly restrictive and do not prevent officers performing a task that they can currently carry out, which would come under the first list of duties that I read out. We do not want to unnecessarily limit enforcement that can already be performed by introducing excessive procedure under the Bill. In that instance, we rely on the MMO to use its own judgment and the fact that it is liable for what the people it appoints do in its name. Amendments A260, A261 and A262 comprise the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, that every time an enforcement officer or their assistant exercises any power, they must give their name, the power they are proposing to exercise and the grounds for proposing to do so without being prompted to give that information. On the face of it, that is sensible, and good practice dictates that a marine enforcement officer or their assistant should explain what they intend to do and their reasons for performing that action at commencement of an inspection. As now, an officer would provide the evidence of their authority, the powers that they are intending to exercise and the reasons for undertaking the inspection, if requested. That provides reassurance to the person being inspected that the procedures to be used are within the law. Just as British sea fisheries officers currently do, we would expect marine enforcement officers to use common sense and to explain to those being inspected what they are doing. However, my reading of the noble Lord’s amendment is that that information might have to be repeated on a frequent basis, perhaps in an inspection that might last several hours. That would be overly bureaucratic and rather over-egging the cake. We certainly agree that a marine enforcement officer or their assistant should explain what they are doing and their reasons for performing that action at the commencement of an inspection. On the assistant and Amendment A262, the power to inspect and investigate comes through the marine enforcement officer's warrant. The assistant may exercise a power only under the supervision or direction of that officer. For that reason, the assistant's identity is not relevant as they are not exercising a power in their own right. In one sense, it is rather a safeguard to the point raised by the noble Lord’s earlier amendment, in that it follows that the assistant is indeed an assistant to the enforcement officer and that the prime responsibility rests on the enforcement officer. I hope that this is sufficient explanation of why the Bill is drafted as it is. I fully understand where the amendments are coming from. However, the regulatory approach in the Bill is proportionate. It seeks to allow cross-warranting, which is likely to be more effective. I acknowledge the need for consistency of approach and am clear that, first, the MMO must take responsibility for the quality of people appointed as enforcement officers and their assistants and, secondly, enforcement action comes through the marine enforcement officer’s warrant, not through the assistant.