Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL]

My Lords, that is a very interesting question. I am concerned about the next stage down, which is what these amendments are concerned with—the functions properly allocated and carried out by IFCAs. The issue of delegation, which would be subject to the closest scrutiny, would mean that they would include the matter that the noble Lord has indicated. However, within that framework that would be done with some degree of caution, for obvious reasons. After all, one destroys the concept of responsibility if one takes delegation too far. We are talking about limited positions in which the functions of an MMO are delegated to an IFCA. To take that on down to another body would be exceptional rather than the norm. I shall think a little further about whether it is actually possible, if the noble Lord will give me a moment or two, as it is a most interesting question. The amendments include a requirement for the Secretary of State to review all agreements at least every five years. The arrangements would be subject to regular reconsideration and would give him the power to cancel agreements, if appropriate, in light of such reviews. We are talking about a careful process of delegation. If the noble Lord’s purpose with his question was to express anxiety about the dangers of delegation, we have defensive provisions in these terms. The delegation would be set with conditions, and there could be a prevention of further sub-delegation. The noble Lord and I are of one mind on this. We would look askance at the idea of additional sub-delegation, and that is why the Bill ensures that the Secretary of State stays very closely related to the action on this question of delegation of powers, which is right. Otherwise, the great danger that we have is the exercise of unaccountable power, which I know that the noble Lord is anxious about. The review can be undertaken by the Secretary of State every five years, but it can be done at any time—for example as a result of representations from the IFCA or eligible body or from other interested parties. The original approval from the Secretary of State can waive the requirement for a review to occur at least every five years. So built into this, we have a proper, responsible position for the Secretary of State in relation to these issues. We do not have particular expectations about where delegation agreements will be used. Because I have not gone too far down that path, I was struggling with the point made by the noble Lord. It will be looked at in detail by IFCAs and the Environment Agency if the amendments are accepted. But the amendments will offer a degree of flexibility and future-proofing in terms of development—for example to allow one IFCA to manage across an estuary even where a local authority boundary splits the estuary, or for the Environment Agency to manage all fisheries in upper estuaries where marine species are insignificant. Those are areas of flexibility that we would all recognise the Bill ought to provide for in the evolution of policy and practice. The Bill as amended will allow fisheries management to be carried out as flexibly and efficiently as possible in inshore areas, particularly in estuaries. That was the subject of considerable debate in this House and it was also reflected in concerns in the other place. This will be beneficial both to users of the inshore marine area and to regulators, ensuring that fisheries and the wider inshore marine environment are managed as effectively as possible. At House of Commons Report stage on 26 October, there was support for the amendments from the honourable Member for Reading West, and from the honourable Member for Newbury, who said: "““IFCAs will not always be best placed to carry out certain functions, some of which could be managed by other organisations or by agencies that have more relevant knowledge or are simply better placed to perform them. It is important that IFCAs are flexible and are able to delegate their functions where necessary or sensible, and we therefore support the proposed measures””.—[Official Report, Commons, 26/10/09; col. 36.]" That is the view of two Members of Parliament thinking about the issues very seriously and recognising the degree of flexibility that we ought to build into the Bill. Before the noble Lord rises to his feet with regard to Wales, let me say that the issues have also been considered there. There was discussion of the amendment of the honourable Member for Brecon and Radnorshire to extend the option of delegation to Welsh Ministers. My colleague, the Minister in the other place, the honourable Member for Ogmore, explained that Welsh Ministers already have the power to make legislation on behalf of the Environment Agency and to delegate functions to the agency. The intention behind the amendment seems sensible, but raising the matter so late in the process, without the scope to be clear about how accountability of the functions could be ascertained, does not seem right. The Bill can and does deliver to Welsh Ministers the powers that they requested, and they are content with the Bill as drafted. Therefore, I hope that I give the noble Lord reassurance on that. The amendment has been carefully considered in the other place. It is a response to considerable pressure from there, and Wales is included too. Accordingly, I beg to move.