My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, for bringing this to the attention of the House and for giving us the opportunity to debate the comments of the Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee on it. I was really struck by the strength of its language. It is not a committee that is known for using strong language when it comes to passing comments. That the committee used such language and went on to explain the queries about the regulation in such detail suggests that it is very concerned.
I believe that the committee is concerned that this seems to be a bureaucrat’s answer to what is undoubtedly a problem. Underpinning the problem that the regulation was trying to address is the issue of tackling the trade in black fish and getting some idea of what is being landed where and whether that tallies with the selling notes. I referred to the excellent report, Net Benefits, produced by the Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit last year, which talked about a light-touch data collection approach to the under-10 metre fleet and emphasised that the inshore fisheries fleet should not be seen as a vehicle for trying to implement a marine management system. Indeed, that is exactly what the regulation as it has been interpreted for implementation in the UK is trying to do.
Is the Minister satisfied with the public consultation that has taken place? Although I note in the memorandum that came round with it that some 50 responses have been received, I say to him that, for example, the Devon Sea Fisheries Committee has just received itand will discuss it at next Friday’s meeting. Of course, that response has not been received, but I can imagine some of the things that they might say when they came to discuss it. Rick Stein’s restaurant in Padstow is generally regarded to have underpinned a lot of the regeneration of Padstow. There is also Damien Hirst’s restaurant in Ilfracombe. No doubt, the Minister will say when he comes to reply that the restaurants would have to do the paperwork anyway, so it will not lay an extra burden on them. However, they have not had an opportunity to comment because, as I said, the comments from Devon simply are not in.
There are no obvious environmental benefits to be gained by implementing the regulation in this way; but there are possible economic disbenefits because it adds another layer of bureaucracy—perhaps not for restaurants of that scale but certainly for smaller buyers. Perhaps the Minister will remind the House exactly what will be the penalty if they do not fulfil the regulations. That undermines much of the effort of those involved in regeneration through fresh local food tying in with tourism in areas such as Devon and Cornwall, which is an objective 1 area in great need of such regeneration.
Why does the Minister think that such a bureaucratic approach will tackle what is fundamentally an environmental problem? Once again, I say how grateful I am to the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, for bringing the matter to the attention of the House. In this instance, it was a pleasure, rather than a burden, for me to stay on to debate it, because I was so pleased for the opportunity to speak about it.
Registration of Fish Buyers and Sellers and Designation of Fish Auction Sites Regulations 2005
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 20 July 2005.
It occurred during Debates on delegated legislation on Registration of Fish Buyers and Sellers and Designation of Fish Auction Sites Regulations 2005.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
673 c1587-8 Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 13:26:13 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_263219
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_263219
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_263219