GENERAL POWER TO PROHIBIT SEA FISHING IN SPECIFIED AREAS (Hansard, 5 June 1984)

§ Mr. John MacKay
I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 7, leave out from 'area' to end of line 10 and insert 'within Scottish inshore waters'.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean)
We will also take Government amendments Nos. 6 and 9.

§ Mr. MacKay
These are drafting amendments to improve the wording of clauses 1 and 2 and to clarify what are the waters covered by the Bill. Hon. Members will appreciate that the powers in clauses 1 and 2 are intended to cover the same area of sea —that is, the sea adjacent to the Scottish coast and within the six-mile limit—within which United Kingdom fishing vessels have exclusive access under the common fisheries policy.
By removing the appropriate words in each of those clauses and replacing them by a reference to "Scottish inshore waters," which term is then defined in clause 9, we hope to simplify the wording and remove the possibility of legal debate in the future on the compatibility of the two clauses.
258 Hon. Members who were present during the Committee proceedings will recall my explanation that the definition in clause 1 extended inland as far as the high water mark and included bays, estuaries, sea lochs, harbours and so forth. We have taken the opportunity in tabling these amendments to make this clear by specifically referring to the mean high water mark in the definition. I understand that this mark is usually shown on the charts covering coastal areas.

§ Mr. O'Neill
Will these changes deal with the problems that were highlighted in Committee in respect of the Solway firth, where, because of the shifting sands, the high water mark can change? Or are such problems to be the subject of negotiation between the DAF and the MAFF in an effort to achieve a proper management scheme for the area? I appreciate that it is a difficult matter, and it may be one of those loose ends that will have to be left to be resolved on an ad hoc basis as and when needs arise.

§ Mr. Home Robertson
The Minister said that this series of amendments would add clarity. If the hon. Gentleman considers this to be clarity, he will have to learn to do better. For example, amendment No. 9 says: 'Scottish inshore waters' means the sea adjacent to the coast of Scotland"— so far, so good— and to the landward of a limit of six miles from the baseline from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured, up to the mean high-water mark of ordinary spring tides. That is a roundabout way of saying "the area six miles from the baseline." I suppose that his intentions are right, but the hon. Gentleman should try to do better in future.

§ Mr. MacKay
The problem raised by the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) about the Solway firth results from the moving border between Scotland and England which is defined by the bed of the river, and this series of amendments will not do anything to improve that position. Any agreement covering the Solway will have to be arrived at between the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in England.
While, therefore, they will not do anything about that difficulty, I hope that the amendment will resolve some of the other difficulties, and if the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) does not understand the way in which the provision must be worded, I can only assure him that it makes the position crystal clear to anybody who understands the terminology.

§ Mr. O'Neill
I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 10, at end insert `and appoint representative committees of management to report to him on the operation of the orders'.
The amendment is part of a debate which has continued since the Bill was introduced in another place. That debate has taken a variety of forms, but it has been concerned primarily with ensuring that there is adequate consultation with fishermen before orders are presented to the House. The new orders should be the subject of discussion by the interested parties. We are endeavouring in the amendment to give the Minister the right to appoint representative committees of management to report to him on the operation of the orders. This would be appropriate in some areas, but we are not seeking to impose an obligation upon him.
259 This is an opportunity formally to sustain and maintain a dialogue with the fishing industry. The dialogue takes place anyway, but we think that it would be useful for Ministers to have an opportunity to hear what the industry is thinking on a month-to-month and a year-to-year basis on the working of the orders.
We have been led to believe that the arrangements will in the main exist for some time. It would not be the most desirable form of review to say that after five years there will be a brief consultative process and that that will be the basis upon which amendments will be made. We would consider it far more satisfactory for the appropriate representatives of the industry to be called in at an earlier stage and for there to be some formalisation of what we would expect to be the normal procedure.
If the Minister says that he anticipates that consultations will continue after the orders are made, that may well go some way to satisfying us. At present we are unclear about the Minister's intentions once an order has been laid and has obtained the approval of the House. There may be instances when a dialogue between those most affected and the Ministry would be for the assistance of all concerned.

§ Mr. John MacKay
The Government do not feel that the amendment is necessary or that it is likely to add materially to our efforts to create a just and equitable inshore fisheries regime. The Bill requires the Secretary of State to consult the industry before orders are made. A committee of the sort envisaged by the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) would appear to have no real function to perform. I have no doubt that the industry will make representations to the Secretary of State, and will continue to make representations, even if it has representation on the committee that is envisaged. It would be fully entitled to take that course.
More importantly, if the amendment were accepted, the Secretary of State would be faced with the task of servicing and funding such committees, determining their terms of reference and appointing their membership. It is the last function that would probably cause most of the problems. Inevitably the Secretary of State would be accused of giving too much representation or too little to a certain section of the industry. It is quite likely that he would be accused of both faults at the same time. Unless he created a huge and fairly unwieldy body which contained representatives of every conceivable type of interest in the industry, he would still have to consider representations from those who felt themselves insufficiently powerful within the committee. Anything that can be gained from setting up such a series of quangos can equally well be gained from a less formal approach.
We have declared our complete willingness to listen to all representations. We have said that we welcome the formation of ad hoc groupings of the industry in a particular area. We shall listen with great care to what those groups have to say. It is, however, best for the fishermen to be left to come together rather than to have an advice-giving structure imposed on them by the Government.
11 pm
It is significant that, although the amendment gives the committees the function of monitoring the operation of the orders and reporting to the Secretary of State on them, they are given the title of committees of management. In terms of the amendment, they will have nothing to manage. I 260 said repeatedly in Committee, and I am happy to say it again, that, even after the orders are made, the Government will not be turning away the fishing industry if it wants to make representations about the workings of the orders. That would be contrary to the experience that everyone — from the point of view of either the Department or the industry — has about the continued dialogue that occurs between the industry and the Department. There is probably no other Department that has such close and continuing consultation with the industry for which it is responsible as the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland in its relationship with the fishing industry.
I hope that, if the hon. Member for Clackmannan can accept my assurance that after the orders are passed there will be no slammed doors to the industry if it wishes to talk to the Department or Ministers involved, he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

§ Mr. O'Neill
I thank the Minister for his assurance that there will be continuing dialogue. He perceives the likelihood of considerable difficulties in deciding who should be on the committees. I sympathise with him in that task, but it is not an insuperable one. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his assurance. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

§ Mr. John MacKay
I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 1, leave out lines 11 to 20 and insert— '(2) Orders under this section may prohibit, within the specified sea area, all or any, or a combination of the following—

(a) all fishing for sea fish;

(b) fishing for a specified description of sea fish;

(c) fishing by a specified method;

(d) fishing from a specified description of fishing boat; and they may—

(e) specify the period during which any prohibition is to apply;

(f) make exceptions to any prohibition contained in the order.'.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to consider Government amendment No. 7.

§ Mr. MacKay
The amendment seeks to replace subsection (2) of clause 1 with a new subsection which has been redrafted in the light of the comments made in Committee. I hope that the new wording expresses clearly the possible scope of any order made under this clause in a way that will be helpful to all those concerned with the legislation. The amendment does not give the Secretary of State any new powers but merely restates the powers which we believe he would have had even if the subsection had remained unamended. It provides that orders may be made prohibiting fishing for all sea fish, for specified descriptions of fish, by any specified method, by any specified description of fishing boat — we had an interesting debate on that matter — or by any combination of those. It provides also that the prohibitions may apply on a seasonal basis and that exceptions may be made to them—for example, to allow for scientific research.
As I have said, the subsection has been redrafted to take account of our discussions in Committee, and I hope that hon. Members will agree that it represents a considerable improvement on the drafting of the clause.
The effect of amendment No. 7 is to allow the Secretary of State, when considering banning the carriage of any net, 261 to make an exclusion so that a fishing boat can be detailed to do scientific research using the net which would otherwise be banned. Our experience in the industry over the years shows that that type of provision of power for the Secretary of State can be useful.

§ Mr. John MacKay
I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 2, leave out lines 7 to 9.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 8 and 10.

§ Mr. MacKay
These are purely drafting amendments which simplify the wording of clauses 1 and 2. They delete the subsections which provide that the orders made under the clauses will be subject to the negative resolution procedure and replace them with a single subsection in clause 9 to the same effect. There is no substantive change to the Bill, and I commend the amendments to the House.