That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 1 to 3.

My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 18, 19, 21 to 26 and 28.

Amendment 1 to Clause 7 was agreed in the other place to ensure that references to the Marine Management Organisation in regulations made under Section 4(B) of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967 are linked to the exercise of the MMO’s functions, rather than to geographical area. Amendment 2 to Clause 21(4) ensures that Schedule 15 to the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994, which concerns restrictions on the disclosure of information, applies to a body exercising functions on behalf of the MMO.

Amendments 21 and 22 are necessary consequential amendments that we missed in the earlier drafting and correct the definition of the gas importation and storage zone in Section 35 of the Energy Act 2008, which has been invalidated by the amendment made to Section 1(5) of the Energy Act by paragraph 5 of Schedule 4 to the Bill. Amendment 23 to Schedule 4 was agreed in the other place to remove provisions amending the British Fishery Limits Act 1976 to take account of the creation of the Welsh zone. These provisions are no longer necessary as the required changes will be achieved by the transfer of functions order which is to be made under Clause 43 transferring fisheries functions in the Welsh zone to Welsh Ministers.

As we turn to the amendments to Part 3 made in the other place—Amendments 3, 18, 19 and 24—I take this opportunity to tell the House of recent developments on the subject of planning in the Scottish and English border areas, which is not an unimportant issue. I note that the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, is nodding assent. The House will recall that we debated how planning would operate in the Solway Firth. I am pleased to tell your Lordships that the Minister for the Natural and Marine Environment and the Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs have agreed a joint statement on marine planning in the areas bordering England and Scotland. This statement makes clear our commitment to build on cross- border collaboration already in place to enable a joined-up planning process across the borders. A copy of this statement will be placed in the House Library.

Amendment 24 to Schedule 5 is a missed consequential amendment on the changes made to Schedule 5 at the Bill’s Report stage in this House. It clarifies that the timetable set out by the policy authorities in the statement of public participation for the preparation of the marine policy statement must include time for carrying out the appraisal of sustainability. Amendment 3 is also consequential on changes made to the Bill in this House, which added a subsection to place a duty on a marine plan authority to seek to ensure that a marine plan or marine plans are prepared for the whole of the marine planning region where an MPS governs marine planning for that region. However, some adjustment to the drafting was required to ensure that the provision would work as intended by this House.

Amendments 18 and 19 were made in the other place to provide for early commencement of certain provisions in Part 3 referring to marine planning. These provisions relate to the preparation and publication of a statement of public participation for the involvement of interested persons in development of the marine policy statement and will enable the Government to make early progress following Royal Assent.

Amendment 25 concerns an issue involving Schedule 13, which includes a power for the Secretary of State to call in the notification of a site of special scientific interest, which includes land lying below mean low-water mark. Concerns were raised in another place that there was a risk resulting from this provision of building unintended consequences into a system that already works well. Briefly, Section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 provides that the notification lapses after nine months unless it has been withdrawn or confirmed by Natural England. It was not clear in the Bill’s original drafting whether this deadline also applied to notifications that had been called in by the Secretary of State. Amendment 25 therefore makes it clear that the deadline will be disapplied in any case where the Secretary of State has used his power of direction to call in a notification.

Finally, Amendments 26 and 28 were agreed in the other place to correct an omission from our original list of salmon and freshwater fisheries legislation to be repealed. The amendments repeal Section 22 of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975, as this is now redundant. Section 22 has also become redundant as a tool in the Environment Agency’s fight against poaching and the subsequent sale of illegally caught fish. The agency has already been given more flexible powers in the Salmon Act 1986 which apply throughout the year and, following amendments we have made in this Bill, will extend to the sale of eels, lamprey, smelt and freshwater fish in addition to salmon and sea trout.

The amendments are largely technical and consequential, although one or two required a degree of explanation. I commend them to the House and beg to move.

My Lords, I think that your Lordships have had enough excitement for this evening—perhaps the Minister is sailing in calmer waters than the Minister in the previous debate did. I thank him for his explanations. As he said, these are largely technical and consequential amendments. I am very pleased, as I am sure other noble Lords are, to hear of the agreements made with the devolved authorities to ensure that this applies to all the waters around the United Kingdom in a way that this House would wish. It is perhaps a pattern for the future that augurs well for joint working between Whitehall and the devolved authorities. I am very pleased that the Minister has been able to report on the matter to the House this evening

My Lords, I think that in an earlier life I moved an amendment that had some relation to Solway Firth, recognising that anything that happens on the Scottish side inevitably must have implications on the English side and vice versa. Having been born less than a mile as the crow flies from the Solway Firth, I am well aware of how integrated the ecosystem is. This agreement is welcome and shows that where there is good will and a willingness to reach agreement, agreement can be reached. Perhaps the Minister can also confirm that the understanding also extends to the east side of the border, to the estuary of the Tweed, where there might be implications for activities offshore of the Scottish borders coast and also of the coast of north Northumberland.

My Lords, we meet this evening to look again at the Marine and Coastal Access Bill with a certain feeling of nostalgia. Nostalgia is a good thing only if it does not last very long. We shall be waving this Bill through on its way to becoming an Act very soon now with a great deal of support and without much ado.

I have two points. First, I congratulate the Government on accepting the amendment. It was the only hostile amendment accepted during passage of the Bill, although we did persuade the Government to make many changes and improvements in all sorts of ways on the marine planning regions. We also persuaded them of the necessity and desirability of ensuring that marine planning covers the whole of an area once the marine planning statement is in place. The Government should be congratulated on seeing the sense of that and understanding that the amount of detail that the plans will cover, and the way in which they will cover different parts of the region, will vary enormously. Nevertheless, the principle of the planning system which will now apply to the marine environment is that it should be comprehensive. The Government deserve some congratulation on tidying it up to make sure that it is watertight—if that is the right word to use.

My other comment is on the statement of public participation for the marine policy statement and the Government’s obvious intention and wish to get on with it as quickly as possible by bringing the deadline forward to the date of Royal Assent. On Monday, we had the first of the new national policy statements under the Planning Act 2008, and a Statement was repeated in this House about the publication of the draft policy statements for energy and the results of draft policy statements for ports. I want to refer briefly to the many debates we had during the passage of the marine and planning legislation about the way in which the national and marine policy statements will dovetail and have to be reconciled. The Statement made and the contents of the overarching national policy statement on energy leave quite a few worries that, in practice, the marine policy statement will follow on from those documents and will simply repeat in another document what they say. We are concerned that the publication of the marine policy statement will not be as robust and independent as we had hoped it would be.

Those concerns are for the future, however. As regards these amendments, we are very happy to support them.

My Lords, I am pleased that agreement has been achieved with the Welsh Assembly for close co-operation. Unfortunately, I was walking through the door to the Chamber just as the Minister had started speaking. I heard him refer to Wales and I apologise for not picking up everything he said. Perhaps he could therefore enlighten me. Various Bills have transferred many functions to Welsh Ministers. I am wondering whether in the case of the marine Bill, that will be done on a one-off basis rather than spending a considerable time from month to month transferring various parts of it to Welsh Ministers.

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contribution to this short debate on what I regard as largely technical issues. I appreciated the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, on the general issues before we moved to other parts of the United Kingdom. I want to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, that we have concentrated on the Solway Firth for reasons that he knows. That is why the first basis of the agreement is the Solway Firth. However, I am cognisant of the fact that there are other border areas and border waters between England and Scotland. I am able to assure him that work will progress on that and in due course we will have a constructive joint statement on the Solway Firth.

The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, is right to point out that a great deal of work needs to be done in the evolution of policy, but we are talking about the Bill as it now stands. These amendments largely give effect to the positions taken up in the other place and in this House. He is right that the Government listened to points about the overall planning position.

As regards the Welsh situation, my comments related largely to the transfer of functions. I wanted them to emphasise that we are working in close association with the Welsh Assembly, underpinning the Bill throughout. I accept entirely the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, because Scotland is addressing these issues separately and making its decisions. There is a necessity for a joint statement on the estuaries. However, Wales is different because we have been working on its position throughout the Bill. I want to assure the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, that he did not miss anything with regard to these amendments. They are merely consequential, following the policy decision involved in the Bill which this House has agreed. The other place has also offered its contributions on that matter and, accordingly, I commend the Motion.

That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 4.

My Lords, this is an important amendment. I want to preface my introduction by saying that there has been considerable comment in the Commons about the extent to which this House played a full part in the scrutiny of the Bill. We had the benefit of the Joint Committee on pre-legislative scrutiny, but when this House got down to the real task of examining the measures before us there was real and constructive scrutiny. Our colleagues in the other place were appreciative of the work done at this end. It was at times suggested that our debates had been somewhat protracted, and I remember that at times 11 days in Committee seemed rather protracted and that one or two contributions may have been a little lengthier than they needed to be. However, we presented to the other House a Bill that had been carefully scrutinised and that assisted their deliberations and made them more succinct. It helps us in considering their amendments because they are focused on issues that we considered fully and their views are of the greatest moment.

There was considerable debate about the relationship between marine conservation and commercial fishing. We all know the importance of that debate. I know that it is several months since we were at full tilt on the issues, but we gave them much consideration. This area was one on which the other place focused and played a significant part in considering. The Government amended the Bill to future-proof it in anticipation of reform of the common fisheries policy. Of course we need to do that. I commend Amendment 4 and Amendment 17, to which I am also speaking, because that is their purpose. The principal amendment adds a new subsection (4A) after Clause 141(4). The new provision gives a power to the Secretary of State to restrict or remove the sea fisheries defence in Clause 141(4).

We cannot at present remove the sea fishing defence because to do so would leave us in clear breach of our European obligations under the common fisheries policy. However, we wish stronger recognition of our environmental objectives to emerge from the forthcoming reform of the common fisheries policy. The amendment sets us up to be able to take advantage of that as and when it occurs. It gives us the necessary flexibility to deal with potential changes to the common fisheries policy. The amendment enables us to restrict or remove the sea fishing defence. An important feature is that it is a one-way ratchet. Once restricted, we could not then broaden the defence again.

The Secretary of State, who is responsible on behalf of the UK for negotiations in Europe on fisheries matters, will exercise the power. However, as the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State said at Report in the Commons,

“any exercise of the new power would be made in close consultation with Scottish and Welsh Ministers, the industry, the MMO, inshore fisheries and conservation authorities and many others”.—[Official Report, Commons, 26/10/09; col. 113.]

The 13th report of Session 2008-09 from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee of this House highlighted the amendment so that the House might seek the Government’s explanation for the delegation of a power to remove or restrict a statutory defence to a criminal offence. I acknowledge that it is unusual to take a power to remove a defence at a future date, but the circumstances we find ourselves in are unusual. There are certain instances where criminal offences have been created through secondary legislation, not least in implementing European legislation.

The Government have considered the options available to address the concerns that have been raised in the debate. We need a flexible mechanism that allows us to deal with the unpredictable outcomes of the next and future reforms of the common fisheries policy. We need that flexibility. We believe that the amendment is the most straightforward way to ensure that we can refine the defence following any reform, and meet the concerns that have been raised. The alternative would be no amendment to the Bill and the necessity to use future primary legislation to restrict or remove the sea fisheries defence. It is unclear whether and when such an opportunity might arise. Of course, we are quite clear as to when any opportunity for such primary legislation would occur, so it is prudent that we build into this Bill the necessary flexibility to take account of changes to the common fisheries policy.

I hope that the House will be reassured by the associated amendment, Amendment 17, to Clause 310(7). This ensures that the power will be exercised by means of a statutory instrument subject to affirmative resolution. Clearly, that power is important, and should therefore be exercised only through the affirmative resolution procedure, after being considered by both Houses. It is important that the exercise of that power is subject to debate in both Houses because its effect would be to amend primary legislation to expand the scope of what is criminal activity. That mechanism guarantees that the determination of what is criminal activity, which is of course more usually a matter for primary legislation, will be done only with proper parliamentary scrutiny both in the other place and in this House.

I hope the House will recognise that we have been concerned to meet the necessary future flexibility against changes in the common fisheries policy to which future Governments are bound to be committed, in circumstances where we all know why the common fisheries policy will need changes. I hope it will be recognised that we are seeking flexibility, but flexibility governed by the affirmative resolution procedure, so that any changes effected will be considered by both Houses of Parliament. Accordingly, I beg to move.

My Lords, I join the Minister in our slightly self-congratulatory mood over the success of this House in its scrutiny of the Bill. It has certainly strengthened the Bill and shown the House at its scrutinising best, notwithstanding the pre-legislative scrutiny that also took place. I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, was making his comments with a certain amount of pride. I guess it is a campaign medal that most of us will remember.

Irony, my Lords.

Irony indeed, my Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has a strong suit in irony. I shall stick to the plain narrative and thank my noble friends the Duke of Montrose and Lord Cathcart for their support in this scrutiny, as indeed I thank the Back Benches which have been behind me. It is appropriate to mention my late friend Lord Kingsland’s work on the Bill. He was at his very best in probing, searching out and focusing all our minds on the relevant issues. I think that he would have had a bit of fun with this amendment, because it is not usual for this House to be much in favour of enabling powers. The Minister has been cautious in the way in which he has presented his case for these powers. However, the success of this marine conservation legislation cannot allow for damage to be done to the marine environment and a defence continued purely on the grounds of precedent. It may well be that this is the best solution for dealing with this matter when the common fisheries policy is reformed. When does the Minister think that that might be? How long will this clause be there to be used and how long will the Marine and Coastal Access Act, as it will become, have to operate while tolerating the fishing defence? I would be grateful for his opinion on this matter, although I understand that he can never be certain in his assessment. I think that I have said enough on the issue.

My Lords, one part of the scrutiny that we did on this Bill in Committee and on Report was to ask the Government the extent to which non-UK-registered fishing vessels could be subject to prosecution if their fishing activities caused damage to the marine environment. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, is right that we should treat with some caution orders that effectively extend the criminal law. At the moment there is a defence that, as I understand it, would be open to UK-registered vessels that might otherwise find themselves charged with doing damage. In any reform of the common fisheries policy, is it anticipated that non-UK-registered vessels doing the same damage to the marine environment would be subject to the same criminal prosecution as UK-registered fishing vessels?

My Lords, speaking as one of the lame ducks in this House who could be removed at a stroke if the Government came forward with a new alignment for this Chamber, it is nice to get a pat on the back from the Minister for what we have been able to achieve.

The government amendment is to Clause 141, which governs exceptions to offences. It currently contains the defence for sea fishing, but in future that will be governed by this amendment. I was intrigued to see that Clause 66 is lifted almost bodily from Section 5 of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985—although, in describing the types of vessels that might be used at sea, it rather quaintly omits hovercraft, but perhaps they are not marine vessels. Part of the purpose when the 1985 Act was passed was that there would be a statutory instrument excepting a large number of fairly common occurrences that happen when a ship is at sea from the need for a licence. The statutory instrument that was passed includes, in Schedules 7 and 8, the deposit of fishing gear, whether fixed or not, and the deposit of fish or shellfish or parts thereof in the course of a fishing operation. This has the benefit, among other things, of giving specific permission not just for fishing tackle but for bait, which is a most necessary part of fishing.

Chapter 2 of the Bill describes an array of exemptions for major activities, but will the Minister say whether the Government will need another statutory instrument with another set of exceptions, such as those in the previous SI that enabled the prosecution of fishing, to accompany this Bill? There is a fear that its early application will be highly detrimental to fishing, which a number of people regard as a traditional right.

I was most intrigued to hear the Minister describe the role of the amendment in changing the common fisheries policy. If the current common fisheries policy prevents the removal of the fisheries defence, is there any guarantee that a new common fisheries policy will allow us to remove the sea fishing defence on that date? Is this part of the Government’s approach and measures to reform the common fisheries policy?

My Lords, I have a strong suspicion that the noble Duke will be here for as long as I am—and the rest of us, probably.

Before we sent the Bill to the Commons, we patted each other on the back and thanked everyone, so I do not think we want to go too far into that again. If people are doing that, however, I repeat my thanks to everyone. If I have any pride, it is for the team of people behind me on these Benches and for their expertise, which was superb. We all did a good job on the Bill.

However, I am reminded of what Lord Dahrendorf said to me several times at dinner in the Home Room. We were talking about improving the communications of the House, and about publicising what we do here. He was totally against publicising what we did in this House. He thought that we really ought to keep it secret, because if people outside, particularly in the House of Commons, ever discovered what we did, they would put a stop to it very quickly. There may be some truth in that.

There has been concern about Amendment 4. In a sense, it is a pity that we did not have it as the Bill was going through this House so that we could scrutinise it properly, but we are where we are. I am advised by my colleagues in the House of Commons that they think that the balance in the Bill between conservation and fishing is as good as it can be, even if it is not ideal for everyone. Who am I to argue with them, at least on this issue?

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for his last two comments, which were masterly. I will merely appropriate them as my principal defence for these amendments: that the wisdom of the Commons should prevail. They think that we have got the right balance in the Bill between the two very important concepts of marine conservation and the fishing industry, whose interests we need to take very seriously indeed.

I appreciate what the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, said about the late Lord Kingsland’s significant contribution to our deliberations in this area. We are all grateful for it; it helped to clarify our thinking. Whether it clarified that thinking enough for conjecture about the future to be possible is a different matter altogether. I cannot remember Lord Kingsland pushing the boat out too far in that regard and therefore, remaining true to that tradition, I will not be too exposed in a prediction about the common fisheries policy. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, invited me to consider when there would be any reform and when we would thus be able to make adjustments to it. We shall press for reform, of course, in particular with regard to conservation issues. However, I might almost be forgiven for saying that we have more fish to fry. We have many more serious issues to address in terms of the common fisheries policy.

I was asked when we are likely to see the outcome. We all hope to see progress in the not too distant future, but I cannot be too precise on how successful we will be and in which terms. Indeed, I shall not venture much further than what I have said already in these general remarks. However, what I am saying is this. We need to take account of the possibility or even the likelihood of change, and that is what this provision is all about. It creates a contingency framework where we can act as and when we are successful and changes are made to the common fisheries policy.

I want to be a little more definitive on one or other points. There is a timescale to the fisheries reform of 2012, but while I do not doubt that revisions will take place, I cannot venture to talk about their nature and extent. The House will recognise that I am bound to be shy of speaking too strongly in those terms. However, I can be a bit more definitive on the question of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace: will the offences apply to non-UK vessels? They certainly will once fisheries reform agrees that that should be the case. That, after all, is a cardinal point of reform of the common fisheries policy, so we can at least be confident about that. We are certainly confident enough to make contingency arrangements in the Bill to give effect to constructive positions once we have adopted—

My Lords, I am very interested in what the Minister is saying. As regards the powers of the Secretary of State in this amendment, given that there may be a delay in reforming the common fisheries policy, in his view will the application of these powers produce any unintended consequences? For example, could they affect marine conservation zones?

I do not think so, my Lords. It is an important amendment that was given very serious consideration in the other place. Parliament will consider anything that derives from it by way of affirmative resolution orders, so the whole concept of the amendment is to create the power but not to be definitive in how it is exercised. We seek a power to use in terms of the common fisheries policy because we are unsure about its future. I was asked when the provision will start and how long it will last, given that the common fisheries policy is due to be reformed in 2012. We do not return to primary legislation that often, so the concept behind the provision is that it should last for as long as it is valid and relevant. It might be that it is relevant to more than one round of revision of the common fisheries policy, although I have no perspective on how frequently the policy is to be changed in the future, and at this stage I would not think anyone else in the House has either. Moreover, I do not know the nature of any such changes. But the concept of the legislation before the House is that these powers should be valid and used when appropriate against any future development that might arise in relation to the common fisheries policy. I apologise to noble Lords that I cannot be more definitive than that.

I appreciate what the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said about these important issues, which reflect the concerns and anxieties of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. We have looked at these matters with the greatest care. It goes without saying that our colleagues in the other place were concerned about the position, examined it thoroughly and, as the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, expressed it, reached the judgment that this is entirely appropriate. It is principally on that basis, therefore, that I commend the amendment to the House.

My Lords, it states clearly that it is the Secretary of State. How does that affect the devolved authorities? Does he act on behalf of Scotland and Wales? What is the position?

My Lords, when it comes to discussions within Europe, the Secretary of State is, of course, acting on behalf of the whole United Kingdom. When it comes to dealing with individual transgressions, that may well depend upon the circumstances in which the transgression occurred. We would generally expect them to occur in waters in circumstances where the Secretary of State would have the prime responsibility. Even if aspects of the Secretary of State’s exercise of these powers were taken up by the other administrations, it is under the powers invested in him that action would be taken in an international situation. Where the fisheries policy is concerned we are, of course, talking about an international relationship.

The Secretary of State is responsible for the negotiations on fisheries matters and he will exercise the powers, but he would not exercise them other than in close consultation with Scottish and Welsh Ministers and without having the industry on board and all the other interest groups concerned with this issue. After all, he would be acting in the name of the United Kingdom in relation to international policy but, without being fully informed of the various interests involved, the Secretary of State could not possibly fulfil his duty.

That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 5 to 12.

My Lords, the House will recall that in Part 6 of the Bill we replace the sea fisheries committees with inshore fisheries and conservation authorities in England. These will have a duty to manage sea fisheries sustainably, balancing socio-economic benefits with protection of the marine environment. They will have more money, strength and powers while retaining local involvement in decision-making.

We debated the Bill in Committee—noble Lords will instantly remember the date—on 16 March and tabled amendments in Committee and on Report to make improvements to the provisions in various respects, including in relation to sustainable development and IFCA membership. On 16 March, we debated the relationship between IFCAs and the Environment Agency, a key issue also considered by the Joint Committee, which was chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, who I am delighted to see in his place as we reach the latter stages of the Bill. I set out that the Bill provides for IFCAs to lead on marine species management in the inshore area, including in estuaries, while the Environment Agency would lead on protection for salmon, trout, other migratory species and freshwater fish in estuaries and as far out as the six nautical mile limit.

I understood the Minister to say that it would be possible under the legislation as it stands for some of the functions of the MMO to be delegated to the IFCA. Will an IFCA be able to delegate responsibilities that have been delegated to it? Could there be two sets of delegations?

My Lords, that is a very interesting question. I am concerned about the next stage down, which is what these amendments are concerned with—the functions properly allocated and carried out by IFCAs. The issue of delegation, which would be subject to the closest scrutiny, would mean that they would include the matter that the noble Lord has indicated. However, within that framework that would be done with some degree of caution, for obvious reasons. After all, one destroys the concept of responsibility if one takes delegation too far. We are talking about limited positions in which the functions of an MMO are delegated to an IFCA. To take that on down to another body would be exceptional rather than the norm. I shall think a little further about whether it is actually possible, if the noble Lord will give me a moment or two, as it is a most interesting question.

The amendments include a requirement for the Secretary of State to review all agreements at least every five years. The arrangements would be subject to regular reconsideration and would give him the power to cancel agreements, if appropriate, in light of such reviews. We are talking about a careful process of delegation. If the noble Lord’s purpose with his question was to express anxiety about the dangers of delegation, we have defensive provisions in these terms. The delegation would be set with conditions, and there could be a prevention of further sub-delegation. The noble Lord and I are of one mind on this. We would look askance at the idea of additional sub-delegation, and that is why the Bill ensures that the Secretary of State stays very closely related to the action on this question of delegation of powers, which is right. Otherwise, the great danger that we have is the exercise of unaccountable power, which I know that the noble Lord is anxious about.

The review can be undertaken by the Secretary of State every five years, but it can be done at any time—for example as a result of representations from the IFCA or eligible body or from other interested parties. The original approval from the Secretary of State can waive the requirement for a review to occur at least every five years. So built into this, we have a proper, responsible position for the Secretary of State in relation to these issues.

We do not have particular expectations about where delegation agreements will be used. Because I have not gone too far down that path, I was struggling with the point made by the noble Lord. It will be looked at in detail by IFCAs and the Environment Agency if the amendments are accepted. But the amendments will offer a degree of flexibility and future-proofing in terms of development—for example to allow one IFCA to manage across an estuary even where a local authority boundary splits the estuary, or for the Environment Agency to manage all fisheries in upper estuaries where marine species are insignificant. Those are areas of flexibility that we would all recognise the Bill ought to provide for in the evolution of policy and practice.

The Bill as amended will allow fisheries management to be carried out as flexibly and efficiently as possible in inshore areas, particularly in estuaries. That was the subject of considerable debate in this House and it was also reflected in concerns in the other place. This will be beneficial both to users of the inshore marine area and to regulators, ensuring that fisheries and the wider inshore marine environment are managed as effectively as possible.

At House of Commons Report stage on 26 October, there was support for the amendments from the honourable Member for Reading West, and from the honourable Member for Newbury, who said:

“IFCAs will not always be best placed to carry out certain functions, some of which could be managed by other organisations or by agencies that have more relevant knowledge or are simply better placed to perform them. It is important that IFCAs are flexible and are able to delegate their functions where necessary or sensible, and we therefore support the proposed measures”.—[Official Report, Commons, 26/10/09; col. 36.]

That is the view of two Members of Parliament thinking about the issues very seriously and recognising the degree of flexibility that we ought to build into the Bill.

Before the noble Lord rises to his feet with regard to Wales, let me say that the issues have also been considered there. There was discussion of the amendment of the honourable Member for Brecon and Radnorshire to extend the option of delegation to Welsh Ministers. My colleague, the Minister in the other place, the honourable Member for Ogmore, explained that Welsh Ministers already have the power to make legislation on behalf of the Environment Agency and to delegate functions to the agency. The intention behind the amendment seems sensible, but raising the matter so late in the process, without the scope to be clear about how accountability of the functions could be ascertained, does not seem right. The Bill can and does deliver to Welsh Ministers the powers that they requested, and they are content with the Bill as drafted. Therefore, I hope that I give the noble Lord reassurance on that.

The amendment has been carefully considered in the other place. It is a response to considerable pressure from there, and Wales is included too. Accordingly, I beg to move.

My Lords, we agree with the Government’s introduction of these amendments in the sense that they provide for managerial flexibility. We accept totally the Minister’s arguments for flexibility, which may well serve the interests of the effective conservation of fisheries and the natural habitat. On first reading these amendments, I was concerned about the questions of control and accountability. When powers are delegated, or matters are delegated to other bodies, does the delegating body retain some overall supervisory role? From what the Minister says, it is clear that the Secretary of State will make sure that these delegated functions will not tolerate underperformance in any way. That is important to emphasise, and I hope that the Minister will confirm that that is the case.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, and I certainly want to confirm that most important point. I had hoped that I had made it explicit in my opening remarks. Perhaps I did not, and the House must forgive me if I failed. I certainly agree entirely with the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord.

That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 13 to 16.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 13 to 16. I shall also speak to Amendment 27. These amendments relate to an issue that has exercised the House greatly—the shellfish industry. In Committee and on Report, the noble Baronesses, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer and Lady Wilcox, spoke strongly and with considerable force on this matter.

My noble friend Lord Hunt has now moved on to other pastures. He is in the Ukraine today, but that does not mean that he will not be up near the Barents Sea tomorrow or Tierra del Fuego in the middle of next week. I cannot keep track of my noble friend’s extraordinary endeavours with regard to the preparations for the climate change conference in Copenhagen, but it means that I am not able to consult him in his wisdom about aspects of the Bill for which he was largely responsible and which I have inherited. However, I remember that he assured the House that if the Government,

“believed that primary legislation was necessary, we would look to introducing it during the passage of the Bill, probably in another place”.—[Official Report, 19/5/09; col. 1354.]

What was exercising the noble Baronesses, to whom my noble friend Lord Hunt was responding, was the problems facing the shellfish industry as a consequence of a long-running court action surrounding the rights of shellfish owners and landowners where developments are concerned. Our ability to secure a long-term sustainable future for the industry was being hampered by the provisions of the Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Act 1967.

I am pleased to report that we are now seeking the agreement of this House to this package of amendments, which, taken together, will deliver the changes to primary legislation that should secure the future of this important industry. We have had extensive meetings with interested parties, including the Shellfish Association of Great Britain and the Crown Estate, which was the other great actor in this area of considerable difficulty. The Government are able to state, through the amendments, that we have delivered on our commitment. We have tabled amendments that were considered in Commons Committee and won the approval of the other place.

Amendments may be grouped together for discussion, but can be considered separately at any stage by the House according to our proper procedures. However, I emphasise that it is necessary to look at these amendments as a complete and balanced package. It is crucial that they are taken together, to allow us to start granting shellfish orders again while recognising the rights of landowners.

The Minister is very generous. I was pleased to attend that meeting and I believe that these amendments, which cover an area of unresolved difficulty, add considerably to the Bill. To introduce primary legislation in this area is a considerable achievement and a tribute to the work of officials and the Minister in another place, Mr Huw Irranca-Davies, who chaired that meeting with great skill. There could have been a lot of scope for conflict; instead, there was a realisation that common ground was worth pursuing. I do not wish to throw in any doubts on the success of those negotiations but, in any ongoing discussions, do any points of dissent remain to be resolved? I, too, pay tribute to the Shellfish Association of Great Britain and the Crown Estate for their part in these negotiations. Does the Minister wish to draw our attention to any unresolved matters?

I hesitate to say that every “i” has been dotted and every “t” crossed. The two major parties involved have reached agreement on a significant difficulty. This has also been agreed to by the House of Commons. Minor issues still need to be resolved through the notes for guidance, but they can be, provided that the principles enshrined in these amendments become part of the legislation. The notes for guidance can then be worked on to deal with relatively minor matters. I can give the noble Lord the assurance that he seeks on that.

I was interested to hear the noble Lord say that matters will be resolved in the notes for guidance. I asked earlier whether the Government have in mind any statutory instruments that will need to be added to the legislation.

That may be the case, but we are considering primary legislation at this point. However, we hope that we will solve the issue through the notes for guidance. I can make no specific comment on the need for a statutory instrument and would have done so if one were envisaged. We hope that we have reached sufficient agreement on the crucial issues of principle that will operate through the notes for guidance.

Motion agreed.

Motion on Amendments 17 to 19

That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 17 to 19.

That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 20.

My Lords, this is a privilege amendment. Such amendments do not normally require great explanation. This amendment will remove the privilege amendment made when the Bill moved to another place. As the House will be aware, the financial powers are restricted by the rights and privileges of the other place. As the Bill originated here and contains financial provisions, a privilege amendment was added to it before its introduction to the other place to ensure that the financial privilege was not infringed. This amendment, therefore, is purely technical. It is necessary to remove the privilege amendment, which provided that nothing in the Bill should impose or vary any charge on the people or public funds. It is a technicality and, as such, I beg to move.

Motion agreed.

Motion on Amendments 21 to 28

That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 21 to 28.

Perhaps the House would bear with me briefly, as I have not said anything from these Benches. We have just moved the last amendments in the last piece of what has been a massive jigsaw. I think that we are all pleased that we have finally come to the stage where, with the many amendments that have been made, we have ended up with a good, workable Bill.

I find it hard to believe that 19 months have passed since my noble friend the Convenor first asked me whether I would chair the joint scrutiny committee on the draft Bill. There are one or two noble Lords in their places who were members of that committee, and I am sure they remember the two rather hectic months last summer during our deliberations.

I am sure that we are all tremendously relieved that we have now reached the end of the Bill, but our relief surely is as nothing compared with that of the Bill team, who have been involved for several years now. Once again, I express thanks to them. I thank also the Minister and his noble friend Lord Hunt, who we have heard has moved on to rather more energetic matters. He and his noble friend are among the hardest working members of the government Front Bench and they have exhibited their traditional courtesy, forbearance, patience and good humour throughout.

The baton now passes to the fledgling Marine Management Organisation. I take comfort from the fact that the appointed chairman is regarded by his fellow former naval colleagues as a forthright character. That is to be welcomed. He will need that in clearing the many difficult hurdles that the Marine Management Organisation will have to face in achieving a balance between conserving the many treasures with which this country is gifted in the maritime sphere and upholding legitimate use of the sea for trade, livelihood, leisure purposes and work.

I can only wish the Bill the fairest of winds—we sailors like to say “a soldier’s wind”—and I am sure that we shall all watch its implementation with the greatest possible interest.

My Lords, I want only to echo everything that the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, has just said. I will not repeat it all, except to underline what I think I said when the Bill left this House. It was valuable that we had, in my view, the best Bill team that I have ever seen in the nine or 10 years that I have been in this House. The team deserves our congratulations; it did a very good job.

I am astonished that we are not discussing coastal access at all in Commons amendments, but perhaps it is good that we are not. We now retire from the scene, though no doubt we will get statutory instruments to look at. The important thing is that the hard work really starts now. It is not easy to produce well written and workable legislation of this complexity; it is very difficult, but nothing like as difficult as the work which the people at all levels in all the different aspects of the Bill will now have to do to put this into effect.

In 10 years’ time, those of us who will, I hope, still be around—such as the noble Duke and me, perhaps—will look with great interest, and pride if it works. If it does not work, whichever Government are in power, no doubt it will have to come back. However, I believe that we have a Bill which will work and that the people who now have to put it into effect will be able to do so effectively and successfully.

My Lords, I will add some thanks of my own from these Benches. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, for the way in which the pre-legislative scrutiny enabled this House to do the Bill such justice. Indeed, I thank all Benches, including the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, and his colleagues. We should also acknowledge the work done in another place by the Minister in charge of this Bill, Huw Irranca-Davies, and the member for Newbury, my honourable friend Mr Richard Benyon. Their work greatly enabled the Bill to come back to us with amendments which have strengthened it, and we should be grateful for that. None of this would have been possible without an excellent Bill team to back up the Ministers. I join in congratulating the erstwhile Minister for the Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and the Minister on his safe shepherding of the Bill to its final stage.

My Lords, I am grateful for all those comments, not least because they have left me at least 13 minutes in which I can dwell on the virtues of everybody who has contributed to the Bill. Rest assured that I have no intention of taking such time, but I want to pay tribute to all those who have contributed so much.

The noble Lord, Lord Greenway, started further back than any of us, with the pre-legislative committee. We were grateful for his wise guidance through the development of the Bill in this House. I emphasise that the Bill had 11 days in Committee and four on Report; it has not been a marginal contribution to the work of the House this year—very far from it. The Bill had quite the most intensive scrutiny. Therefore, I am very grateful for all the work of noble Lords, particularly the Front Benches and the indefatigable noble Lord, Lord Greaves. I have not the slightest doubt that he has had that epithet addressed to him on past occasions. He certainly always showed enormous commitment to the work involved in the proceedings on the Bill. I am grateful for his work and that of the other Members of the Liberal Front Bench.

The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, not only committed himself to the most enormous work in the House but, as I indicated, in our deliberations over the summer took part in at least one crucial meeting which helped us with an important part of the Bill on the shellfish industry. That is typical of the constructive way in which he has approached this legislation. I greatly applaud his work for that.

I am, of course, conscious of the fact that the Bill started here, and spent a great deal of time here, but it was considered very carefully in the other place. The Minister, my honourable friend Huw Irranca-Davies, played a considerable part in getting the Bill through the Commons. I, of course, also recognise the contribution made by Richard Benyon, the Member for Newbury.

One last group that I want to thank is the Bill team, whose members carry the heat and burden of the day very intensively and not just through the long preparatory period. All noble Lords will recognise that, when the going gets tough, it is the Bill team that has to bear the weight of ministerial frustrations and anxieties. Frustrations and anxieties there have been aplenty. The calmness of my noble friend Lord Hunt saw us through most of them, but members of the Bill team also had to sustain themselves when his rather less calm successor—namely, myself—tried to cope with the intricacies of the Bill. I am grateful to them for the enormous contribution that they have made and I salute them on achieving two great objectives. The Bill contains two great components with which in future years we will be proud to be associated. There is no doubt at all that we have taken the most enormous step forward in marine conservation in protecting my favourite animal, the long-snouted seahorse; I look forward to that animal being protected in years to come.

As the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said, we have deliberated today without mentioning the part of the Bill that relates to the coastal path. I think that our fellow citizens will appreciate what we have done in that regard and that we shall get many plaudits for the work that we have done in producing the legislation that creates that benefit for our community.