My Lords, I have listened carefully to concerns raised in Committee on this matter. I know that noble Lords wanted further assurances in the Bill that the Government are indeed serious about designating marine conservation zones. So I have tabled Amendments 113ZB and 113ZC to Clause 166, which would insert a time limit for designating individual marine conservation zones. This provision will ensure that the Secretary of State must make an MCZ designation order within 12 months of publishing notice of the proposal under Clause 116(2).

These provisions will ensure that all interested parties have a clear understanding of the timescales involved in the MCZ site designation process and provide more certainty for developers and sea users. Designating authorities will be aware of the importance of keeping momentum up in the designation process. Imposing a timetable for the designation of individual marine conservation zones will help to speed up the creation of an ecologically coherent network of sites in the medium to long term. I hope that this provides the assurance that noble Lords wished to have when we debated this matter in Committee. I beg to move.

My Lords, I have a very brief speaking note but a rather important message, which is to congratulate the Minister on a very significant birthday.

On the matter in hand, these amendments follow from our debates in Committee and seem very sensible. I thank the Minister for tabling them.

My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Greaves, who is unwell today, I am afraid that I will have little to contribute to this part of the Bill with which I have not previously been involved. I add my congratulations to the noble Lord on joining the age group eligible for a bus pass and a senior citizen’s railcard. However, if he continues to work at his current rate, he will, sadly, not have much opportunity to access cheap film matinees for pensioners.

My Lords, you never know what will happen after this Bill. I thank the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for their comments. I congratulate the noble Lord on winning a gold medal at the Chelsea Flower Show yesterday. That is a very significant achievement and I offer him my warmest congratulations on it.

My Lords, I speak also to the other government amendments in this group. The amendments result from the useful debate in Committee when the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, questioned the wording in subsection (2) of Clause 126. I am grateful to him for doing so. It was pointed out that the Bill requires the MMO to send a copy of a draft by-law to every person who it thinks is likely to be interested or affected by the by-law. The noble Duke suggested that that was quite some obligation. We agree that this could be read as imposing a somewhat unrealistic, disproportionate and costly burden on this public body, which was not our policy intention. In response, we have tabled a series of amendments, both in relation to Clause 126, and in relation to the notification requirements for other clauses in Part 5, which we have also reviewed in the light of the debate in Committee.

Amendments 114G to 114J, taken together, deal with this point. They impose more clearly a proportionate and workable duty on the Marine Management Organisation. This is intended to address the specific point raised by the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, in Committee. The amendments would require the MMO to publish notice of the making of a by-law as soon as reasonably practicable after the by-law is confirmed, and to make copies available for inspection. In practice we would also expect the MMO to send a copy of the notice to people who it considers will have a particular interest.

Amendments 114K to 114M address a similar issue and ensure consistency with the approach I have just outlined in relation to by-laws that have been made by the MMO. In similar fashion, Amendments 114N to 114Q make changes to Clauses 131 and 133, which provide powers for the Welsh Ministers to make orders to protect marine conservation zones in Wales. These orders will be similar to by-laws made by the MMO. The purpose of these amendments is to impose similar and consistent duties on the Welsh Ministers to publicise orders as are being proposed for the MMO after making a by-law.

We have also reviewed the other notification requirements in Part 5 to ensure consistency. As a result of this we have tabled Amendment 113ZD. This introduces a new clause after Clause 116, requiring Ministers to publish notice of the making of an MCZ designation order, and to make copies of the order available for inspection. It must also provide a copy of the order to any person on request. Currently, the Bill requires consultation to take place only before any decision is taken on whether to designate a marine conservation zone. However, the debate in Committee clearly underlined how important it is for people to know what decision is reached. Informing people that a site has been designated will help to ensure that the site is more effectively managed and protected, and that offences are more easily enforced.

This group of amendments will ensure that the notification arrangements throughout Part 5 are transparent, workable, proportionate and consistent. They are important to secure efficient public administration and to ensure that the public are properly informed of matters that may affect them. In due course, I shall ask the House to accept the other amendments in the group but, for now, I beg to move Amendment 113ZD.

My Lords, once again, I thank the Minister for listening with such attention to our concerns in Committee and for coming back with amendments that meet them.

My Lords, I particularly welcome what the Minister said about the instructions to Welsh Ministers in Amendment 114N and in the series of amendments that follow it addressing Welsh Ministers. The tidying up that is being done in terms of giving instructions to Welsh Ministers is very welcome, because it levels up the duties both in England and in Wales and clarifies that situation in particular and leaves no doubt whatever what those duties are.

My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their support for these amendments.

Amendment 113ZD agreed to.

Clause 119 : Creation of network of conservation sites

Amendment 113A

My Lords, we spent some time in Committee debating the Government’s commitment to an ecologically coherent network of marine conservation zones, how we intend to define the network and whether this network will include wider European marine and Ramsar sites and sites of special scientific interest.

I listened carefully to those concerns, and I have tabled a number of amendments to Clause 119 which I hope meet the major points raised in Committee. The amendments seek to emphasise that we are serious about the duty to designate an ecologically coherent network and that we want the network to include a range of marine protected areas, such as European and Ramsar sites and sites of special scientific interest.

I will start by addressing my Amendment 113A, which amends the drafting of Clause 119(1) in response to the concern raised by noble Lords in Committee. We must ensure that Ministers are under a clear duty to designate a network of marine conservation zones. Indeed, the entire success of the nature conservation provisions relies on that. I have therefore tabled a new drafting for the duty to designate, as set out in Clause 119(1). This new drafting clearly requires that in order to fulfil their duty, Ministers must exercise the power to designate marine conservation zones set out in Clause 113. This new drafting also makes clear that the network must comprise multiple marine conservation zones.

The amendment builds on the legal advice that I sent noble Lords on 30 March, highlighting how Clauses 119 and 113 work together to create a duty. Let me be very clear on this point. Clause 119 imposes a duty on each appropriate authority to contribute to the achievement of a UK-wide network of conservation sites by exercising its power to designate marine conservation zones in its area. It provides that the authority must exercise the power to designate marine conservation zones in order to contribute to the achievement of the objective of a network. The word “must” clearly imposes a duty on the authority to exercise that power to bring about a particular result. The appropriate authority cannot choose not to exercise the power conferred by Clause 113(1) without automatically being in breach of the duty imposed by Clause 119(1). Failure to exercise the power is a failure to comply with the duty. I hope that that provides the reassurance required on that point.

I turn to my Amendments 113B, 114A and 114B, which I have tabled in response to our debate in Committee and the amendment proposed there by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. The clause as it stands sets out that the network will include marine conservation zones and European marine sites. These amendments would require the network to include Ramsar sites and sites of special scientific interest, as well as marine conservation zones and European marine sites. The net effect is to ensure that the Secretary of State must designate marine conservation zones so that, taken with other marine protected sites, they form a comprehensive network of sites, allowing us to ensure maximum connectivity and linkages between different MPAs. The duty on the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on progress on designating the ecologically coherent network in 2012, and at least every six years thereafter, will also include a report on the number of marine conservation zones, European sites, Ramsar sites and sites of special scientific interest.

The Secretary of State clearly will take very seriously these duties to designate and to report to Parliament. Taken together, they provide clear accountability to report on delivery. I can confirm that, in the light of our discussions, we will be looking to our statutory adviser, Natural England, to play a leading role in co-ordinating and producing the report which we have to make to Parliament on the way our duties to deliver the network of marine conservation zones have been achieved for the waters that we, the UK Government, are responsible for.

I hope noble Lords will consider that we have listened carefully to the good and interesting debate in Committee on this matter. I beg to move.

My Lords, I thank the Minister once more for bringing back amendments that clear up some of the more confusing or ambiguous drafting in this Bill. We welcome his attempts to reassure us and outside stakeholders about the duty to establish a network of marine conservation zones. He will be aware that there is a lot of interest in this subject, and I am grateful for his contributions. I shall leave any further comments on Clause 119 to my next amendment.

My Lords, I, too, welcome these amendments. They underline the Government’s commitment, already indicated, to a network of marine conservation zones, rather than a series of stand-alone MCZs. The amendment gives real substance to that commitment, particularly by linking it in with a number of our European obligations, and is very welcome in that regard.

My Lords, I add my voice of thanks and appreciation to the Minister for the way in which he has carried this matter forward and for his amendments. Can he say to what extent he is carrying with him any of the other EU countries? It would be interesting to know how far their thinking is travelling along the same road and whether their policy is developing to the same extent.

While I am on my feet, perhaps I may put a very small but illustrative point to the Minister. Other noble Lords may well have seen, as I did, a photograph which appeared some weeks ago in the Daily Telegraph of a rather remarkable golden sea horse. I recollect that the caption referred to a very rare colony of sea horses that are threatened with extinction as a consequence of leisure activity—notably sailing, boating and anchoring of sea craft. At some time, perhaps not at this juncture, will the Minister look into this question and discuss with Natural England the measures that are urgently needed to protect this rare colony?

My Lords, I spoke previously on a matter of particular interest to me that seems relevant in this context: the protection of archaeological remains on the seabed. I referred to an article in British Archaeology, a serious academic magazine, which revealed that the Ministry of Defence had sold the contents of a significant wreck recently discovered in the English Channel to an American company. I was concerned that this had been done and was not clear whether ministerial authority had been obtained for it. I subsequently wrote a letter to the Minister, not having received a reply on that point. I hope that it can be made clear that marine archaeological matters will be covered in the protected zones. If the noble Lord has not yet been able to do so, I ask him urgently to look at this magazine, which reveals certain things that seem to have gone wrong in the ministerial decision-making process. I have no doubt that he will devote his attention to this matter in his usual careful way and I hope that he will forgive me for referring to it, as I do not think that he has yet been able to reply to the personal letter that I wrote to him at the end of last week.

My Lords, it is clear that the Minister listened hard to our debates on these issues in Committee. I am heartened by references to SSSIs and Ramsar sites. I hope that the enforcement associated with this will be appropriate when the time comes. I am pleased to see that, in Amendment 114B, “Ramsar site” has the same meaning as in Section 37A of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. My particular interest here is the Severn estuary, where there are a number of SSSIs and a Ramsar site. I hope that this will give sufficient muscle to the MMO when it relates to the Infrastructure Planning Commission set up under the Planning Act, as there are many sensitive areas. These amendments strengthen the Bill considerably, which is to be welcomed.

My Lords, I am most grateful to noble Lords for their general welcome of the amendments, which, as I said, reflect the fact that the Government have listened to the points of concern raised. We will talk about the definition of ecologically coherent zones when we come to the next group, so I will not comment on that now.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Eden, for his remarks. He spoke passionately in Committee about the need for protection and, in bringing forward the example of sea horses, he provides a clear illustration of why this legislation is required. Obviously, we will have to consider all these matters on a case-by-case basis, but he was right to draw our attention to that example, which reinforces the importance of this Bill and the need for us to get it on the statute book to ensure that we have proper protection of the marine environment in the overall context of sustainable development.

I am always cautious about commenting on what other European states think of what we are doing. The Bill is about a national commitment to develop a network, but all member states are bound by the marine strategy framework directive. We played a major part in negotiations on that directive, which provides for the formation of a network of protected areas, so clearly what we are doing is consistent with it. However, I think I can go further by saying that there is a very great deal of interest in many European countries about the proposal and the progress that we are making. I know that my right honourable friends in another place, the Ministers in my department who lead on these areas, are in frequent discussion with their ministerial colleagues in other European countries about these matters.

My Lords, we come finally to an amendment that we consider to be one of the most important for this part of the Bill. I alluded to it briefly when speaking to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, on highly protected sites, and it is why I was unwilling to support her on that point.

We see the overall success of marine conservation zones as depending a great deal on the effective designation of an ecologically coherent network. There will of course be many areas where a stand-alone zone should be designated outside the network. However, the vast majority of zones will relate to protecting flora and fauna, which make-up an interrelated organic ecosystem where decisions on one part of the marine environment will have a great impact on the other. The Government understand that and have tried, as the Minister has just done, to reassure us about their intentions when designating zones under Clause 119.

However, I remain concerned for a reason which we often raise in this House: no matter how good the current Minister’s intentions, there is no guarantee as to those of the next. Legislation should not be left full of loopholes for a future Government or Minister to exploit when the going gets tough. I therefore seek to tighten up the definition of what a network relates to. It must be possible for future designations to be justified on the grounds of merely involving more than one site, as is required by Clause 119(3)(c). The appropriate authority must be held to the duty of implementing a genuine scientifically based network and be seen to do so.

My amendment does not seek to do anything that this Government claim they are not already doing. It would also, I hope, address the remaining concerns of conservation bodies that, after the economic interests have received recommendations, the network will be too small and weak to make the necessary impact. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment. I beg to move.

My Lords, I certainly support the amendment. I know that my noble friend Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer has spoken about this in a number of our debates. It is most important that these matters are joined up in terms of a network. I agree with the noble Lord about having a sufficient spread so that they can be joined up to an ecological mass that is meaningful in terms of protection. The principles are important to conservation and I hope that the Minister will respond positively to the amendment.

My Lords, I, too, support this amendment most warmly, which was one of the recommendations of the Joint Committee.

My Lords, we have had three short contributions, so one cannot be in any doubt about the importance of this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, is concerned that the definition is not as tight as he would like and that it might be possible for a future Government to slip out of the kind of commitments that we believe are implicit and explicit in the legislation. The noble Lords, Lord Livsey and Lord Greenway, support the amendment.

I have to say that we have a problem in accepting an amendment, which although extremely well meant, has drafting issues that are genuinely difficult to accept in the Bill. I hope that in saying that, I can convince noble Lords that there is no disagreement between us in principle, and that the Government have some ideas on how to reassure noble Lords on this point. The House has accepted the amendment in the previous group, which I set out and which seeks to ensure absolute clarity in the duty to designate. In having the duty to designate marine conservation zones, it is clearly necessary to set out as far as we can what constitutes the network.

We have included within Clause 119(3) three core principles based on the definition of ecological coherence developed for the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic—OSPAR. The conditions require that the network should contribute to the conservation of the marine environment, protect sites that represent a range of features present in the UK marine area and reflect the fact that conservation of a feature may require more than one site to be designated. We want to ensure that our network is based on the OSPAR principles that are right for the UK network.

OSPAR ultimately provides a number of guiding principles for member state countries to use in determining what is best for their own waters and biodiversity. The problem is that OSPAR does not offer concrete outcomes that we can simply transpose into this Bill without our own research into how the UK ecologically coherent network should look. We must ensure that the network principles are right as they will underpin the entire success of the nature conservation provisions. The Bill must have the flexibility to allow us to provide the necessary levels of protection in the medium and long term. We cannot bind ourselves to terms that will evolve and could become out of date.

Much though the marine environment is beloved of noble Lords who have taken part in our debates, no one could say with confidence that this is an area that we are likely to legislate on frequently. Inevitably, we are legislating for a long time ahead. I realise that there is tension there; in a sense, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, is saying that because of that, he wants greater certainty now. My problem is that, if we tie this up too far, we will not have the flexibility to deal with evolving situations. That is why the Government think that Clause 119(3) as it now stands is as far as we can go in referencing the term “ecological coherence” in the Bill.

My Lords, I can readily understand the point that the Minister is making about a phrase that will no doubt get a technical interpretation and be stuck with it, but, equally, the point made about putting something in the Bill to underpin the commitment beyond what is already there is important. I wonder whether it is still possible for the Government to see whether there is anything more that could be put into the Bill that would meet those concerns without hamstringing future generations.

My Lords, that is a fair intervention. I hope that I can satisfy the noble Lord on that point, but I must say that we have looked very carefully at whether we can go further in terms of what is in the Bill. The firm advice that I have received as of today is that that presents us with great problems. We think that the provisions already in the Bill, alongside the requirement to satisfy European and international commitments and the redrafted duty to designate marine conservation zones, effectively ensure that the Government will deliver on both defining and designating an ecologically coherent network.

To come to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, of course I know that noble Lords feel strongly about this matter; I do too. There would be no point in taking the Bill through the House unless we were satisfied that at the end of it we would have the kind of ecologically coherent network that we all want.

In the light of our debate, I can offer to amend the Explanatory Notes to highlight that Clause 119(3) sets out what the network of marine conservation zones should achieve, listing three core principles based on the definition of an ecologically coherent network developed for the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic. It is worth pointing out that the Explanatory Notes issued with an Act of Parliament are used to inform cases of doubt in court, as they give further advice and information on the intent behind the provisions. The amendment to the Explanatory Notes will reference ecological coherence, while allowing flexibility to respect evolving definitions of ecological coherence in years to come.

Although we believe that we are constrained by what we can put in legislation, of course we have much more freedom to set out what we mean in other documents, because they can evolve over time. The draft strategy, Delivering Marine Conservation Zones and European Marine Sites, published on 20 April for consultation, sets out the principles that we believe we should use in creating the UK's ecologically coherent network.

We also intend to issue guidance to the regional projects responsible for recommending potential marine conservation zones to the Secretary of State. We revised the draft guidance, which we originally published this time last year. The guidance gives us the opportunity to provide further detail about what the Government mean and understand by the various principles that underpin ecological coherence, and provides clear advice to the regional projects that will identify the network to use those principles. These include, for example, connectivity, which is an important issue for several noble Lords who have spoken on this matter. Clearly, the network should maximise and enhance the linkages that individual marine protected areas will bring, using the best available science. For certain species, that will mean that sites with suitable habitat will need to be chosen so that they allow the movement of key life stages from one place to another. That can all be made clear.

My Lords, it would be churlish not to acknowledge the Minister’s response to the amendment and the good faith in which he has demonstrated his commitment to an ecologically coherent network. However, I hope he will accept that there is a strong body of opinion in the House that it is very important to make it quite clear that an ecologically coherent network must be part and parcel of the method of marine conservation that the Bill sets up. I hope to avoid coming back to this at Third Reading, but to be able to debate government amendments on this subject would be extremely satisfactory. Should we have the Minister’s proposed solution, I hope he will note that laying a statement before Parliament so that Parliament can distrust its nature is an important part of the process. Given that we have had a very favourable response from the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

My Lords, Amendments 114C to 114F address a significant burden that the Bill as drafted places on public authorities.

Clause 121 places a duty on public authorities to inform the statutory conservation bodies when they think that the exercise of their functions might significantly hinder the achievement of conservation objectives for a marine conservation zone. It is clearly right that a public authority should assess the likely impact of its functions on marine conservation zones, and if it thinks that exercising those functions might have an adverse effect it should seek the advice of the relevant statutory conservation body. Such advice would help it to fulfil its duty best to further, or least hinder, the achievement of a marine conservation zone’s conservation objectives.

On further consideration, however, we have concluded that the duty as drafted applies not only to the general exercise of functions, which is our intention, but to each occasion on which a public authority carries out functions in its own right, even for routine and well understood activities, such as Trinity House laying buoys for the safety of navigation or a harbour authority dredging a channel that has been silted up by a storm. It is disproportionate and impractical to require public authorities to inform the statutory conservation body every time they wish to carry out a core function for which Parliament may have given powers or imposed duties in legislation. We do not wish the Bill to have that effect, and the Government’s amendments address this problem accordingly.

Amendment 114D contains substantive provisions to the effect that if statutory conservation bodies issue standing advice or guidance to public authorities, those authorities are not required to inform the statutory conservation bodies each time an activity is carried out, provided that the activity is within the scope of the standing advice or guidance. If, for example, the statutory conservation body had issued guidance on the precautions that need to be taken to avoid damage to marine conservation zones when navigational buoys are being laid, an authority such as Trinity House would not need to seek advice each time it laid a buoy.

Where there is no relevant standing advice, the amendment establishes a time limit of 28 days for the statutory conservation bodies to give any advice necessary, after which public authorities may decide whether to go ahead as planned. This is to give the statutory conservation body a reasonable period during which to provide advice—this is comparable with Clause 122—and to avoid the authority being unnecessarily prevented from carrying out its duty by delays in the statutory conservation body issuing advice. The amendment also makes provision for the 28-day rule to be disapplied when the public authority considers its work to be urgent. For example, a navigational buoy might come adrift from its moorings and need replacing. The amendment would allow authorities to carry out their essential duties at short notice, if required.

Those are the substantial parts of the amendments. Amendments 114C, 114E and 114F are consequential drafting amendments. Amendment 114C clarifies wording that would become unclear as a result of our amendment. Amendments 114E and 114F merely rearrange definitions as a consequence of the new drafting. Accordingly, I hope noble Lords will support the amendments and I beg to move.

My Lords, I welcome what the Minister has said regarding the work of Trinity House. I must declare an interest as an elder brother of that organisation. We discussed this on the previous day on Report. I am very glad that the Government have seen fit to bring forward these amendments.

My Lords, I am grateful for those supportive remarks. I shall merely add that I hope other public authorities in addition to Trinity House will express similar commendation for the Government’s amendments, but I am particularly grateful given the significance of Trinity House with regard to our marine affairs.

My Lords, we come back to by-laws governing the restriction of vessels from entering MCZs. Under the Bill, only recreational vessels are subject to this restriction, which I queried in Committee. In his response, the Minister said that recreational vessels had to be singled out because the Government were under international obligations not to restrict entry for any other vessel, which includes shipping. It has since become clear that the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea allows the Government to restrict entry to or passage through marine conservation zones to all vessels, not just recreational ones. In the light of that, I wonder whether the Government have had a chance to rethink in terms of it being inequitable to single out recreational vessels when they have the power to restrict all vessels. I beg to move.

My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy with the noble Lord’s amendment. Given the encouraging reception another RYA amendment received when debated earlier, I hope that we can find a similarly constructive way forward here too. The noble Lord, Lord Greenway, is right to defend recreational vehicles from unfair discrimination. Ensuring that MCZs can, if necessary, be defended from damage by excessive recreational use is desirable, but deliberately exempting other vehicles from similar restrictions even though they too cause damage would be counterproductive.

Earlier, the Minister rightly raised a concern about ensuring that the regulation this Bill produces does not result in an unreasonable burden on industry. This cuts two ways. Care also needs to be taken that the burden is not instead laid entirely on recreational vessels. I hope that the Minister will consider carefully before building into primary legislation a distinction between which sorts of vehicles are to be burdened. There are of course international law ramifications, but the Government’s initial reading of what we can do has already been seen to be perhaps rather hesitant.

My Lords, I support the amendment as well, but two things about it occur to me. The first is the potential difficulty of enforcement given that the purpose for which a particular vessel is being used at any given time may not be obvious. Secondly, since we must be subject to the provisions referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, if this clause is to be as effective as it should be, surely we should be dealing with all vessels that we are able to prohibit, having regard to other relevant regulations. I am not clear on how the hierarchy is dealt with in this sense, but this cannot be the only occasion when one has had to deal with that hierarchy.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I note that he has powerful friends since he has been supported by both Front Benches in his amendment. He will appreciate that the Government are keen to ensure that protection in the marine conservation zones is as effective as possible and that we enable by-laws to be applied to all vessels to the extent that we can under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and other legislation. In response to the combined ranks of those noble Lords who supported the amendment, I can be brief. I want to take the amendment back and consider it further before Report. On that understanding, I hope the noble Lord will withdraw it.

My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister. One further thought has come to me courtesy of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce, who is chairman of that august body, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution. When the Minister and his department look at this, could they consider the possible position with regard to the lifesaving activities of the RNLI? I see that he is nodding. If that could be taken on board, I would be happy to withdraw the amendment.

My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, withdraws his amendment, did I understand my noble friend to say that he would bring an amendment back on Third Reading? We are on Report at the moment.

My Lords, that is exactly the point. We want to consider this further. This is an important amendment and the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, has raised an additional point with regard to the RNLI. We shall take that into consideration and think in terms of bringing forward a government amendment to deal with the issue at Third Reading.

My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

My Lords, Amendment 115 is grouped with Amendment 116, which I will not press. I tabled these amendments to raise again our concern that the offence of damaging a marine conservation zone does not cover reckless behaviour. I was very pleased to see that the Minister has added his name to many of my amendments, improving the drafting where appropriate. I thank him for accepting our point. I beg to move.

My Lords, no Liberal Democrat Peer’s name appears on this amendment. However, it makes sense to take both intention and recklessness into account when considering these matters. We therefore happily support the amendment.

My Lords, Amendment 118A contains an extremely useful provision. It states that,

“it is immaterial whether the person knew, or ought to have known, that the feature was a protected feature”.

I look upon this as a no-escape clause. If someone pretends that they did not know about it, that is no excuse. It is a useful part of the amendment. We on the Liberal Democrat Benches have supported such provision. The word “reckless” is extremely important in this context, as a great deal of damage has been done. Indeed, there is now photographic evidence that many things have gone awry. We therefore very much support these amendments.

My Lords, we had a lively debate on this matter in Committee, when the case for widening the scope of the general offence in Clause 136 to include reckless acts was very well made. I am therefore grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, for tabling Amendments 115 to 118, which will extend the scope of the offence to include reckless acts. The Government support his Amendments 115, 117 and 118 without reservation. They will ensure that the reckless killing or injuring of animals which are protected features of a marine conservation zone, the reckless taking of things and the reckless destruction or damage of habitats or features will all constitute an offence. It is entirely right that the features are protected from people who know about a marine conservation zone but simply do not care whether they damage it.

In relation to the picking, collection, cutting, uprooting or destruction of plants, the Government have tabled their own Amendment 116A, which provides an alternative form of words to that proposed in Amendment 116, which the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, has already intimated he does not intend to move. The reason we have tabled a different amendment is that we share the concern to see plants protected in the same way as other types of feature. I should like to reassure the House that the purpose of Amendment 116A is not to reduce the level of protection. The different wording proposed is intended simply to take account of the fact that the act of picking or collecting a plant must by definition always be an intentional act and therefore cannot be the result of recklessness. In contrast, it is conceivable that the act of cutting or uprooting a plant may or may not be intentional, and where it is unintended it could indeed result from recklessness, and the wording contained in Amendment 116A simply reflects this distinction.

The point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, takes us back to the contribution made by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, when she spoke about the difficulties facing prosecution authorities in proving how much knowledge an offender possessed. We have carefully reflected on the points she raised because she speaks with a great deal of experience of pursuing offenders in her previous role. That is why we have tabled Amendment 118A, where we seek to clarify the level of knowledge that a person must have in order to be guilty of an offence.

We still think that it is an appropriate requirement for a person to know that a feature was within or formed part of a marine conservation zone, or that the person should reasonably have been expected to know this fact. If details of a site are displayed on a notice board or on widely used charts, these facts may help to establish that the person ought reasonably, at the very least, to have been aware. But—and this is the point to which the noble Baroness drew our attention—proving that a person had even more detailed knowledge about which particular species or habitats are listed as protected features on the designation order, or that they had the skill or knowledge to be able to differentiate between protected and unprotected features which might be similar in appearance, would be an awful lot more difficult to prove. That was not our intention and we have tabled Amendment 118A to make it clear that a person does not need to know that the feature was a protected feature of the site; it will be sufficient to prove that they knew or should have known that the feature was in the boundaries of a marine conservation zone. I think that that is the point that the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, was making. This is a sensible amendment to make.

My Lords, this creates a slight problem. The Minister said that the area would be marked on a chart or on a notice board on the beach. We discussed at earlier stages of the Bill that certain especially highly protected sites may need to be marked in another, more visual way, with buoys or some such, because someone coming down from the middle of England with a jet-ski or something like that would not necessarily have a chart or have read the right magazines. There needs to be some other way of marking these areas.

My Lords, I remember the noble Lord making that point in Committee. He has raised an entirely sensible point, but it would not be reasonable to expect that all marine conservation zones were extensively buoyed. There will have to be a sensible case-by-case approach. Sometimes signs may well be put up on the appropriate jetties. Divers should be expected to find out details about marine conservation zones from notice boards in diving clubs or yachting clubs. We are trying to achieve a sensible balance in the way that enforcement is approached. I fully accept what he says, but I cannot see that it is possible to legislate for. We are going to have to rely on a sensible case-by-case approach.

My Lords, I am grateful for the support that Amendment 115 has received.

My Lords, this amendment and the others in this group address a significant inconsistency in the Bill. At present, it provides a defence to those who intentionally damage a marine conservation zone for a broader range of activities than under the marine licensing system set out in Part 4. In that part, in Clause 83(1)(a), a person has a defence when taking action in an emergency to secure the safety of a vessel, aircraft or structure or to save human life. In Clause 137(1)(e) in Part 5, by contrast, a person benefits from a defence under these same conditions but also if he is taking action to prevent damage to a cargo or vessel.

We have emphasised numerous times during our debates our intention to provide the best protection that we can for those areas of the sea that we consider environmentally valuable. These amendments therefore seek to raise the level of protection for marine conservation zones to the same level in Part 5 as we have in Part 4.

Amendment 118B does two things: first, it narrows the scope of Clause 137(1)(e) to actions taken to secure the safety of a vessel; secondly, it then applies the defence to actions taken to secure the safety of a marine installation or aircraft, which makes it comparable with Part 4.

Amendment 118C inserts a new subsection into Clause 137 to say that where the action taken to secure the safety of a vessel, marine installation or aircraft was necessary only due to the fault of the person taking the action or of someone in his control, the defence does not apply. Again, we are making this part of the Bill comparable with Part 4 in Clause 83.

Amendment 120B is a consequential amendment that provides a definition of “marine installation”, a term that is introduced by Amendment 118B. “Marine installation” is a term also used in Clause 252 in Part 8 of the Bill.

I beg to move Amendment 118B and hope that noble Lords will support the other two amendments when we reach them.

My Lords, this is a minor amendment. Following debate in Committee, we suggested that the definition of “animal” in the Bill included invertebrates, eggs and larvae. Such a definition is included in Part 8, at Clause 240(10), but is not currently in Part 5. We apologise for this inaccuracy and inconsistency. I reassure the House that we are merely correcting this discrepancy with this amendment.

We want to make sure that the definition is clear and delivers our policy. It is important that, where appropriate, we give protection to all stages in the lifecycle of marine animals. It would be most unfortunate if we were to protect the adults of a species but failed to help the population because of adverse impacts of some activities on its immature stages. I am therefore moving Amendment 120A in response to the amendment in Committee of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, which emphasised the importance of including those small things at the bottom of the food chain in the definition of an animal.

This amendment to Clause 143, on interpretation of Part 5, will ensure that “animal” will have the same wide definition as in Part 8. I hope therefore that the House will see the value of the amendment and appreciate the contribution in Committee of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, and others in pointing out this issue. I beg to move.

My Lords, I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, will be grateful for the recognition that the Minister has just given, particularly in acknowledging that the immature of a species are very important. Immature larvae and pupae also provide invaluable feed for fish species in both marine and freshwater areas. Any disturbance of an immature species, or putting it in peril through destruction, has serious consequences for the whole ecology of areas of our seas. I thank the Minister for including them by way of this amendment.

My Lords, I am grateful for that contribution. Given the progress that we are making, perhaps I may illustrate just a little further the necessity for the amendment. The new drafting will ensure that a greater range of animals can be protected. For example, sea fans are colonies of tiny creatures which are often used by dogfish to anchor their egg cases containing their young. It is clear that ability to protect pink sea fans and the egg cases of dogfish will ensure that we can boost populations of those organisms, which might not otherwise have been covered by the definition of “animal” currently in the Bill. Such ability will ensure that any deliberate damage to a pink sea fan and accompanying dogfish egg cases in a marine conservation zone where they are protected is liable to prosecution under the general offence in Clause 136. That is the burden of the amendment.

My Lords, noble Lords will remember that we had a number of debates in Committee on the establishment of the inshore fisheries and conservation authorities, and the importance of ensuring not only their constitution but their duties as new bodies. A reasonable consensus emerged on the importance of integrating environmental considerations alongside fisheries management.

However, there is some wish to see these duties strengthened if we are to bring about a different culture than has been the case until now. The amendment’s purpose is to enhance the current duty as set out in Clause 149 by also ensuring that the protection of the marine environment, particularly the promotion of its recovery, is not only from current exploitation of sea fisheries resources but also relates to past such exploitation. Moreover, it would introduce a duty to further the conservation and recovery of marine flora and fauna, taking the Bill beyond the more limited wording that is already there. It is also arguable that the reference to marine flora and fauna goes further than the definition of sea fisheries resources in Clause 149(6).

However, the general thrust of the amendment is that fisheries management and environmental protection can go hand in hand. Those who are engaged in fisheries are undoubtedly likely to benefit further if they are fishing in a healthy marine environment. It strikes the right balance and the duty implicit in this amendment would help both those concerned with fisheries and those concerned with marine environment protection. I beg to move.

My Lords, I have an amendment in this group which broadly endorses what the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, has just said. My particular concern is with Clause 149(2)(b), which, roughly, seeks to balance the social and economic benefits of exploiting the sea fishery resources with the need to protect the marine environment.

My amendment would add to Clause 149(2)(b) the expression,

“in a way which is consistent with sustainable development”.

That is because the present text could lead to a situation in which the social and economic benefits of exploiting the sea played a stronger part in the mind of the decision-maker than the need to protect the marine environment. In other words, we need to put some spin on the subsection to ensure that, where there is a conflict, the principle of sustainable development prevails.

I saw the Minister’s face express a degree of pain at my last statement. Nevertheless, he will understand where I am coming from.

My Lords, my amendments in this group do not follow the same line as that of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, but are instead, we hope, a way forward that will address many of his concerns. Although we have great sympathy with the conservation groups’ concerns that IFCAs genuinely understand and support their new conservation duties, we appreciate the Minister’s alarm that the careful balance that they are trying to strike will be thrown off kilter. We have therefore sought a wording that will reassure stakeholders that the balance will be met, and so have fallen back on “sustainable development”, which is fast becoming the automatic answer to all questions. I think we can agree that sustainable development is—as much for IFCAs as for the MMO—the desired end result. Users of the sea cannot be allowed to exploit the marine environment unrestrained, nor can conservation bodies demand that all development be stopped. This is widely accepted.

This group of amendments tries to make it clear that the balance will be struck within the boundaries of sustainable development. The multiple nature of the amendments in my name represents the development of our thoughts and the very welcome involvement of the Minister, his officials and parliamentary counsel half way through, which resulted in Amendments 121ZA, 121ZB and 121ZC. The more detailed amendments include the very useful requirement that sustainable development is defined by guidance which is to be made publicly available.

We therefore hope that the three amendments in this group standing in my name and that of the Minister will satisfy all concerns. I thank the Minister and his officials for being so helpful in this matter. I pay especial tribute to my noble friend Lord Kingsland, who first struck upon the answer of tying the IFCA duty into sustainable development.

My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland; I looked pained as I had hoped that the amendments tabled by his noble friend would meet the point that he raised. Like the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, I entirely accept that the debate in Committee was very valid. The Government have clearly reflected on that. That is why we are supporting the three amendments spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, to ensure that we have the right balance.

We do not like the wording of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, because we realise that—I think this is clear from our support of the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor—an explicit reference to sustainable development in the clause would aid consistency and clarity. The problem we have with the noble Lord’s amendment is that it would be inconsistent with wording elsewhere in the Bill, particularly in Clause 2. We seek to have consistency as far as possible.

Amendment 121 states,

“in a way which is consistent with sustainable development”.

The wording in Clauses 2 and 42 is,

“contributing to the achievement of sustainable development”.

We might be dancing on the head of a pin as regards ascertaining the difference between those wordings. However, I am advised that, although in practice the wordings may not be very different, using different wordings may cause confusion. That is the reason for the grimace; it was nothing more substantive than that.

I strongly support Amendments 121ZA, 121ZB and 121ZC in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, and appreciate the discussions that took place on them. Amendment 121ZA places in the Bill a requirement for IFCAs to take necessary steps,

“for the purpose of making a contribution to the achievement of sustainable development”.

This requirement is consistent with the change that we have already made to Clause 2. Amendment 121ZB makes explicit the Secretary of State’s power to give IFCAs guidance on how they are to perform their duty under subsection (1). In addition, the amendment requires the Secretary of State to give IFCAs guidance on how they are to perform their duty under subsection (1),

“so as to make a contribution to the achievement of sustainable development”.

Again, the wording of the amendment is consistent with the change that has been made to Clause 2. However, it is appropriate to have separate IFCA guidance as IFCAs will be different types of organisation from the Marine Management Organisation, and it would be difficult to write guidance that was appropriately tailored to both IFCAs and the MMO. However, clearly we wish the guidance to IFCAs as far as possible to be consistent with and based on the MMO guidance.

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for that very constructive reply to my amendment and, indeed, the amendments of the noble Lords, Lord Kingsland and Lord Taylor. I acknowledge his detailed comments on a number of aspects of my amendment and his willingness to amend the Explanatory Notes to clarify any lingering, lasting and remaining doubt. I also thank him for offering to clarify the Explanatory Notes on an amendment which I have not moved at Report stage, but to which I spoke in Committee. The spirit of that is recognition of the willingness on all sides of the House to try to ensure that these new authorities work in a productive way to balance the interests of fisheries and conservation.

Obviously, the Minister is not willing to agree with the amendment in so far as it aims to “further” conservation, but it is fair to say that by accepting and agreeing to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, the Bill as it leaves Report stage is in a better position than it was when it came to Report, in terms of trying to place a coherent set of duties on the IFCAs. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

My Lords, I apologise to the Minister for misinterpreting the expression on his face when I spoke on this matter earlier. I accept that, given the way in which “sustainable development” has been defined in other parts of the Bill, the wording of Amendment 121 is inappropriate. I was extremely pleased to hear him speak to the amendment that he tabled in conjunction with my noble friend Lord Taylor, which I accept meets, in substance, my concern.

My Lords, I am introducing government Amendments 121A, 122A, 122B, 122C, 122D, 122E, 122F, 126C and 130 to correct drafting errors. These are all minor and technical amendments.

Amendments 121A, 122A, 122C, 122D and 122F ensure that references to smelt are restricted to the migratory species of smelt—in other words, European smelt—and not the marine species, or sand smelt.

Amendment 122B ensures that the terminology in Schedule 27 to the Water Resources Act 1991 mirrors that used in Schedule 25. Schedule 27 gives the Environment Agency the power to introduce by-laws quickly in response to emergency situations. Schedule 25 sets out how the agency may use its ordinary by-law-making powers. I am enormously grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, who queried in Committee the use of the terms “physiographical” and “geomorphological”. I have written to him setting out the reasons why the terminology is necessarily different in the various parts of the Bill.

Amendment 122E ensures that “conservation”, which is defined in Section 111(4) of the Scotland Act 1998, includes the protection of the environment not only of salmon, trout, eels and freshwater fish but also of lampreys, smelt and shad.

Amendments 126C and 130 amend Clause 313 to clarify that amendments to the British Fishery Limits Act 1976 arising from the creation of the exclusive economic zone do not extend to the Crown dependencies and that changes to that Act arising from the creation of the Welsh zone apply to the same extent as the Act. I beg to move.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for tabling these amendments to ensure that smelt are properly covered and for the useful letter explaining the intention behind them. I am pleased that the forensic examination of the detail of this legislation in Committee and the amendments that were tabled, if not debated, on individual species were not wasted. I give my full support to any clarification of the varieties of smelt and the duties of the Environment Agency with regard to them.

My Lords, I welcome this amendment and those associated with it. I suppose we could say that one is the smelt amendment and the other is the shad amendment.

Speaking as someone who fishes regularly, I believe it is extremely important that smelt, or smelts as they are called in some parts of the British Isles, are protected. There is no doubt that, particularly with electrical generation through turbines, a large proportion of smelts have been wiped out when travelling downstream. This is a very serious matter because they never come back to fresh water if some of their number are slaughtered at that stage. This indicates that fish pass technology needs to be improved tremendously. It is easy to say, “Oh well, we’ll put something in the estuary of this river and the fish pass will go in”, but that is not good enough. The mature salmon may be able to get upstream sometimes but on the way back the small smelts, which after all are the seed-corn of the next generation of salmon, are destroyed. Therefore, it is particularly important to include this provision in the Bill.

I am very familiar with the River Wye and the River Usk. The shad is an important and rare species, not only in the British Isles but in Europe, and it needs protection. Lampreys, which are extraordinary fish—they look like eels but have flat noses—also need protection. Indeed, the lamprey is an extremely important species in the Severn, Wye and Usk. I think that that illustrates the importance of these amendments—in particular, to migratory species.

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl and the noble Lord for their support for the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Livsey, made some very important points. We are limiting references to smelt in the Bill to European smelt because of their different migratory habits. The European smelt is migratory and is, we think, properly included under the Environment Agency’s duties and responsibilities, while the sand smelt is an inshore marine fish. It does not occupy freshwater habitats in England and Wales and should therefore remain outside the Environment Agency’s remit. However, sand smelt can be found in freshwater habitats further south in Europe. Should the situation change in England and Wales, we could consider using the order-making power in Section 40A of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975, as inserted by Clause 211 of the Bill, to extend migratory freshwater fisheries legislation to sand smelt. It may also be worth pointing out that the smoult is a young salmon and is a completely different species from the smelt. I am sure that all noble Lords were aware of that.

My Lords, I am very pleased to put forward this amendment, which incorporates the duties of Welsh Ministers in relation to the management of inshore fisheries. It is important that it is spelt out in the Bill that:

“Welsh Ministers shall manage the exploitation of inshore fisheries in Wales to ensure that the exploitation of inshore fisheries’ resources is carried out in a sustainable way”.

The amendment is a directive to Welsh Ministers to ensure that this is carried out sensitively. Indeed, there are very sensitive fish stocks in the Welsh inshore area. On the previous amendment, I mentioned migratory fish as well as native marine species. When fish species are rare, sparse or under threat, the sustainable management of inshore fisheries is vital.

I do not believe that this will be difficult for Welsh Minister to absorb. I was involved in the other place in the passage of the Government of Wales Act 1998, when sustainability was written into the legislation, and it is incorporated into all the environmental duties of the Welsh Assembly. This merely underlines that. I am sure that, if it is included in the Bill, Welsh Ministers will carry out this duty. I beg to move.

My Lords, once again we return to the question of whether devolved legislatures and Executives share the concerns and priorities that have been established here in Westminster. I have no expertise in drafting, but it is a good idea that Welsh Ministers are given rather more direction on their duties. However, I wonder whether a new clause is needed or whether there is scope to include that in Clause 180 itself. I share with the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, the concern that such management will be effective and not inconsistent with the neighbouring IFCAs in English offshore waters. I support the amendment.

My Lords, I shall speak to this amendment and the government amendments in the group, which are relatively minor compared with the important issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, in Amendment 121B, which is the main subject of the debate.

The amendment, as identified by the noble Lord, would put a duty on Welsh Ministers,

“to ensure that the exploitation of inshore fisheries’ resources is carried out in a sustainable way”.

I say at the outset that Welsh Ministers have decided to take direct responsibility for all sea fisheries management in Wales, which in practical terms means a consistent approach to fisheries’ management throughout Welsh coastal waters. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, will welcome that intention.

We discussed a similar amendment in Committee when it was explained that Welsh Ministers have a statutory duty under Section 79 of the Government of Wales Act to make a sustainable development scheme. The scheme must set out how the Welsh Ministers propose to promote sustainable development in the exercise of their functions, and they are under an obligation to report each year publicly on progress in implementing its provisions. Welsh Ministers are committed to embedding sustainable development within all their functions to ensure that it is at the heart of the Assembly Government’s work. I understand that later this week they will publish a revised scheme confirming that sustainable development is a central organising principle of the Welsh Assembly Government and that that commitment is underpinned with specific actions to ensure that sustainability is part and parcel of their work.

We also said in Committee that the Welsh Ministers are subject to the requirements of Section 1 of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1992, which requires that while discharging their functions under the Sea Fisheries Acts they must have regard to the conservation of marine flora and fauna and endeavour to achieve a reasonable balance between that consideration and any other consideration to which they are required to have regard.

The House may also note that the Welsh fisheries strategy already includes a commitment to take an ecosystem approach to fisheries management. In recognition of those duties, the Welsh Ministers have signalled their desire to manage all fisheries sustainably, rather than single out the inshore region. Welsh Ministers also made a commitment that the Welsh Assembly Government single enforcement team, which will include staff from the current sea fisheries committees, will undertake fisheries and marine enforcement jointly. That is in direct response to what I think is the noble Lord’s objective, to the need to take an ecosystem approach to fisheries management, and to the expectation and need to manage the wider sea fishery resources given by the Bill.

I hope that I have explained why the Government believe that there is no need for a duty of sustainability in the terms proposed, because the Welsh Ministers have those obligations and are freely and openly stating, including in a statement this week, their commitment to sustainability and the development of an ecosystem approach to fisheries management, rendering the amendment unnecessary.

During Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, moved an amendment that would require Welsh Ministers to co-operate with adjoining inshore fisheries and conservation authorities. We said that we would look to accept the intention behind the amendment. We have looked at that matter with considerable care. It is apparent that a duty to co-operate would be difficult to apply in practice, due to the interplay between Part 6 and existing powers. As the noble Lord will know, Welsh Ministers already exercise a range of IFCA-equivalent functions without a duty to co-operate with those who exercise similar duties in England. Clause 180 merely tops up those functions where they do not already have them.

The Government do not want to change the terms of the Welsh settlement by imposing new duties on Welsh Ministers’ existing functions, nor would it be sensible to impose a duty to co-operate only on their new functions, which are more limited than their existing obligations. However, I give the noble Lord this assurance, because I know the intent behind his contribution in Committee and his amendment today. I confirm that Welsh Ministers are actively considering cross-border working arrangements and have made a statement to the Assembly giving the assurance that Welsh Ministers will seek memoranda of understanding with the inshore fisheries conservation authorities that border Wales and the Marine Management Organisation to facilitate joined-up management.

I can also confirm that Welsh Ministers have asked the stakeholder advisory committee to develop options for the appropriate reporting levels to maintain the transparency of fisheries management. I hope that that offers reassurances on the point. We said that we would respond to the noble Lord’s amendment. On further inquiry and having examined the issues in Wales closely, we have reassured ourselves that his objectives are already subscribed to by Welsh Ministers and the Assembly.

I turn to a slightly different but related matter. Government Amendments 121C and 121D would ensure that Welsh Ministers had the same powers and functions to regulate inshore fisheries as inshore fisheries and conservation authorities will have in England, to make it four-square in those terms. Amendment 121D is at the heart of that. It would insert a new provision into Section 27(1)(c) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Its effect would be to enable Welsh Ministers to appoint authorised persons under Section 27 in the same way as the Bill will give inshore fisheries and conservation authorities the power of appointment. That is a simple matter of maintaining parity of powers and functions for the two authorities, which will be required to carry out exactly the same job. Under Section 27, authorised persons may kill birds for purposes relating to fisheries or fishing.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that substantial statement, which has clarified several issues—in particular, that the intent of Welsh Ministers is clearly to sharpen up considerably the necessary protection. The second point concerned the memoranda of understanding. I hope that the Government will spell out in due course what the parameters of these will be. Although I wanted to test the Government’s commitment to sustainability, the Minister has certainly proved that this is the intent of Welsh Ministers. I am confident, because of what is in the Government of Wales Act about sustainability, that this will be carried out. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

My Lords, this amendment was previously tabled in Committee. The Minister gave us many assurances that current legislation would certainly allow for the enforcement of certain methods and equipment, and that these powers would be exercised to reduce by-catch. I tabled the amendment in order to probe the Government’s policy on by-catch a little further. I am afraid that I will raise again the ever-present spectre of EU legislation, which is why I did not raise this point in Committee but, instead, left it for the less drawn-out Report stage.

What are the Government doing at the European level to make the necessary changes to reduce the shocking number of fish that are thrown back, dead or dying, to meet quota requirements that limit only the amount of fish landed, not the amount of fish caught? It has to be at the European level, if it is to have any effect. The discard figures are truly shocking. What is worse, according to figures provided last November to my honourable friend in another place, they are not improving. Over 80 per cent of the cod caught by Scottish-registered vessels was discarded in 2007. The figures are not much better for other species. Rather confusingly, however, they appear to be a little better—only 40 per cent—in English and Welsh-registered vessels. If the Minister has any information to explain this discrepancy I would be very glad to hear it.

Even 40 per cent is deeply disappointing, but the high figures are not surprising. On an extremely useful visit to the research vessel “Cefas Endeavour” a few weeks ago, we saw how a simple change in the way that nets were strung could significantly impact on the ability of small fish to slip through and escape. We were also shown a chart that showed how fish of different species are a similar size at different stages of their lives, so that young cod—which are too small to meet the quota requirements—are caught in nets designed to catch adult haddock. The obvious solution for fishermen struggling to sustain their living and to meet the quota requirements is to catch everything and throw back what they cannot sell. This is not acceptable. The quota is there to protect and restore fish stocks, not to limit fishermen’s income. If it is not achieving the former, it is achieving nothing.

The Conservative Party has come up with a proposal that would improve our knowledge of just how many fish are caught and discarded and stop the wasteful practice of dumping dead fish back into the sea. We propose establishing a pilot scheme whereby all fish that were caught would be landed. Fishermen would receive a share of the commercial value of the by-catch, a proportion of which would be dependent on the sustainability of their equipment and fishing methods in order to reward good practice.

This would not solve the problem overnight, but as has been made clear over the past months, one of the great obstacles to the effective implementation of a sustainable marine policy is the lack of accurate information about so much in our seas. By-catch is no exception; the figures that have been published are subject to all sorts of health warnings due to the expense of monitoring fish catches accurately. Our proposal would mean much less distortion of the figures and therefore a better chance of accurately calculating how many fish remain. It would also prevent waste. Under the current system, these fish are being killed anyway; they are being poured back into the sea to rot.

I do not expect the Minister to come back with an amendment that resolves this issue—that clearly is impossible—but I hope that he will be able to come back with more information on what the Government are doing about the problem and what chance he thinks there is of meaningful reform of the quota requirements in the near future. I beg to move.

My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach. As your Lordships’ House will know, I come from the fishing industry, and I know exactly what he is talking about from having seen it done on my own boats. The problem is that the fish are dead anyway. If we bring them back exactly as he has described, we will know what is happening.

My noble friend did not mention, although he could have done, that his proposal is not new; Norway has been doing this for a very long time. It knows exactly what fish are being caught in its waters and exactly who is catching it. Given that we are not allowed to police other countries of the European Union that also have a quota which they are fishing out in the waters around this island, and given that 80 per cent of the fish left in the European Community are fished out of the waters surrounding this island, if we adopted my noble friend’s proposal we would at least have some idea of the amount of fish that is being dumped at sea. There is no reason why science cannot measure that, too. I urge the Minister to consider, if at all possible, Norway’s method of attacking this problem and to support my noble friend’s suggestion.

My Lords, I note the terms of the noble Lord’s amendment, but I had some engagement with the fishing industry when I was a Member of the other place and I am not sure whether an amendment such as this is needed to require different mesh sizes or to introduce square-mesh panels; I seem to recall that it happened anyway as a result of attempts in times past to try to reduce the size of by-catches and to ensure that smaller fish swam through the nets rather than getting caught up in them.

Nevertheless, the noble Lord does the House a service by raising the more general issue of fisheries conservation as well as the important issue of how one reduces discards. The reduction of discards has been widely discussed over many years and seems to bring everyone together in principle. Fishermen say that they do not like throwing fish back into the sea, and conservationists and politicians say that they think it is a complete waste, too. As yet, however, no one seems to have come up with a very satisfactory way of dealing with this.

It is incumbent that all with an interest in sustainable fisheries in the seas around this country direct their attention to scientific and technical means, and, if necessary, legislative means, to engage the industry and scientists in devising a way forward. There are suggestions that under the common fisheries regime there is an incentive for fishermen to throw fish back into the sea if they feel that they can land larger catches or better-sized fish. That is a consequence of the common fisheries policy, which undoubtedly needs to be looked at.

There are a number of dimensions to this. Certainly, the engagement of the regional advisory councils on fisheries, which involves the industry as well as science, communities and politicians, is an important way forward too. I do not think that this amendment is necessary, but it raises an important issue. I look forward with considerable interest to the Minister’s response.

My Lords, I am very glad to respond to this debate. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, that the amendment is not necessary, but I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, put it down to allow for a wider debate on the joys of the common fisheries policy and the interesting questions raised by noble Lords. I know that behind the amendment is concern about the conservation powers available to us. Doubt was raised as to whether we have powers to require the use of certain types of fishing gear.

Section 3(1) of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967 states:

“The Ministers may make an order for securing that the nets and other fishing gear carried in any relevant British fishing boat registered in the United Kingdom comply with such requirements as to construction, design, material, or size, including, in the case of nets, size of mesh, as may be prescribed by the order”.

The section continues with provisions which provide even more flexibility in the use of these powers. The powers more than adequately cover the use of equipment, methods and material, with the purpose of seeking to prevent or reduce the by-catch of non-target species. If powers are required to regulate fishing gear to prevent or reduce marine environmental by-catch—for example, dolphins and porpoises—we can use the combined powers available under Sections 3, 5 and 5A of the Act, which provide for restrictions on fishing for marine environmental purposes. These powers can clearly be used in a way that requires the use of certain types of fishing gear when fishing for a particular species or in a particular area.

The problem with the amendment is that it could have serious consequences by casting doubt on the legality of any existing use of these wide-ranging powers. I understand why noble Lords are concerned about the whole issue of by-catch and why they are seeking to know what the Government are doing about it and what the result of discussions in Europe are likely to be. We are funding a range of work in collaboration with the industry to look at the marketing of less commercially valuable species, which are often discarded, as well as making the respective fishing activity more selective in terms of species or size. We will continue to encourage the industry to use such gear modifications as prove successful on, for example, vessels that have been allocated additional days at sea under the cod recovery programme.

In June 2008 the European Commission published a non-paper containing proposals to address the problem of discard. It acknowledged that a number of instruments are needed to reduce by-catch and eliminate discards effectively and that they will vary from fishery to fishery. These proposals were discussed by member states during 2008. Although legislative proposals are yet to come forth from the Commission, my understanding is that the fisheries Commissioner, Joe Borg, has made clear that the issue is high on his agenda.

The non-paper proposed experimenting with the application of maximum allowable by-catch limits set at levels significantly below that which is currently understood to be discarded. The onus would then be on fishermen to reduce significantly the by-catch from current levels and they will only be permitted to land by-catch within the maximum allowable limits. Under the proposal, by-catch within the MABL will be given or sold to a body designated by the member state, although the Commission was not specific on what use could be made of the by-catch and whether the MABL would count against quota. If by-catch caught is above the MABL, quota adjustments are then made for the following year depending on the overshoot, although we have expressed our concern to the Commission about the implications for quota management of those aspects of the proposal.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response, which contained some encouragement. Certainly there is encouragement in the fact that in Commissioner Borg we have someone who is sympathetic to the challenge of seeking to reform the CFP and dealing with the huge problems that it currently presents to both the regulatory authorities and, more importantly, to the fishing industry and fishermen and their livelihoods.

The risk, of course, is that we have had a health check on the common agricultural policy and we know how disappointing that has proved to be. The contrast between the aspirations of Members of your Lordships’ House and the return on the CAP shows that the health check was a bitter disappointment. However, there are certainly signs that the Government appreciate the difficulties caused by the CFP. Let us hope that there is drive and continued pressure from Her Majesty’s Government on the European institutions to make sure that the reform of the CFP takes on board the issue of discard. The problem has not just arisen; it has been around for some time. It serves neither the viability of the fishing industry nor fish conservation and it needs to be reformed. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

My Lords, this amendment returns us to an issue that we discussed in great detail in Committee: how the unsatisfactory position has arisen whereby the shellfish industry, in the Menai Strait in particular but now along the whole of our coastline, is effectively on hold and no new shellfish fishery will be begun because of the unacceptable uncertainty that now hangs over any new investment as the result of a legal challenge. I have retabled the amendment today because there have been some developments since we met in Committee and I want to give the Minister an opportunity to inform us of what they are and his department’s reaction to them.

The most significant development has been that the House of Lords in its judicial capacity has rejected the petition that the Crown Estate took on this issue to overturn the appeal. The situation threatens one of our most important exporting industries; its shellfish are very sought-after and it supports many of our coastal rural communities, which, as the Minister will know, are some of those that are most in need of economic investment. For all those reasons, while the Crown Estate was within its duty to take its petition, now that that is out of the way, the situation needs to be resolved as speedily as possible.

I hope that the Minister will outline the issues that were discussed by the Crown Estate, the shellfish industry and Defra at the meeting that they held. I understand that general agreement was reached on a way forward and that all three parties agreed that primary legislation was needed to amend the Crown Estate Act to relieve the Crown Estate of the power to make the orders for the shellfish fisheries, while reserving appropriate powers as a landowner. If indeed all three parties are in agreement, which I hope the Minister will be able to confirm, given how infrequently marine legislation comes along, it is imperative that the Government are able to table amendments in another place when the Bill goes there to resolve this situation, otherwise it may stay unresolved for years and the industry will suffer enormously. I hope that the Minister will confirm that amendments will be tabled to separate the statutory process from the exercise of landowner rights, a relatively simple thing for parliamentary draftsmen to draft. I beg to move.

My Lords, I support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer. I apologise to the House; I thought my name was on this amendment but it is not, so obviously I have not gone through the right channels, probably in my enthusiasm to get all the information I could before I stood up.

The noble Baroness has more than likely covered everything that needs to be said, which restrains me from becoming too emotional about the entire subject. That said, I shall still remind noble Lords, anyone who is listening from the Gallery or on the radio, and anyone here today who is writing for the news, what we are talking about. The Crown Estate is answerable only to the Treasury and controls 55 per cent of our coastline. These regulating orders are ancient; they have been given out over 100 years. It is their choice that they do not charge fishermen for a licence to grow shellfish in these areas. They would have been happy to pay had it been asked for. The Treasury now insists that the maximum value is taken for these areas. People who have been fishing for many years, building up delicate oyster and mussel beds—it takes a very long time—are now told that their order has been withdrawn and there is no appeal. This is supposed to be a democracy, the Mother of all Parliaments; this is supposed to be the place where you really can stand up and object. But to this alone you cannot object.

I know for a fact that Ministers are afraid of the Treasury. Well, I stand on the Back Benches today in opposition; we are not at this moment Her Majesty's Government and, therefore, I can say these things. I have no doubt that my Front Bench cannot support me, because they, too, would be afraid to worry the Treasury. It cannot be right or fair that people in this country cannot earn their living, cannot grow their food and cannot appeal against it. I support the amendment, and hope that the Minister on his birthday will give us a wonderful present.

My Lords, where does fear of the Treasury come from? We always regard the Treasury as our good friend and colleague who is ever eager to seek constructive solutions to the little challenges that we face.

I am grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Miller and Lady Wilcox, for bringing this matter back. I fully acknowledge that this is a very important issue to the shellfish industry. I also fully acknowledge the importance of this industry to the UK and that it is important that this matter is resolved.

Noble Baronesses are right: the decision on 14 May by the House of Lords not to accept the petition from the Crown Estate and Isle of Anglesey County Council to have their case heard is a fact. In the light of that, I hope that a solution will be found to which all parties can agree.

It is clear that the current system for granting orders cannot continue and must be changed. We are doing everything that we can to help the parties reach agreement. We are working closely with the Shellfish Association of Great Britain and the Crown Estate. My colleague, Huw Irranca-Davies, has met shellfish industry representatives and the Crown Estate to move the issue forward.

The Crown Estate manages Crown land on behalf of the Government. The noble Baroness is right in suggesting that surplus revenue goes to the Treasury, in return for which the monarch receives a fixed annual payment known as the Civil List. The Crown Estate is accountable to Parliament, but is run independently of the Government by a board of appointees. Under the Crown Estate Act 1961, the board has a duty to maintain and enhance the value of the estate and return obtained from it, but with due regard to the requirements of good management. The Crown Estate must report to Parliament once a year, providing accounts and information about its activities for the year, including future activities.

It is important to note that, in England and Wales, the legal presumption is that the seabed and foreshore are in the ownership of the Crown. The presumption extends to the bed of all tidal rivers. It extends also to all islands in tidal rivers and coastal waters. The presumption applies in the absence of any evidence of a grant by the Crown to any private individual. It is estimated that the Crown Estate owns around 55 per cent of the UK foreshore, so it is an important player in these matters.

The most recent meeting of officials with the Shellfish Association of Great Britain and Crown Estate was at the end of April, where there was agreement on all sides to work together. The use of commercial contracts, with leasing and compensation arrangements between the industry and the Crown Estate based around a memorandum of understanding, is a viable solution to which all sides will be able to agree. We are arranging to meet the parties again urgently to attempt to reach formal agreement to such an approach.

We are clear, and we think that the Lords recent decision does not change this, that simply removing the consent clause in the Act will not resolve the problems that we face in granting orders. It does not give the industry the security that it wants to develop economically viable shellfisheries and is likely to jeopardise the development of an approach based on consensus being reached between the Crown Estate and the industry.

Although the recent court case leaves some questions unanswered about the operation of the current clause in several and regulating orders, which seek to preserve the rights of the Crown Estate, it is indisputable that the Crown Estate continues to have rights as a landowner. We have to work with those rights in reaching a solution. We also need to have discussions with the Duchies, which have similar rights under the legislation.

An additional problem is that the amendment would result in significant costs to the industry, because it is likely that the Crown Estate and possibly other landowners with similar rights would use other means to contest attempts to grant orders against their will. In any event, as part of the application process for an order, the Secretary of State could not ignore representations and objections made by the Crown Estate in reaching a reasonable decision whether to grant an order, especially given its landowner rights. This process would involve the Secretary of State having to call a public inquiry, with all the implications in terms of expense for the applicant for an order. That is our problem with the amendment.

It has been suggested that these issues could be resolved by provisions in the legislation to protect the rights of the Crown Estate and other landowners. Our view is that it would be extremely difficult to place such a savings clause in favour of the Crown Estate in primary legislation that would be satisfactory to all sides. The decision of the Judicial Committee to reject the Crown Estate’s appeal undoubtedly means that there are uncertainties over what rights it would have in a savings clause.

We are committed to resolving this issue. We think that putting the relationship between applicants for orders and the Crown Estate on a more commercial footing offers a much better, long-term solution, and that removing the consent clause or inserting a savings clause will not help resolve this situation. I am clear that we need to move quickly, and we shall work urgently with the key parties to seek a sustainable solution. If it requires changes in primary legislation, we will consider the most appropriate route, including possible changes to the Bill. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, says that drafting legislation could be done quickly. Alas, that is not my experience, but I fully take her point. If legislative solution is the way forward, this Bill would seem to offer the most appropriate opportunity. The noble Baroness said that it was unlikely that we will get another chance in relation to the marine environment for some time—I agree with that. I assure noble Lords that if we believed that primary legislation was necessary, we would look to introducing it during the passage of the Bill, probably in another place. However, it may not be necessary. It seems abundantly clear that, above all, we need the parties to work through a solution that is satisfactory to all of them. That, the Government will undoubtedly seek to encourage.

My Lords, perhaps I may wish the Minister a happy birthday and thank him warmly for that reply. Given the energy with which both he and his colleague, Huw Irranca-Davies, have addressed this issue since it was brought to their attention, I feel reassured that there is the will at ministerial level to drive through a solution. I accept, as the Minister said, that the solution may be commercial, with MOUs. I am relieved by his assurance that if it appears that primary legislation is needed while the Bill is still going through the other place, which will be for several months yet, the opportunity to table it will not be missed.

In conclusion, I am extremely happy with the Minister’s comments. Before we leave the issue, he may like to note that in my discussions with the Crown Estate it became apparent that, of all their commissioners, there is not one whose particular interest and responsibility is marine issues. As the Minister said, the Crown Estate owns 55 per cent of the foreshore and has a primary interest in the sea bed. I would have thought it appropriate, particularly after the Bill has gone through, when it comes to reappoint a commissioner, that it does so with particular regard to the need for that expertise. It would make a big difference to this sort of situation. I thank the Minister again for the energy that he has put into this issue, and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

My Lords, I will not detain the House. This is a simple amendment, the effect of which would be to delete “justice of the peace” from the list of those who can give warrants to enforcement officers under Chapter 2 of Part 8 of the Bill in respect of warrants issued in Scotland.

Chapter 2 of Part 8 sets out various powers: powers to board and inspect vessels and marine installations; to enter and inspect premises; and to enter and inspect vehicles. However, it has an important further provision in Clause 239, that an enforcement officer may not, by virtue of the powers to which I have just referred, enter any dwelling place unless a justice has issued a warrant authorising the officer to do so. In Scotland, “justice” is defined as a sheriff, a stipendiary magistrate or a justice of the peace. Given the importance of a warrant to enter a dwelling house, and the fact that in issues like that nowadays rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights can be an issue, there is a view that this should be done by a sheriff or stipendiary magistrate.

Anticipating the Minister’s response to this, I am sure that he will point out that, in England and Wales, “justice” means a justice of the peace and, in Northern Ireland, a lay magistrate, and then ask why Scotland should be different. I merely note that the origin of this amendment was the concern expressed by the Law Society of Scotland. That should give the Minister some cause for reflection. He should have regard to the fact that that body, with intimate knowledge of the working of Scots law, expresses that concern.

I also note that Schedule 17, relating to warrants issued under Section 239, states in paragraph 2(2) that:

“An application for a warrant must be made without notice and must be supported by an information in writing or, in Scotland, evidence on oath”.

The Bill itself makes different provision for Scotland in terms of application for a warrant from other parts of the United Kingdom. The Bill itself therefore concedes that some distinction can be made, and I just seek a further distinction. I beg to move.

My Lords, considering that this amendment has been supported by the Law Society of Scotland and moved by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, and that between them they have many more legal credentials than those to which I could ever aspire, and that both think that the amendment’s wording is appropriate, I should like to offer my support.

My Lords, there is nothing worse than a noble Lord moving an amendment saying that it is simple, straightforward and backed by the Law Society of Scotland. That makes my knees knock right from the start as I have no legal background.

I am also awaiting someone who would be much better qualified to address this issue, my noble and learned friend Lord Davidson, but he will be here for the next business, which is also of great import. It therefore falls to me to respond to the noble Lord. We in the department did not think that this was a simple amendment at all. In fact, we thought that it raised some pretty significant issues. My reply may therefore not satisfy the noble Lord, particularly as I note his additional point that Bill does, in its subtle way, recognise differences in Scotland from time to time. However, we will seek to convince the noble Lord that the Bill should remain as it is and that the amendment should not be carried.

The amendments have the effect of removing a justice of the peace from the court officials who are able to authorise a warrant in Scotland. Clause 122 of the Marine (Scotland) Bill contains similar provisions to Clause 239 of the Marine and Coastal Access Bill and provides that a justice may issue a warrant to search dwellings. “Justice” is defined in Clause 141 as,

“a sheriff, stipendiary magistrate or justice of the peace".

So it has been considered appropriate for stipendiary magistrates and justices of the peace to have the power to grant warrants for the search of dwellings for the equivalent Scottish provisions. Our own provisions at Clause 239(5)(c) have of course been agreed by the Scottish Executive. It seems a strange discrepancy to remove “justice of the peace” from our provisions when the Scottish Executive is content for this to be reflected in this Bill, and for such officials to issue warrants in Scottish legislation.

I recognise that there is a distinction between the Scottish Executive and the Scottish law courts, but the noble Lord will appreciate that throughout the Bill we sought to emphasise the extent to which we are taking the different parts of the United Kingdom into account, particularly the work that Scotland is still doing on its Marine Bill. That is evidenced by how we have approached this issue.

Additionally, the Scottish Executive could see no justification for restricting the issue of warrants in Scotland only to sheriffs and stipendiary magistrates. The Scottish Executive have confirmed that in Scotland, justices of the peace are trained in the issue of warrants and indeed are already used to issuing them for the purposes of entering dwellings under other legislation; for example, under Section 125 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999; under regulation 4 of the Zoonoses (Monitoring)(Scotland) Regulations 2007, which I have no doubt are well known to the House; and under paragraph 2 of Schedule 4 to the Building (Scotland) Act 2003, among other legislation. I am also mindful of the fact that justices of the peace in Scotland, who are lay members advised by a legally qualified clerk, have considerable responsibility, being able to impose up to 60 days’ imprisonment and fines of up to £2,500.

The power for justices of the peace to issue search warrants is clearly not new. Similar provisions exist in the legislation from which the enforcement powers of the Bill have been consolidated. For example, in Schedule 2 to the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985, paragraph 7(3)(b) enables a justice of the peace in England and Wales, or a sheriff, stipendiary magistrate or justice of the peace in Scotland, to issue a warrant to search a dwelling. This is the same that we have provided for in Clause 239. Section 12 of the Sea Fisheries Regulation Act allows a justice of the peace to issue a search warrant. Section 19 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 enables a justice of the peace to issue a warrant to enter and search any premises.

We have looked at similar legislation relevant to the Bill before the House today. More recent legislation, both in England and in Scotland, has followed the line of allowing justices of the peace to issue warrants to search dwellings. Section 12 of the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 permits JPs to issue warrants to enter any premises, as does the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and Section 29H of the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006, which applies in both England and Scotland. Very recently, the Aquatic Animal Health (Scotland) Regulations 2009—a lively issue which the House will recall—permitted JPs to do this. There are many other examples from new and old legislation with which I could entertain the House. So we are not creating anything novel here; we are simply following precedent for the ability of justices of the peace to issue warrants for officers to enter and search.

If we remove the ability for justices of the peace to issue warrants for entering and searching dwellings in Scotland, we may set a precedent that will go far wider than this Bill. It is not the intention of the Bill to alter legal precedent in relation to powers of lay magistrates in Scotland. That is far outside the compass of the Bill. I am not sure that the Law Society of Scotland would thank us if we set such a precedent within the framework of this measure. As there is no desire from the Scottish authorities to pursue this amendment, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw it. If he does not wish to do so, he will see that I now have a powerful ally at my side in the shape of the noble and learned Lord the Advocate-General, whose expertise in Scottish law I would not hesitate to deploy. However, I am backed by the Scottish authorities who believe that the amendment should be withdrawn, and I hope that the noble Lord will do so.

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, is he aware that there is a very considerable programme of training and education for justices of the peace which was initiated when the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, was a Minister of Justice in Scotland? Does he agree with me that this programme, which was initiated by the noble Lord, means that justices of the peace are now much better trained than they were at one time?

My Lords, I am enormously grateful to my noble and learned friend for catching me just before I sat down in order to emphasise this point. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, will take the point on board when he responds.

My Lords, I certainly take that point on board. I was only too delighted to put in motion that training programme. In no way was this amendment intended to reflect on the integrity of justices of the peace in Scotland. With all due respect to the noble and learned Lord the Advocate-General for Scotland, the noble Lord, Lord Davies, delivered his response in a very eloquent and learned way and with the panache with which we have come to associate him. He put forward a very compelling case. However, the part I found least compelling concerned authority and the approval of the current Scottish Executive. That to me is not necessarily the most compelling argument to use. Moreover, it is important to point out that the Scottish Marine Bill was published only in the past two or three weeks, so it has not yet been subjected to parliamentary scrutiny. The Scottish Parliament may take a different view from the Scottish Executive on whether justices of the peace should be given this power. I have no doubt—unless, having read what the noble Lord has said, the Law Society of Scotland chooses to revise its position—that Mr Michael Clancy, who is ever diligent in these matters on behalf of the Law Society of Scotland, will suggest amendments, which will find their way on to the desks or into the inboxes of umpteen Members of the Scottish Parliament. We may well find that the Scottish Parliament comes to a different view from that expressed by the Scottish Government in their Bill. Nevertheless, the noble Lord has made a good case for us not to press the matter at the moment. As he says, precedents are always dangerous and to introduce one in Clause 239 of the Marine and Coastal Access Bill is probably not the best way to start the revolution. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

My Lords, after the dizzy heights of Scottish law we enter the rather more prosaic elements of government Amendments 124A and 124B. These amend Clause 255 to place a duty on individual officers as well as the relevant authority to bring the contents of an inspection report to the attention of any persons likely to be interested in it when objects are inspected at sea. Amendment 124C simply corrects an incorrect reference to “authority” rather than “officer” in Clause 260(5). Amendment 124D clarifies the person to whom the proceeds of sales of seized fish must be returned when the enforcement authority decides not to take proceedings or proceedings are concluded without an order for forfeiture being made.

Amendment 124E to Clause 282 replaces the word “Act” with “Part” in subsection (1)(a). This has the effect of restricting the offence of not complying with an enforcement officer's requirement to powers exerted under Part 8 rather than the Act itself. The amendment is needed to ensure that there is no chance that not complying with a statutory notice under Part 4 could also be an offence of not complying with an officer's requirement under Part 8. The offences under Clauses 89, 100 and 102 in Part 4, carry a higher penalty than that under Clause 282(1)(a) reflecting possible harm that can result from a licensing offence. We do not wish there to be ambiguity in the penalties that someone might face and so have tabled this amendment to remove any overlap. I hope that noble Lords will see merit in these amendments. I beg to move.

My Lords, I propose that we adjourn further consideration on Report until another date. In so doing, I wish to add that I appreciate the precise way in which the House has addressed the amendments today.