Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL]

I shall speak also to Amendment A264. My noble friend Lord Rosser referred in passing to this amendment some nine weeks ago, on Wednesday 28 January, in col. 281, when moving Amendment 77A. In reply, my noble friend Lord Hunt made some observations about the amendment that I am moving now. Schedule I leaves most staff of the proposed Marine Management Organisation without the immunity and privileges of a Crown servant, leaving them open to civil or criminal proceedings. They currently enjoy such immunity as staff of the Marine and Fisheries Agency. Under the Bill they will lose that if they transfer to the Marine Management Organisation, as they will cease to be Crown servants and will become public servants. I understand that Crown immunity means that emanations of the Crown are not susceptible to prosecution for offences either created by statute or of the common law. While there may be some doubt as to precisely what is covered by an emanation of the Crown, surely Ministers and their departments are included. The Government see a need to retain the current immunity but only in relation to one group of staff. Enforcement officers and any person assisting an enforcement officer, by virtue of Clause 250, will continue, ""not to be liable in any civil or criminal proceedings for anything done ... in or in connection with the discharge or purported discharge of the person's functions under this Act"." Why only that group of staff? The Government have conceded the principle of the need for the retention of current immunity with the inclusion of Clause 281, so we are not debating a principle. We are debating why the protection that currently exists should be retained for some staff but not all. What is the overwhelming reason that requires an existing arrangement to be withdrawn from so many? If Crown immunity is removed by the creation of the Marine Management Organisation, staff other than enforcement officers may also become personally liable for action taken in the course of their duties. One example where that could be a problem is when a licence is withdrawn from an individual and, as a result, they lose their income. Other decisions made by individual officers which could lead to them finding themselves subject to legal proceedings by a disgruntled party might relate to changes in fishing quotas to conserve stocks, or the opening and closing of areas for fishing for the same reason. Threats of legal action over such issues are not unknown, and if disgruntled parties think that in future they can get at the staff direct in legal proceedings, as opposed to proceedings against the organisations, some may decide to do so. The prospect of court proceedings against them would create uncertainty and worry for the staff affected—staff who have, as now, simply been seeking to carry out their duties in a responsible and conscientious manner. The proposed change in status for the MMO to a non-departmental public body would also exclude the staff from the legal services from the Crown that Marine and Fisheries Agency staff enjoy today. Why do the Government have to make those changes? Why can they not leave the question of immunity for the staff in the new MMO as it is in the MFA? The Minister said some two months ago in this Chamber that without the specific immunity given in the Bill to enforcement officers, their freedom to perform their duties would be hampered by fear of legal action being taken against them. Why only enforcement officers? Why not those carrying out other duties, including the ones to which I specifically referred? I urge my noble friend to reflect again on the matter. I beg to move.