Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL]

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 13 to 16. I shall also speak to Amendment 27. These amendments relate to an issue that has exercised the House greatly—the shellfish industry. In Committee and on Report, the noble Baronesses, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer and Lady Wilcox, spoke strongly and with considerable force on this matter. My noble friend Lord Hunt has now moved on to other pastures. He is in the Ukraine today, but that does not mean that he will not be up near the Barents Sea tomorrow or Tierra del Fuego in the middle of next week. I cannot keep track of my noble friend’s extraordinary endeavours with regard to the preparations for the climate change conference in Copenhagen, but it means that I am not able to consult him in his wisdom about aspects of the Bill for which he was largely responsible and which I have inherited. However, I remember that he assured the House that if the Government, "““believed that primary legislation was necessary, we would look to introducing it during the passage of the Bill, probably in another place””.—[Official Report, 19/5/09; col. 1354.]" What was exercising the noble Baronesses, to whom my noble friend Lord Hunt was responding, was the problems facing the shellfish industry as a consequence of a long-running court action surrounding the rights of shellfish owners and landowners where developments are concerned. Our ability to secure a long-term sustainable future for the industry was being hampered by the provisions of the Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Act 1967. I am pleased to report that we are now seeking the agreement of this House to this package of amendments, which, taken together, will deliver the changes to primary legislation that should secure the future of this important industry. We have had extensive meetings with interested parties, including the Shellfish Association of Great Britain and the Crown Estate, which was the other great actor in this area of considerable difficulty. The Government are able to state, through the amendments, that we have delivered on our commitment. We have tabled amendments that were considered in Commons Committee and won the approval of the other place. Amendments may be grouped together for discussion, but can be considered separately at any stage by the House according to our proper procedures. However, I emphasise that it is necessary to look at these amendments as a complete and balanced package. It is crucial that they are taken together, to allow us to start granting shellfish orders again while recognising the rights of landowners. Over the summer, officials and the Minister worked with the Shellfish Association of Great Britain, the representative body of the shellfish industry, as well as with the wider shellfish industry and the Crown Estate, to ensure clarity on how the amendments would work in practice and to ensure that they were not defective. On 13 September, the Minister met the Shellfish Association of Great Britain and the Crown Estate and was joined by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, and by the honourable Member for Newbury. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, would have liked to have been there but was unable to attend. At the meeting, a record of which was sent on 16 October to all MPs and noble Lords interested in the Bill—including the two noble Baronesses to whom I referred, who were so active on the issue in the House when we considered these matters—all sides agreed a way forward and indicated that they were prepared to accept the Bill. They committed to addressing their outstanding concerns outside the Bill through other means such as revised guidance notes. The Shellfish Association of Great Britain has subsequently written to the Minister to confirm that this is its position. The amendments that we have made are even-handed. They remove an outdated and unnecessary procedure when considering new orders and provide the Secretary of State with the power to grant new shellfish orders without obtaining Crown consent. Given that a number of important orders are due to expire in the next few years and a number of potential orders are in the pipeline, the amendments are crucial for the long-term future of shellfish orders. The amendments also ensure that, when considering an application for a new shellfish order, the responsible Minister must have regard to the power and duties of the Crown Estate, in recognition of its responsibilities and duties enshrined in law, which are not faced by other landowners. We have tabled a new clause—Amendment 16—which grants the appropriate Minister the power to vary or revoke an order should it be appropriate to do so. The proposed system of variation does not give the Crown Estate or other landowners a free hand to develop land covered by a shellfish order, but it creates a process for applications to be made to allow for the possibility of that land being developed, with a mechanism for compensation where this occurs. We have developed guidance notes on the detailed operation of this process, which we have drawn up in consultation with the industry and landowners. This has ensured that all parties are clear about how the process will work. This package of amendments, which has the support of key stakeholders, offers an economically viable, long-term future to the shellfish industry. It will allow Ministers to start granting new shellfish orders with safeguards for the industry and at the same time to protect the rights of landowners, allowing an avenue for them to develop their land during the lifetime of an order should they wish to do so. I place on record our thanks to the Shellfish Association of Great Britain and the Crown Estate for the constructive approach that they have taken during discussions on the amendments over the summer and for recognising the long-term benefits that they will bring for shellfisheries. I should also place on record our thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, and the honourable Member for Newbury for taking time to attend that crucial meeting held by my honourable friend the Member for Ogmore, the Minister in the other place. This was a difficult area. We wrestled with the issue in this House and were able to identify how difficult it was without being able to solve the problems at that stage. Very constructive work has been done—I hasten to add that I was not party to that work in any way, shape or form—by a Minister at the other end who worked assiduously, with the co-operation of the two key parties. They deserve congratulations on the way in which this process was carried out. Everyone who participated, including the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, has helped to resolve a real difficulty. These amendments bear witness to that outcome. Accordingly, I beg to move.