Marine and Coastal Access Bill [Lords]

I was encouraged down a route that was not part of my speech, which I shall return to. Before I turn to the amendments that I have tabled, I wish to speak to amendment 17, which I have signed. I remind the Minister that, in Committee, I urged him to review the decision to annul the White Herring Fisheries Act 1771. As a result, we entered into correspondence. He wrote to me on 8 July, I responded on 31 July and he wrote again on 4 September, giving further explanations of the background to annulling the Act. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Doran), as a lawyer who has obviously studied the Act in great detail, articulated his arguments far better than I possibly could. All I say to the Minister is that, quite apart from the clear technical arguments that the hon. Gentleman advanced very well, erasing the Act does not pass the "what harm" test—what harm is there in leaving it in place? Nor does it pass the "what hurry" test—what is the hurry to get this done now? The correspondence that I have had with those in the fishing industry who are keen to keep the 1771 Act extant suggests that they believe that elements of that rather ancient-sounding Act are relevant today. The Minister denies that, but I say to him that in any case it is doing no harm and there is no hurry to remove it. I turn now to the amendments in my name. The purpose of amendment 18, to clause 124, is to establish the balance that the Minister has said he wants to achieve. Subsection 2(e) and (f) state that the regular report that the MMO will produce must refer to""the extent to which, in the opinion of the authority, the conservation objectives stated for each MCZ which it has designated have been achieved"" and""any further steps which, in the opinion of the authority, are required to be taken in relation to any MCZ in order to achieve the conservation objectives stated for it."" To balance the conservation objectives with socio-economic considerations, which are after all to be acknowledged at the point of designation, it seems appropriate for some attempt to be made to assess in the report the impact of policies in MCZs on the socio-economic vitality of the coastal communities affected. The amendment would dovetail with the rest of what is proposed for the report by adding that it must mention""the extent to which, in the opinion of the authority, the operation of the MCZs have had an impact upon the marine economy in general and the commercial and recreational fishing industry in particular"." I think that that would be a reasonable amendment. It would simply establish a balance that the Minister told the Public Bill Committee that he wishes to achieve, and that I believe we all wish to achieve. There is an opportunity for the Minister to accept the amendment. The purpose of amendment 23 is slightly different. A number of conservation bodies are concerned about the fisheries defence. I think that they have a justification for their concerns because, as the provision is drafted, the defence could be used by some in the fishing industry who are less reputable—the vast majority do not do this—and who might not go about their trade in an MCZ or around a feature that we are seeking to protect with the care that we would hope for. The Minister and the Secretary of State, through Government amendment 5, are proposing that at some point—I think the Minister suggested quite soon after the Bill becomes an Act—the fisheries defence will simply be removed. I propose a tightening of the Bill. Clause 141 states:""It is a defence for a person who is charged with an offence under section 140 to show that…the effect of the act on the protected feature in question could not reasonably have been avoided."" Under the Bill, it is incumbent on the enforcement body to disprove the defence. I am proposing that a fisherman would need to demonstrate a three-pronged, higher hurdle of proof to be able to use the fisheries defence as effectively as the Minister is seeking to achieve. The purpose of amendment 42, which the hon. Member for Great Grimsby clearly supports is, as it says, to achieve "equal treatment". The last thing we want to do as a result of the Bill—the Minister has perpetually reassured those of us who have raised the issue—is tie the hands of UK fisherman and allow fishermen from other nations, including EU nations, to be able simply to plunder the fish stocks in areas to which UK fisherman have effectively been told they cannot go and fish. If that is not achieved as a result of the Bill, it would undermine its authority and the support for it.