Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL]

My Lords, this is an interesting set of amendments. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, that I understand the resentment which might be felt by the fishing sector. I hope that it will have confidence in this legislation. We shall do everything that we can to ensure that it gets the relevant information. I well understand the sentiment which lies behind Amendment 110B. He is right, of course, that under the common fisheries policy we have scope to set conditions unilaterally for UK vessels. It is possible that we can use that power to further marine sustainability goals. Indeed, some noble Lords would welcome that possibility. It is true that on rare occasions we have done so and it is entirely possible that we might want to do the same to show environmental leadership and increase our chances of persuading other member states of the EU to do likewise. We will not rush into doing so, but it would not be right simply to remove that instrument as a result of the amendment. Were we to remove such an ability, it should be done in the context of reform of the Common Fisheries Policy more generally. I will come to our approach to reform of the CFP a little later in my response. Of course, one has to recognise, as the noble Lord did, that there are areas where only UK vessels fish within the nought-to-six-mile zone and parts of the six-to-12-mile zone. The amendment would make our ability to regulate those exclusively UK fisheries subject to agreement in Brussels. We would be very wary of limiting our national powers in this respect. On Amendment 119, I have acknowledged that there are concerns over the effect of Clause 137(3). It provides a defence to the general offence in Clause 136 for people engaged in sea fishing. This is, of course, an important economic activity and an important part of our maritime culture. Where people are engaged in it legitimately, they should not be penalised for the damage that it causes. When we authorise such types of fishing as beam trawling, we have to accept that a certain amount of damage will occur. It might include breaking fragile organisms, such as corals and sea fans, or uprooting plants such as sea grass. Clause 137(3) therefore acknowledges this by providing a defence for sea fishing. However, of course, this part of the Bill is about the conservation of the natural environment. Obviously, we want to do everything that we can to maximise the protection that we give to marine conservation zones. In this, I agree with the noble Duke that we do not want those who are fishing illegally to benefit from this defence. I make it clear that to benefit from the defence, the conditions in both limbs must be met. The second limb requires that the damage caused could reasonably have been avoided. If a fisherman is using the wrong gear and, as a result, cause greater damage than necessary, or if he is fishing in a place where certain or all types of fishing are prohibited, he will not be able to claim that the damage could not reasonably have been avoided. The damage could patently have been avoided by complying with the relevant legislation. Therefore, he would, on my understanding, be guilty of an offence under Clause 136. This is not a theoretical situation. Where the evidence makes a strong case for them, there will be restrictions on fishing activity. In the nought-to-six-mile zone, where the UK has greatest control, inshore fisheries and conservation authorities will put appropriate by-laws in place. Between six and 12 miles from shore, we will seek agreement for appropriate restrictions from the European Commission and those EU member states that have historic fishing rights under Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002. Beyond 12 miles, as noble Lords are aware, we cannot act unilaterally to regulate fishing. We must seek protection for our marine conservation zones through the Common Fisheries Policy. While securing protection through this mechanism is dependent on the agreement of other member states, which we cannot take for granted, we will, of course, do everything that we can to do that. On the questions raised by the noble Duke about the nature of the EU negotiations, the number of people involved and the agreed timing for zones, I do not have the information to hand. I have not been able to get hold of it during our debates and I am afraid I shall have to offer to write to the noble Duke on those matters.